Weston Saint

I find a lot of what is posted here about staying away a bit silly or maybe naive. If results are poor and the team is not playing decent football the Manager gets the blame and is replaced by one who we hope will turn the team and results around. We as supporters are perhaps more fickle that the employer who wants to give his Manager a chance. We stay away not in protest against the Manager himself (although some might say openly that is the reason) but because the play is so poor. It is our staying away that is the cataylse for the club to take action a little earlier than it might if gates were not affected But action they would have to take in time anyway. But with Lowe and Wilde if results are poor and it is down to their choice of Manager and their plan to sell the best players what can be achieved? If they went who is there to come in and relace them (other that a rich benifactor). How could it be done differently without money (and that is our problem at present) Staying away because the team is poor and not value for money is a valid reason and may result in a change in personel and the promise of better management and results. Staying away because you do not like Lowe & Wilde is not, in my opinion a valid reason or helpful becasue there is not a viable alternative. Decent gates will help finances. Helping finances will provide more stability. More stability will allow for better planning and the money to back it up. Wilde and Lowe are in it to protect their money. Nothing wrong with that. But they both have a healthy respect for SFC to want to see it succeed. Yes there is an amount of ego involved. That is no different in any club chairman. Here endeth the Sunday night ramblings of a frustrated but realistic Weston Saint!

There's the rub

I have not seen anything first hand but several of my reliable contacts say it is still live and they, Fulthorpe & co, are still positive. Now the transfer window has closed I am of the opinion that all will go quiet whilst they work in the background drawing up a offer document (we know one has not been submitted yet as MW says no formal approach). What I do not know and none of my contacts can confirm, is whether the investment money is in place. I do not expect to hear anything more on the subject. If it is going to happen it will before the next window. Otherwise it will have just faded away.

I have not seen anything first hand but several of my reliable contacts say it is still live and they, Fulthorpe & co, are still positive. Now the transfer window has closed I am of the opinion that all will go quiet whilst they work in the background drawing up a offer document (we know one has not been submitted yet as MW says no formal approach). What I do not know and none of my contacts can confirm, is whether the investment money is in place. I do not expect to hear anything more on the subject. If it is going to happen it will before the next window. Otherwise it will have just faded away.

What would it achieve? He now feels that a piecemeal of the kind he proposed then would not in ant way have helped the club to achieve it's objective. He also says the board are not currently in formal discussion with any party regarding fresh investment but are open to such discussions. His own opinion is that any approach must be evidenced by tangible assets lodged with a UK bank before formal discussions could take place and that such funds must be sufficient to provide long term stability for SFC

What would it achieve? He now feels that a piecemeal of the kind he proposed then would not in ant way have helped the club to achieve it's objective. He also says the board are not currently in formal discussion with any party regarding fresh investment but are open to such discussions. His own opinion is that any approach must be evidenced by tangible assets lodged with a UK bank before formal discussions could take place and that such funds must be sufficient to provide long term stability for SFC

The £2m Question MW says it is correct that in early 2006 he discussed with the board the possibility of making an interest free loan to SLH plc. The loan was offered subject to 2 conditions: (1) That in the event of a subsequent rights issue the money would become repayable making it available for the purchase of new sharesin the company (2) That the funds were ring fenced and only used for squad strengthening in the event that the club failed to gain promotion to the Premier at the end opf 2006/07 season He says certain members of the board rejected those conditions and shortly after he resigned his position HTH

The £2m Question MW says it is correct that in early 2006 he discussed with the board the possibility of making an interest free loan to SLH plc. The loan was offered subject to 2 conditions: (1) That in the event of a subsequent rights issue the money would become repayable making it available for the purchase of new sharesin the company (2) That the funds were ring fenced and only used for squad strengthening in the event that the club failed to gain promotion to the Premier at the end opf 2006/07 season He says certain members of the board rejected those conditions and shortly after he resigned his position HTH

assume you asked a question

As someone said to me a few days ago, it is still possible but may be past it's sell by date. I for one am not holding my breath.

But they expect it to be sorted by Saturday. He came in on a long term visitor visa instead of a work one. Just a piece of paper work. Surrey are really desperate to stoop so low as to sign him imo. Anyway Matt Nicholson will have to make way as the present overseas player and he scored 40 not out and 73 down at the rose bowl this season although he did not take any wickets. Shoab will be finding his way at first and we play them on Tuesday

Transfer window closed anyway. Will not do them much good until January and may be, just may be, Fulthorpe & co will have got their act together. Stranger things have happened, like a Lowe/Wilde partnership

For me the past is history. No one can change it. They can only learn from it. The present is where it is at. It is what is done now that is important and should influence thinking and support or otherwise. The future? Well that depends on lessons from the past, actions and support in the present and a big slice of luck.

When I started going in '67 I saw the likes of Charlton, Best, Bell, Summerbee, Cooke among many other and of course our own Paine Sydnham and Davies. It was a balanced playing field and we could beat anyone on our day and more than often did Now television gives me a chance to see all the present stars almost whenever I like. Television has also made the rich richer to the detrement to many others. I still want to see my team live and in the flesh. I want to see the movement all over the pitch that television cannot provide but I want to see my team with a good chance of picking up the points and scoring goals. This young team, given time could get us promoted but that is where the fun will likely stop, and it is fun watching. It is not life or death. So for me at present option B is favourite.

Blimey, hello stranger Just talking about you yesterday

I suspect footballing contacts, coaches, unattached scouts, past players, probably agents.

Similar situation G. Lowe took advice from others and bought without his Managers knowledge or approval as his Manager was inexperienced. Not condoning it, just giving an opinion as to why it may have happened recently. Longshot is correct, it is worriying IF Lowe worked alone without any advice. But I bet he took plenty of advice from others. Lowe is not a football man, he is a businessman with a football interest hoping to steer us into safer financial waters. Whether it will work or not is up for debate (but not tonight)

And that is where spin is in full play UmP & U&A. The web site suggests Derby wanted to keep him but he chose us and others said he had already been released. Can't keep a good spin down

)))

If I remember the CCTV "evidence" Dyer was in the room and seen "looking in a handbag" On what I would assume was legal advice he pleaded guilty. BWP was seen at the doorway looking in. He did not enter the room and no real evidence he was "keeping a watch out" Evidence for him was by association only but quite rightly, without any other evidence BWP's legal advice was to plead not guilty and apply for a hearing. The Judge made the correct decision in my opinion. Let's hope his acquittal will lead to a loan with someone. He is not doing the business for us on his alleged high earnings.

Have to agree with that. Lowe is not an experienced football man and cannot know what players are needed to bring balance to the club. I suspect he is taking football advice from others including our coaches who have not been around for long and are still bedding in. They will likely give an opinion of what sort of player is required and what position. Lowe takes advice from those that know who is available to fit the requirements and importantly the financial restraints. Lowe then goes out and tries to do the deal with the players agent and club. If my senario is correct then Poortvliet's and Wotte are correct in that they have no real choice over the player but do have a say in the position/requirement skills. They will have known what to expect and as they grow into the job and exposure to English Football and assuming our finances stabilise no doubt they will have more input into the "who" rather that the "what" Just my view

Do you reckon he is Steven Gerrards cousin?

Lets look at the high earners still at SMS: John, Skacel, Euell, BWP and Thomas. I would hazzard a guess that they are costing about £2.1m in wages plus insurance, pension and NIC. John still appears to have a part to play and with Rasiak and Saga on loan I am sure the club see that. Thomas is cover but it is pretty well rumoured he has been told he can go. Skacel, Euell (now injured) and BWP do not appear to have a role. So we are probably wasting about £1m a year on keeping them As the Window has closed and no one wants them because of their wages what is to stop them going out on loan when that period opens in two weeks. The same wage problem? Well lets say they are put out there with Saints contributing 50% wages for the loan duration. Could at least save us £0.5m.? Just a thought!

Excellent win. When the rain came I was up in the Robin Smith. Tim Tremlett came up and told me and a few others I was stood with, including Mr Bransgrove, that Nigel (Head Groundsman) had looked at the radar, that the rain would last a while, then clear enough to get the game back on until the next lot of rain which would then be persistant. We were quite cool that the game would be back on, as it was.

Spoke to Leon Crouch this evening at the Rose Bowl. He has no news. Suggestion from one of my contacts say when Fulthorpe approached last Saturday he said there was going to be an announcement last Friday (yes he seema to have got the TSF and Saints Web bug) but there are 4 points that need clearing up including a planning regulation (did not know you needed that to build a team ) So nothing new there then!