Weston Saint

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.

It was Fulthorpe and his empty promises. I spoke to Leon briefly when he was a guest at the Rosebowl in the Summer and he was totally frustrated with the lack of progress and had given up expecting investment.

I heard they were very much relying on their cut of the Lallana fee if he had been sold in the window.............Saints push Bournemouth into receivership because they held onto Lallana and then went into Administration for the same reason.......????

A winding-up petition against AFC Bournemouth Limited, heard in the High Court last week, was adjourned until February 11.

A winding-up petition against AFC Bournemouth Limited, heard in the High Court last week, was adjourned until February 11. Could be the end for them. Administration twice has not helped them has it!

I think Duncan makes some valid points as does Mark's reply. It is all about opinion mixed in with a few facts. There is no doubt in my mind Lowe influences team selection, may be not directly but indirectly due to financial considerations. I can see the wish for some to demonstrate away from the 90 minute game time and it does have an effect but be careful what you wish for in ridding the club of Lowe and make sure you have a long term suitable replacement. Further short term changes in the board room will only increase the damage in my opinion. Mark makes a very good point about Swansea playing against 10 men at a club with the worst home record in the division yet managing to get pegged back to 2-2. Last nights result is very disappointing against 10 men but alone should not be taken out of context. Lowe out, most certainly when there is a viable long term replacement. Crouch has his good points but not enough for me to support his return for the long term future of SFC To dismiss either Duncan's or Mark's posts shows a complete lack of intelligence and a high degree of blind prejudice, again in my opinion.

No, if he bought at 18p he only has to offer 18p for the rest. Forget he paid 65p, that is history and no bearing on any offer he makes for the club now.

For there to be a sell there must be someone who is buying. The traders will not hold onto such stock unless someone is instructing them. The directors will not be able to deal until they release the half year results so I doubt it is them selling. The activity is speculation (as insider trading is illegal). If Jonah was about he might be able to provide a more technical explanation. My knowledge is limited on these matters.

The only people who can remove Lowe are the shareholders. All Barclays can do is put us into liquidation and so risk becoming a creditor with little pay back.

If my understanding is correct anyone holding 3% or above for the first time are required to report it to the club who will inform the Stock Market by notice. Anyone who holds 3% or more whose % reduces or increases by 1%age point has to report such change. As there have been no reports to date we have to assume that any movement of shares in the past few weeks are insignificant and do not tell any stories. Assume it is so on the AIM.

Sounds grim.

We have avoided the "fire sale" but we are still in severe financial difficulty.

Raining quite heavilly in Southampton (with a little sleet mixed in) at the moment