itchen

I stand (or sit) corrected.

Even with the lamentable state of education in that borough, I'm pretty sure that somebody living there would be able to spell Haringey correctly.

You don't strike me as a jumped up little w***er so you can't be Royston Smith.

Which, in a below average team, wasn't bad.

Surely we've moved on from the Potters Heron. Wouldn't it be the DeVere now? Or, more likely, wherever Mark Fry's company has its offices.

Yes they were, but that wasn't the point.

Saint Mary's Stadium is an underused asset. Apart from football 19 times a season, it is currently used as the CCTV control room for the council, to provide training facilities and as a conference centre. It is the last of these that I think could probably be built up by an enterprising owner as well as an increase in the number of events on the pitch that could bring in money. Not just concerts (there is a limit to how many the neighbours can be expected to tolerate or that there is an audience for) but exhibitions or other mass events. The Jehovah's Witnesses used to hire the Dell. I'm not religious but I'll take anyone's money if it defrays the stadium costs and keeps the club going. Even in what was probably our worst season ever, our crowds were better than most CCC clubs and sometimes as good as Premiership clubs. We have a huge catchment area and operated at near capacity when we were in the top flight. We have the facilities and infrastructure (stadium, training ground and the academy) and deep roots in the community. I've no doubt that a new owner willing to invest at this point would more than recoup his investment within ten years.

See http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=12694

And none of them are Rupert Lowe: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/apr/27/southampton-bidders-list-championship

If you look at the quotation marks, Redknapp only said the first bit - the rest was the journalist.

Yep. I can see the scene now: I've carried out my analysis and can see a way of making the club profitable and successful, here's my £x million. Oh hang on, somebody's speculating on a message board. That's it, I'm out of here. Honestly, Alpine, it's only last week you were berating the administrator for "not doing his f***ing job properly."

God what a depressing thread. I was never a great fan of the "Let's go Wilde" movement but some people on here need to get some perspective. Michael Wilde did what he thought was best for SFC and has lost lots of his own money in doing so. It didn't work out but I simply don't understand why any human being would wish another dead just for running a football club badly. Mr Wilde, you got it wrong, but at least you tried.

Sorry if this has already been covered (I couldn't see it) but the last paragraph of this article in today's Grauniad is interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/apr/24/southampton-championship-10-point-penalty

Perhaps I missed it but I'm not sure where the money would go if I were to donate some. Yes, we all want our club to survive into next season but I'm unclear where money given now ends up and, realistically, how much difference it will make. A fans collection may raise thousands but we need millions to keep the club going. Are we just being asked to pay the players wages? I'm not up for that, I'm afraid. They can afford to lose some wages much more than I can afford to pay them. And, of course, we know their wages are pretty much guaranteed anyway either from any assets still knocking about or from the PFA (which is not short of a bob or two). Or are we paying the other staff, which is perhaps a more worthy cause? Of course, I may have completely misunderstood the situation - it wouldn't be the first time. But if I put £10, £20 or £1000 (unlikely) in a bucket, what does it get used for?

Firstly, we don't know that he isn't doing anything (although I doubt he is). But, secondly, who would want to give away a significant amount of money only to be told constantly that it is not enough? Can you think of many chairmen or owners loved by the fans of their clubs? Even those who have poured in millions of pounds are slated for one reason or another: Gibson for sticking with Southgate, Abramovich for not sticking with Mourhino, the Liverpool guys for not spending enough or for undermining Benitez. And Davies probably isn't as rich as any of these guys or even able to pour in as much money as the universally unpopular Mike Ashley at Newcastle. Let's face it, why would he want to risk serious personal loss which comes with abuse from people who accuse our administrator of "not doing his f***ing job properly" without even knowing what the administrator is doing? I know I wouldn't.

Do you not think that the credit card companies might have something to say about such an idea? Like "No".

Although Piglet was a nervous animal, he wasn't a doom and gloom merchant. Wouldn't Eeyore be more appropriate?

Please can we not turn this (quite interesting) thread into yet another round of pro- and anti-Lowe insults? There are plenty of other threads to do that on.

Nicholas Lyndhurst? Used to dodgy deals after all...

So did I. And I was at SMS on Saturday too. Perhaps I'm the mystery buyer. What have the ITKers heard 'cause I need to know too.

Me too. But none of our ITKers are actually ITK. Probably even less so in the current circumstances.

There are reasons that the council could get involved in buying the stadium - not least that it uses it a great deal anyway for meetings and education and because the CCTV control room is sited there. But I doubt it could actually make any substantial amount of money from it. Your estimate of £2.5 million assumes that performers, promoters, PA providers etc give their services free. 90% of the art is not sitting there doing nothing. It is rotated into exhibitions in the gallery and is loaned out to other galleries and, in return, Southampton gets other art work back for people here to see. But that is rather beside the point. I concede that Southampton FC does mean a huge amount to people in Southampton, even those who never set foot in St Mary's. And I also concede that more people would care if the football club closed than if the art gallery did. But I don't think it's right to line one up against the other. They each have their place. If the City can find the money to help the club out without it being a subsidy from council taxpayers then great, go for it.

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Alpine. Any public art gallery can only exhibit a fraction of the work it owns at any one time otherwise how could exhibitions rotate? This is the usual nonsense from the Echo which seems to think that because only 200 paintings can be exhibited then the gallery should not own any more than that. I support Saints. I go to most home games and the occasional away one. But I would not support plundering one tremendous city asset to help out a failing one. We have the best art gallery in England outside London simply because our forefathers were far sighted enough to build a decent collection without worrying about the small minded snipings of people like Ian Murray. There are many city assets that could be flogged off to help Saints if that's the road we want to go down. Why stop at paintings? We could run the city from a business park in Totton, why not flog the Civic Centre? Do we really need the Sports Centre or Golf Course while Saints are in trouble? And wouldn't the Common look better with a nice housing estate on it? The Council is right to explore sensible ways it could help Saints. But this scheme isn't one of them and I suspect is just an Echo fantasy anyway.

As ever, most of us are speaking from a position of ignorance. We don't know whether the store makes a profit or what sort of lease the club (or rather SLH) has signed. I think we can safely say that if it would have saved the club money to close it, it would have been closed (like the corners of the ground).

So will we sell out the rest? Given that everyone, from the administrator to the Echo, is making such a big thing of "selling out to attract investment" will it look bad if we get anything less than a full ground?