Weston Saint

In fairness this rumour was making the rounds within the financial market at the time Forester posted. Exit2 and SteveGrant had heard it. Clearly speculation by some who had a reasonable idea of what is going on and no smoke without fire. We are not out of the woods yet.

Was it Crouch? Who said. Seymour Pierce allegedly told Lowe someone would buy his shares at 65p but it turned out not to be for his cabel, only his own! I have not heard Crouch say it was him. You are making assumptions and I am pretty sure you are wrong.

The offer is still open.

Have I missed something......where did Crouch offer to buy Lowe and Wildes shares!!!!! By the way, if he did he would own 32.03% and have to bid for the whole club.

Can't blame the players if they are told to play that way. Remember our conversation just before the beginning of the Swansea game when I had spoken to someone who knew the instructions on how the players were told to play. No width then. I am told a certain player who is getting some stick of late was told to continue to play the was he was. I believe it is down to the coach.

Made me smile. Sorry Nick

No, it would serve no further purpose.

This was not normal abuse but vile.

With your ugly mug looking at him I am not suprised he was about to cry......or was it tears of laughter

We all rant at players when they are not doing well but we must remember many of them are your players thrown into the deep end in a relegation battle. I am told some of the abuse thrown at some of the young players on Tuesday was totally unacceptable. OK they know it is part and parcel of football but some of it was really over the top. IT DOES NOT HELP. They are trying their best and in some cases are working to orders. Enough said.

The thing is clubs might well have contacted Saints and made an offer so they could talk to the player but if the club felt the offer was not enough then there is no reason for the player to be told. So Surman not mentioning it in the echo could be that he was not informed. I had a call on Friday evening to say Reading were lining up a bit for him to replace Hunt (it came from within Reading) so they may have made initial contact. In any event Hunt stayed. The same for Adam. Certailly he knew nothing about it when I last spoke to someone on Saturday. I have not been told anything changed. Ot it might easily be pure spin.

So what do we think. In the first innings WI referred 1 but no chang in decision (correctly) england referred 2 and not changed (again correctly). Reafirms just how good the Umpires are. Now in West Indies innings England have referred 2 and one correctly changed. I like this system as it will take out of the game those occassional bad decisions.

Not sure why you blame him for the tommac business. My understanding is that the Lowe group were in touch with him first (after he had been rebuffed by the Exec over the alleged agent to Allen episode). Wilde and Crouch would not play ball over selling their shares. It was only later when he started posting on here. In fact, following his first post on here I actually replied "is that you Tom" but later edited when I realised it was and I might be breaching confidences. Crouch's involvement with him direct was a little later.

I say ignore. He plays for the opposition now. He is not one of us. Don't give him an advantage either way.

If you want me to organise it for you and for you to retain your identity email me on one of my disposables rontic04-saints@yahoo.co.uk and I will arrange for Steve Grant to upgrade you and I will send you my address where you can post the Fiver.

I appreciate he tried Duncan and you know I was fully supportive of those he hoped would step in at the time. It could be said he was let down by others just as Wilde was on the promised (if you believe him which I don't) investment. That was not my point. He failed. What is there to suggest he would succeed this time. Of course IF Lowe sold his interest that might make a difference but I thought all the demands recently was for Lowe to step down, not sell up. I would be 100% behind Salz as Chairman and the others we know were with him at the time in supporting roles. What a board that would have made

If you have information from the inside which is not generally know and you act on that information for financial gain that is Insider Trading, is it not?

If I could really trust that Crouch would be a short term then fine but http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=9466 He did not find a plc Chairman as he and Hoos intended. What would be different this time.

Possibly but not those on the inside. They should not be trading at the moment as they will be aware of the last 6 months trading figures but the market does not. Insider Trading Rules. Could be someone on the outside of course. Mark's (Jonah) explanation is probably the correct one though. If it is the same person and they hold over 3% of the stock then it will be reported when they go below that 3% or move between % points above that level. 4.95% to 4.05 % will not be reported but 4.95% to 3.99% will

see my added comment

What you see is the last trade price for a batch of shares. The mid point has remained unaltered at 17.5p. I could by some shares for 50p and that would show as the last trade but it will unlikely alter the mid point price unless I bought a very large amount as Crouch did when he entered the market.

Looks like someone is regularly dumping shares (as much as the market can take in one transaction) to get out of this market although I assume Mark's explanation might still apply.

Could not agree more. Well stated.

She could have resigned but supported the regime or at least did not speak out. I suspect her father would have done!

Bet you did There are many views posted on here. Some are balanced and factual, some are bias but still contain interesting facts and some are pure fantasy. Nineteen Canteen is entitled to put his views, no matter how much they are slanted. There are many out there with a slant in the other direction. The trick to to read them and then form an opinion but first you need an open mind. Nineteen Canteen is firmly in the Lowe camp and very much anti Crouch. In fact I would interprete that the reason he is so much in the Lowe camp is because of his opinion of Crouch. One thing is sure, like most posters on here, he has a passion for Saints and wants what is best for the team. Nothing wrong with that. Personally I think Lowe is struggling to come to grips with the disasterous financial position which is still affecting the club badly. Crouch would have the same restraints but his heart might overrule his head and that would not help our finances one bit. As Mary Corbett is the subject of this thread, I have to say she remained very tight lipped when she was on the inside. OK collective responsibility and loyalty may have been a very acceptable reason but the financial failing have to be visited on her just as much. She remained quiet publically when she was part of the previous disaster, she should not use her powers now to speak out publically. The big disappointment for me was her and Crouch walking out of the AGM without using there democratic vote as shareholders to send a message. We can all rant from the sidelines but when you have the power of the vote, why not use it? Please do not take this is an anti Crouch or Corbett comment. It is purely an observation. I still have a lot of time for both of them.