Weston Saint

Agree with that

Unless I have misunderstood, it is not the Shareholders who elect a Chairman! Shareholders elect a board. It is the board who appoint the Chairman. Crouch had been on the plc from the time Lowe stood down the first time as a non exec director. He was briefly Chairman of the toothless football board. He was also toothless on the plc board whilst the execs were there. He was continually outvoted. When the Executives resigned he took control of the football board as Chairman with Wiseman chairing the AGM. That was the time Crouch had the power to make and be supported on decisions. Euell and many others had been purchased before then. He had to start trying to sort out the financial mess.

That was the point of my

But if they delist they are less accountable. Lowe accountable.....now there is a thought or is it a naive dream

One more worth a mention, John Hoskins 220 games 64 goals.

I will put John Sydenham into the pot.

Thinking this through a bit more there is a fly in the ointment. IF we could get a "board in waiting" and IF they could persuade the Bank and Loan Note Holder to put pressure on Lowe and the board to resign I doubt, without clear evidence of investment, they would step down. I suspect under such pressure Lowe would threaten to place the club in voluntary liquidation and that might frighten the creditors into continuing their support. An alternative would be another costly and damaging EGM. With the Lowe Group and Wilde holding such a large tranch of voting shares there is no guarantee of success. All very depressing or there flaws in my views I have not seen?

As I used the deck chairs analogy I thought I would just say I agree with the alternative "board in waiting" idea. That might just steer us away from the "iceberg" Salz as Chairman would be a positive and would no doubt, with a carefully chosen board of "supporters" such as Davies and other local businessment with no previous "taint" and with a CEO with football background, unite the supporters. The problem is persuading a group like that to take on a failing company when they have nothing to prove other than their "love" for our club.

Robbie, if the Fulthorpe deal, as I understand it, is put on the table Lowe will have no difficulty accepting it. The offer has to be made first and no supporter pressure is going to make that happen!!

A difficult situation Steve and you may well be right. However I hang onto the hope that Lowe's main priority is the financial situation and if he suceeds on that front there is a way forward in the future. With that view he may be forced to change direction on the football front. May be I am being a little naive or perhaps grasping at straws! I have respect for Crouch and know he was trying to do his best. He is still passionate for Saints but I fear his passion may colour his financial decision making even with the likes of Salz and Co behind him. In business he must have been ruthless to succeed but put a recreational aspect into the equation and it is a different matter for someone with his passion. I cannot see anyone else on the horizon at the present time (Fulthorpe "fantasy" excepted)

Unfortunately that is not going to happen. Crouch has tried an approach to SLH (will not go into details as Mr Crouch does not want it publicised) and it was rejected.

It has nothing to do with share value. It has nothing to do with Lowe rejecting any offer. No offer has been made yet.

I contacted someone yesterday with all the suggestions that the dressing room had been lost. The answer I got was no it has not. I asked why such a bizzare team choice The answer I got was 2 games in 2 days is a killer Lallana injured himself in training on Christmas day. His ankle came up like a balloon and on crutches. McGoldrick was going to be rested.

The big stumbling block which makes relegation to L1 a distinct possibility, if not a probability, is our financial position. Lowe and his supporters say they are back to try to stabilise and improve the present spin into Administration and maybe worse, Liquidation. Crouch was aware it was needed as well but would have gone about it a different way. Who knows which would have worked, or whether it would/will work at all. Has the damage already been done? On one hand you have a group of coaches trying something different, one might say thinking outside of the box (where all our players seem to be at present) with a young cost limitating side. So far a failure despite all the pretty football. On the other you have a Manager who just managed to keep us up but would have to work with the same financial restrictions and with most of the kids but with old fashioned ideas and methods. He is proving a success at Leicester but he does not have the same budget constraints. We might be in the same position no matter which method was used! There is no doubt Lowe and his team have lost the confidence of the majority of the supporters but not, it seems, the majority of shareholders. A present our only real funding is from gate money paid by the supporters so that has to take precedence. Will gates improve substantially to near to last seasons levels if he goes? My own veiw is that is unlikely. A few may come back but not enough to make a difference. What will bring back the crowds is winning, exciting football. Value for money. We are not geting that combination at present and there is now no sign it will come soon. Changing the board now without a decent investor will only bring more instability. It will just be "rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic" What we need is a change of direction at the football level. Our present coaches are just not up to the job. They say Lowe is not influencing their choices and that if he was they would leave. Well either they are being economical with the truth and therefore too weak to stand up and be counted or they just do not have that it takes. We need to bring in someone at the Manager/Coach level that can work with the constraints and try to steady the ship. As for investment, as Duncan says, Fulthorpe is still talking the talk. I have a different source and am getting similar vibes. But both Duncan and myself (we have been talking and keeping in touch over the past few moths) consider the plans so far reaching and with the financial backing so staggering that it just has to be fantasy land stuff. But some of the background evidence suggests it is a real attempt. Time will tell. My own view is that IF it is going to happen it will likely be months away at the earliest, despite Futhorpe saying it will happen it time for the transfer window. How many times has he missed his promised deadline!!!!! The correct answer to Duncan's question? For me, give Lowe the chance to finish the financial stability he came back for (despite the bad taste that leaves) but with a change in direction in the way we do things in the training room and on the field of play. For me that means a change in Management to someone who understands English football and all that goes with it. Who? Who knows!!! All I know is that it is difficult and painfull being a supporter at the moment!

3 points out of 21 since Reading win and that was supposed to be our turning point!!! Add to that our home form and any other Manager/Coach would have been sacked. I am afraid our financial position has done for us. We will not likely go into administration but relegation is becoming more a certainty now.

I have a horrible feeling about this one

Yep

My little birdy on the inside who I trust said Pearson Salary was £340,000. But my other little birdy outside but with inside knowledge which I trust said £160,000 So the Lowe camp say £340,000 and unaffordable. The Crouch camp say £160,000 and affordable. What a mess!!!!!!!

I am told Crouch, who was on the main plc board, objected to signing Euell because of his wages. It was an expense he felt was unnecessary. Burley was very keen and persuaded Hone that it was the right signing. At a board meeting it was discussed, voted on and passed by a small majority (of 1 is believe). I am not aware he objected to any of the other signings.

Will be difficult to loan out Euell without agreeing to pay most of his wages. I believe, from listening to various people, not least one connected to Crouch, that it may be Euell who is the player Lowe was referring to on 15% of last years income! Crouch was very much against us signing him but was overruled by the board majority at that time.

Lowe said at the AGM "It does look possible that Marek Saganowski will come back from Aalborg. There is no indication they are going to extend the loan" "We are keen to extend the loan of Jack Cork who the management team think is outstanding and we are also looking to see what we can do with Jordan Robertson. Nathan Dyer is part of that and Sheffield United have indicated they do not want to extend it (Dyers loan) though they may change their view after he scored at the weekend" "If Marek Saganowsi and Nathan Dyer come back it puts us under financial pressure with our wage bill" Poortvliet and Wotte also confirmed Wayne Thomas looks to be sidelined for the rest of the season whilst Tomas Pekhart has returned to Tottenham early after a disappointing loan spell

Let's be fair they are going to put a different emphasis and spin on it. Lowe will push the 81% as unsustainable and shows why he needed to come back to stabilise financially. Jones, who is part of the 81% problem is saying it was done to push for promotion the season before last and then to add to the momentum the following season after the near miss promotion. He says the contracts for the "big" players were short term and end at the end of this season so not an ongoing problem. Spin, spin, spin but that happens in all walks of life now. It is the unacceptable norm but is wasted on the more intellegent who can see through it all. But there are so many more who don't and it is aimed at them It even happens on TSW

Now that is a report of events. Thanks Wes.

why should it be a lie?

I can tell you the answer to that. We will not be puting the club into voluntary Administration in the New Year so the answer to the second part of your question is unnecessary.