itchen

I'm a bit puzzled that the administrator said that the football board directors will continue to run SFC. I know Wilde and Lowe have left SLH. Are they still SFC directors?

Askham wasn't a director. All the directors have resigned (except David Jones). AFAIK all the shareholdings are now worth nil as well - but I stand to be corrected on this.

You forgot Lifelong Saint, Barry the Briefcase, St David, Paul Allen, Help Me Rhonda, Rupert Lowe, Craig David and the drummer out of Coldplay. And Paul Allen.

So no football club but a stadium with not many other potential uses. Anybody know another team in the area who desperately need a modern stadium? Would you go and watch them if they were (literally) the only game in town?

Well I think this shows the Daily Mail maintains the reputation for truth and accuracy we all know it has.

We are as much for sale as any other plc. Indeed, as pointed out above, this is in official documents. It really does your argument that Lowe should go (which is valid) no good to simply make stuff up. I'm sure that he would gladly walk away from the mess if only somebody else would take it on who has the funds to get us out of it.

How do you know we are not on the market? The board is on record as saying they will listen to any serious offers.

SE7 (SE10 is Greenwich and SE4 is Brockley) - that's your free quick guide to South East London geography. I have some CAFC supporting friends coming down for that game and I think we're all just going to go along with a sense of fatalism. I've not written off Saints yet though.

And there was me thinking that your thread title was asking a genuine question. But, no, you've gone and answered it. And I have to say that your answer came as a total surprise.

It was an interesting article. He admitted mistakes but also made it clear how far up to his neck Wiseman is in the whole fiasco. Yes Richards touches on the enormous profit Wiseman has made for a very small outlay on Saints shares but the main thrust of his argument is that Wiseman did not take the trouble to look at accounts and agreed the outrageous packages and payoffs for the execs initially appointed by Wilde and that Wiseman's votes led to the execs outnumbering the non-execs on the board. As an example of how not to run a company it was instructive in its damnation of just about everybody involved.

Well, JFP, that's given me food for thought. And your analysis of why this should be a necessary action is certainly as cogent as anything else I've seen here.

Ah, Mark Dennis, the Robert Peston of Radio Hampshire.

Ken Bates, Peter Risdale, Freddie Shephard, Mike Ashley, Doug Ellis, Ron Noades, Barry Fry, Robert Maxwell, Malcolm Glazer, Gilette and the other bloke at Liverpool, Martin Edwards, Michael Knighton, Simon Jordan, Thaksin can't spell his surname... They've all had their moments.

I've passed my lunch break reading this entertaining thread but do not feel any more informed than before. For what it's worth, I once had cause to speak to Rupert Lowe by phone and found him assertive to the point of rudeness. He was quite determined that he would have control of the conversation (ironically, I was phoning to get information about how my employer could help him and the club). I think that's just his manner and one not uncommon among the ex-inmates of our public schools. While I would not want to work for him, I'm not sure that being assertive is a good enough reason not to be the chairman of a plc. In fact, it's almost a qualification. There may, of course, be other reasons for removing him.

Really? You think that, with all the managers with Premiership experience available, they'd go for someone who managed a few games in the Championship last season and is this year managing (admittedly doing well) in League One? I think not. Pompey have far too many highly paid "stars" who wouldn't respect someone with his CV. Look at what happened to Adams. I've no doubt that if Pearson manages to get Leicester up then bigger clubs will take notice. But not now.

Quite agree. Additionally I'm sure it's true that the way our players have performed (Davis excepted) has lowered their value in the eyes of other clubs and so consequently any offers have been for less than Rupert thinks he could get later. There is no black and white here where everything the board does is wrong (unless you're as blinkered as Rich...mond.............Sa...int). It's a bit facile not to see that some unpleasant cost cutting had to be done and that it would have an effect on the team's results (although we're in around the same position as at the end of last season, so maybe not). The hope is that we have cut costs enough to survive the threat of administration while keeping a squad strong enough to avoid relegation. And we'll only know whether those hopes have been fulfilled at the end of the season.

They would have done better to have the right to arm bears.

When did Crouch dip into his own pocket? I know he did for the statue (which is laudable but doesn't help the league position) but I mean for the team. There was the much vaunted offer to pay some wages but my understanding was that no money actually changed hands. I stand to be corrected of course.

Don't be ridiculous. 99%.

"Down with this sort of thing"? I won't be joining the protest, not because I don't think that there are serious problems at the club or that I don't believe that Rupert Lowe is at least partially responsible. However, the objectives of the march don't seem clear to me. Yes, as fans we are not happy and we want something to change. But what? Do we really believe that, even if Rupert chooses to fall on his sword having seen the masses rise against him , the debts will just go away? Do we think that a new chairman, even man of the people Leon Crouch, will have any more flexibility to bring in quality players or a big name manager? Just saying "Rupert out" might be an attractive way to spend an hour but it doesn't really offer any practical alternative. And so, in the immortal words of former football chairman Theo Paphitis, I'm out.

Agree. I rarely come here now because it's just tedious reading rant after rant about our evil chairman. I'm happy to admit I'm in a minority. I hold no particular affection for Lowe but think he is simply doing what has to be done unless somebody with millions of pounds to throw away comes along. You could change the man at the top but they'd still have to live within a budget. So you carry on p***ing in your bucket and I'm sure it will be overflowing soon. If you can come up with a proper, costed, alternative to the present set up, I'll come and join you.

You may want to rephrase that.

Well if you're willing to call the win at Barnsley a fluke (and from the commentary perhaps we were fortunate) you also have to look at the games we have dominated but managed to lose. If "fluke" implies it's nothing to do with the manager then it works both ways. Personally, I don't want to see a change of manager. Given the resources we have I'm not convinced that anyone we could afford could do any better.

Most sensible thing on this thread, Frank.

But Pearson had a squad of experienced players many of whom had played at international level. By contrast, circumstances (and we're all sick of arguing how these circumstances came about) leave the club with no choice but to play kids who, with one or two exceptions, probably could do with another year or two in the reserves. In addition to that key players like Holmes, Schneiderlin and Euell have spent much of the season either injured or suspended. In a squad as light as ours these things are going to make a difference. I still have faith that Jan can do as well with the resources at his disposal as anybody else we are likely to get. Just wishing that we weren't where we are is not going to make our chronic financial situation go away. Sacking Poortvliet would make no sense whatsoever.