JP qutoes -wanted John to stay

[NickG]

John and JP both wanted him to stay forced by hierachy and finances

 

no surprises

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/3792704.Jan__Stern_went_to_reduce_the_wage_bill/

[Long Shot]

John and JP both wanted him to stay forced by hierachy and finances

 

no surprises

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/3792704.Jan__Stern_went_to_reduce_the_wage_bill/

 

He couldn't guarantee John a game every week? Doesn't have a problem with promising just that to McGoldrick.

[dubai_phil]

No surprises, when cut and pasted from that link, just another unfortunate case of "the bleedin obvious"

 

When asked directly why John left against his and the Poortvliet's wishes, the head coach said: “The actual reason you all know. We talked at the beginning of the season of the wage bill and that’s still a problem."

 

You could spend another 6 months passing the blame around but in JP's own words he wasn't going to play him every week (yeah right) so he became expensive.

 

The positive point (clutching at straws) is that MAYBE he can bring in a full back now

 

Jan Poortvliet is hoping the next Saints transfers will be players coming in rather than going out after the massive disappointment of Stern John’s departure last week.

 

but it will probably be a midfielder...............

 

harumph

[Roman]

Maybe no surprises but I still find it pretty extraordinary.

 

Here's a theory that won't be too popular. It wasn't Lowe's decision either.

 

It was Mr Barclay, in the boardroom, with a chainsaw.

[SaintRichmond]

Maybe no surprises but I still find it pretty extraordinary.

 

Here's a theory that won't be too popular. It wasn't Lowe's decision either.

 

It was Mr Barclay, in the boardroom, with a chainsaw.

 

 

Good Logic that is ............ So Barclay's insist on Saints selling the one remaining player that COULD score Goals, which would have led to Saints WINNING, which would have led to Saints moving UP the Table, which would have led to MORE people coming to St Mary's, which would have led to MORE money coming in, which would have meant Barclays getting more money ......

 

.... Yes ......... well thought out

 

LOWE's decision entirely .........when did John arrive at St Mary's by the way ?

[Ashby Saint]

Good Logic that is ............ So Barclay's insist on Saints selling the one remaining player that COULD score Goals, which would have led to Saints WINNING, which would have led to Saints moving UP the Table, which would have led to MORE people coming to St Mary's, which would have led to MORE money coming in, which would have meant Barclays getting more money ......

 

.... Yes ......... well thought out

 

LOWE's decision entirely .........when did John arrive at St Mary's by the way ?

 

Unless you have been living on Mars recently, I thought we had all realised that banks have been and will continue to make poor decisions.

[Window Cleaner]

Good Logic that is ............ So Barclay's insist on Saints selling the one remaining player that COULD score Goals, which would have led to Saints WINNING, which would have led to Saints moving UP the Table, which would have led to MORE people coming to St Mary's, which would have led to MORE money coming in, which would have meant Barclays getting more money ......

 

.... Yes ......... well thought out

 

LOWE's decision entirely .........when did John arrive at St Mary's by the way ?

 

Could score goals being the operative phrase.Hasn't though.

Barclays aren't football experts, as they see it we're probably down to our core support anyway so to them it's even steven if we're in the CCC or League 1. All Barclays want,having promised to support us, is for us to cut our wage bill and stop losing f**king money.

 

The club has incompressible overheads that can't be cut, we're still losing money, so we have to cut the only thing we can-the wage bill. Jeez it's not high finance or lunar module science.

If I can understand that anybody can.

We pay our players more than we earn ,so we lose money.

Got that? Right.

Edited 27 October, 2008 by Window Cleaner

[Window Cleaner]

Let me put it differently.

 

Your income goes down because you get sacked and you get a less well paid job.

You carry on spending as you were before,you go overdrawn,yo get bollocked by the bank manager, he tells you to cut your spending, you buy less groceries at Sainsbury's. Easy isn't it.

[solentstars]

the bank calls the shots unless we can get a investor in,it makes no difference if lowe ,wilde,crouch go.

[JohnnyFartPants]

Good Logic that is ............ So Barclay's insist on Saints selling the one remaining player that COULD score Goals, which would have led to Saints WINNING, which would have led to Saints moving UP the Table, which would have led to MORE people coming to St Mary's, which would have led to MORE money coming in, which would have meant Barclays getting more money ......

 

.... Yes ......... well thought out

 

LOWE's decision entirely .........when did John arrive at St Mary's by the way ?

 

All of your silly little capital letter moments of ramming home the point you are making from the perspective of the bank also fully apply to Lowe too as he will equally benefit from an upturn in Saints performing on the pitch.

 

Well thought out!

[alpine_saint]

the bank calls the shots unless we can get a investor in,it makes no difference if lowe ,wilde,crouch go.

 

Great ! Let's stop paying Mr. Lowe and Mr. Jones a small fortune for being Mr- Barclays's messenger boy...

[saintjay77]

Maybe no surprises but I still find it pretty extraordinary.

 

Here's a theory that won't be too popular. It wasn't Lowe's decision either.

 

It was Mr Barclay, in the boardroom, with a chainsaw.

 

dont go saying things like that because it doesnt fit into the fantasists theory of Lowe being the spawn of all evil.

[VectisSaint]

Could score goals being the operative phrase.Hasn't though.

Barclays aren't football experts, as they see it we're probably down to our core support anyway so to them it's even steven if we're in the CCC or League 1. All Barclays want,having promised to support us, is for us to cut our wage bill and stop losing f**king money.

 

The club has incompressible overheads that can't be cut, we're still losing money, so we have to cut the only thing we can-the wage bill. Jeez it's not high finance or lunar module science.

If I can understand that anybody can.

We pay our players more than we earn ,so we lose money.

Got that? Right.

So, why bring in Pulis, Gasmi, Peckhart and Smith? I suspect all of them get paid (alright I accept Pulis may not have been paid so far), if you don't want to increase your wage bill don't sign unneeded players. No-one can tell me that Pulis for one brings anything to the squad.

[saintjay77]

Good Logic that is ............ So Barclay's insist on Saints selling the one remaining player that COULD score Goals, which would have led to Saints WINNING, which would have led to Saints moving UP the Table, which would have led to MORE people coming to St Mary's, which would have led to MORE money coming in, which would have meant Barclays getting more money ......

 

.... Yes ......... well thought out

 

LOWE's decision entirely .........when did John arrive at St Mary's by the way ?

 

Do we really need to respond to you any more?

 

Sterns goals hardly moved us up the table last season and his goals only just saved us from going down. How is Stern also going to stop Swansea scoring 3 against us? When did "could" become 100% fact?

 

Let me put it another way so that you may understand........

 

Sterns goals hardly moved us up the table last season .........AND his goals only just saved us from going down ........ How is STERN also going to stop Swansea scoring 3 against US? ..........When did COULD ...........become 100% fact?

[Fan The Flames]

Maybe no surprises but I still find it pretty extraordinary.

 

Here's a theory that won't be too popular. It wasn't Lowe's decision either.

 

It was Mr Barclay, in the boardroom, with a chainsaw.

 

Yes but did it have to be John.

[um pahars]

Could score goals being the operative phrase.Hasn't though.

 

(a) He hasn't really featured, and (b) the manager persists in playing a formation which is not achieving results.

 

Jeez it's not high finance or lunar module science.

If I can understand that anybody can.

We pay our players more than we earn ,so we lose money.

Got that? Right.

 

But what about the money spent on the 9 or 10 new players we have got in (transfer fees, agents fees, players fees etc etc etc).

 

We have had choices throughout this sorry period, looks like we made the wrong ones.

[Mr X]

Yes but did it have to be John.

 

I would have got rid of skacel personally, rather keep the proven goal scorer

[um pahars]

also fully apply to Lowe too as he will equally benefit from an upturn in Saints performing on the pitch.

 

Indeed he will, but just because he will also benefit from success doesn't ean he is able to deliver it.

 

His tenure ended in failure last time around and it looks as though lightning has struck twice.

[Window Cleaner]

So, why bring in Pulis, Gasmi, Peckhart and Smith? I suspect all of them get paid (alright I accept Pulis may not have been paid so far), if you don't want to increase your wage bill don't sign unneeded players. No-one can tell me that Pulis for one brings anything to the squad.

 

Because we'll need them when when sell Surman and Lallana.

Again not rocket science.

Those two are as good as gone.

 

Romain Gasmi is probably on £1000 (or less a week)

He's a reserve team player from Strasbourg who are in French L2.

The average pay for French LI players (including all the big hitters at Lyon,Marseille and PSG) is less than 10000 euros a week, or 8000£ by today's standards.That's why all their teams are so poor in Europe, they can't keep anyone who wants away for more money.

The average run of the mill L1 player is probably on £4000 or so a week, and happy to have it.

Reserve team players (CFA) are on virtually nothing.

It costs about 8 euros to go to those games. ie £5, and to see Salisbury (which is of an inferior or equal standard it's £13)

 

Here are some (a bit outr of date) figures for average pay in the english leagues.

Players like Smith and Roberston are probably on virtually nothing .

Pekhart will be aided by Tottenham, he's not a transfer loan,he's an experience loan.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/163676000-the-average-salary-of-a-premiership-footballer-in-2006-473659.html

[saintjay77]

So, why bring in Pulis, Gasmi, Peckhart and Smith? I suspect all of them get paid (alright I accept Pulis may not have been paid so far), if you don't want to increase your wage bill don't sign unneeded players. No-one can tell me that Pulis for one brings anything to the squad.

 

thats a fair point and I think somebody dropped a bollock on this one. I think the above players were brought in on the basis that several of the high earners would be gone. They will have been brought in on much less wages than the ones leaving which would leave us with a squad (not a great one) that could still field a mixture of kids and older kids. Problem is Skacel couldnt agree terms so is still here, there was no interest in John, Euell got injured so no interest came in for him, KD turned his phone off aparently to make sure he went no-where (thank god he did TBH) the promising kids were on a set of scales where if a silly money offer came in they would be gone but otherwise we would be trying to keep them.

 

So the ones that came in were replacements for the ones that never left. Puts us further into the poo but I suppose all of the above could not be planned for. so its tricky on saying we should have done this or that. the fact is we got people in and couldnt get rid of others. things have to be done to right this and the banks will be the 1st to tell the club this.

[Window Cleaner]

I would have got rid of skacel personally, rather keep the proven goal scorer

 

You can only get rid of players someone wants.

[Lunatic Fridge]

Do we really need to respond to you any more?

 

Sterns goals hardly moved us up the table last season and his goals only just saved us from going down. How is Stern also going to stop Swansea scoring 3 against us? When did "could" become 100% fact?

 

Let me put it another way so that you may understand........

 

Sterns goals hardly moved us up the table last season .........AND his goals only just saved us from going down ........ How is STERN also going to stop Swansea scoring 3 against US? ..........When did COULD ...........become 100% fact?

 

 

Not neccessarily but I will respond to you. Thought you won matches via goals - hence surprisingly perhaps you win points go up the league and attract more poor souls to SMS.

 

Please inform me who the f*ck is scoring for us - oh I forgot - no one!

[saintjay77]

Yes but did it have to be John.

 

could have been anyone that another club showed interest in IMO. KD will be gone if someone shows the interest, as will skacel and Ewell, Surman and Lallana are on very shakey ground and BWP we can only hope for some interest Not forgetting Morgan and Gillett who have both sown enough to warrent some interest.

 

Each offer/interst that comes in will probably be run past the bank and they will tell us if they are happy with us refusing the interest.

[NickG]

quite possible that we are not pay all of Pekharts/Cork's wages. I know that when we were premiership and sent players out to gain experience we didn't make the "smaller" club pay all salaries. We are now that smaller club!

 

 

Guess their wages are far short of John.

 

It is the age old arguement on value of players - easy if a player is gauranteed form and club results, touble is none of us have a clue how much John is on, nor how tight money really is.

 

If he is on a lot and it makes difference between administration or not, no-one can criticise the decision.

 

If he is not, or we are not that close, we should all be questioning it.

 

Trouble is we don't know .

[saintjay77]

Not neccessarily but I will respond to you. Thought you won matches via goals - hence surprisingly perhaps you win points go up the league and attract more poor souls to SMS.

 

Please inform me who the f*ck is scoring for us - oh I forgot - no one!

 

So you think if we start scoring a few goals we will win matches? From where I am standing we need to score at least 3 to be in with a shout of wining. I know Stern was our top scorer but that was in a different system with different players behind him. The guy is no super man so I fail to see how he is the answer to our season.

 

I didnt want him to go and I would like to see us mix up this system with old fashoned 4-4-2. I would also like to see us defend properly for 93 mins to give us a chance of nicking a 1-0 win. The strikers we have in the squad mixed with the attacking midfielders are capable of gettin the odd goal here and there and maybe building into a few more. but the way we defend doesnt give us much chance at all.

[Stu Man Do]

"Jan Poortvliet is hoping the next Saints transfers will be players coming in rather than going out after the massive disappointment of Stern John’s departure last week. "

 

So we cant afford to pay our decent players who could get us out of the manure BUT we can afford ... or expect to bring in new players who like Pekhart will no doubt be hung out to dry in the reserves once here. More stupidty at SFC shocker :-s

[Secret Site Agent]

I was talking with our banking liaison manager today, as I wanted to ask if this is a possibility and how they make these decisions. After having a stupid answer I asked one of my buidling hombres to ask a contact, as we do a lot of work for Barclays and his answer was the same with a bit of insight.

 

'The person in charge of the payback of loans is trained in the area that they represent with specific financial training updated through the year to ensure that they are fully aware of the capacities of our clients. The do not involve themselves in the day to day running of a clients business, nor do they make any suggestions as to the buying and selling of assets.'

So there, that is us told...........Except the rider from my building Hombre that says,'......They want their money back, and generally couldn't give a monkey's chunkies what we have to do to get it, and if that means selling the whole team and paying off the loan early, then so be it, especially with the more aggressive stance that they are being told to adopt in the present climate.

[um pahars]

I was talking with our banking liaison manager today, as I wanted to ask if this is a possibility and how they make these decisions. After having a stupid answer I asked one of my buidling hombres to ask a contact, as we do a lot of work for Barclays and his answer was the same with a bit of insight.

 

'The person in charge of the payback of loans is trained in the area that they represent with specific financial training updated through the year to ensure that they are fully aware of the capacities of our clients. The do not involve themselves in the day to day running of a clients business, nor do they make any suggestions as to the buying and selling of assets.'

So there, that is us told...........Except the rider from my building Hombre that says,'......They want their money back, and generally couldn't give a monkey's chunkies what we have to do to get it, and if that means selling the whole team and paying off the loan early, then so be it, especially with the more aggressive stance that they are being told to adopt in the present climate.

 

The idea that our man from Barclays (who is probably a Reading fan anyway) is telling us what day to day decisions we have to take is pure folly. GM tried to insinuate that a while back, but it is pure poppy****.

 

Our man will be laying down targets and deadlines (and they may indeed be very harsh), but he will be leaving up to the management of the Club to deliver upon them.

 

Mr Barclays is not playing the role of the Administrator.

[Roman]

The idea that our man from Barclays (who is probably a Reading fan anyway) is telling us what day to day decisions we have to take is pure folly. GM tried to insinuate that a while back, but it is pure poppy****.

 

Our man will be laying down targets and deadlines (and they may indeed be very harsh), but he will be leaving up to the management of the Club to deliver upon them.

 

Mr Barclays is not playing the role of the Administrator.

 

Hence my reference to a chainsaw, Um. Wasn't suggesting that Mr B came in and said: Lowe: you've made a dog's breakfast. I'm taking over and shipping out Stern.' I'd imagine it to be more along the lines of: 'dog's breakfast, etc. But it's got to stop. Cut your costs NOW, at any cost...'

 

Which means no more loans, no more surprise signings like Schneiderlin Homes, Forecast, Gasmi, Pulis.

 

In other words, no more 'Lowe revolution'. Just slash and burn. In that sense, and imo, Lowe is no longer the master of his collapsing universe.

[alpine_saint]

The idea that our man from Barclays (who is probably a Reading fan anyway) is telling us what day to day decisions we have to take is pure folly. GM tried to insinuate that a while back, but it is pure poppy****.

 

Our man will be laying down targets and deadlines (and they may indeed be very harsh), but he will be leaving up to the management of the Club to deliver upon them.

 

Mr Barclays is not playing the role of the Administrator.

 

Who gives a shiit who is actually playing the role of administrator ? I am more concerned that we are in administration in all but name, and points loss.

 

And I fully expect that to happen soon too.

[Secret Site Agent]

The idea that our man from Barclays (who is probably a Reading fan anyway) is telling us what day to day decisions we have to take is pure folly. GM tried to insinuate that a while back, but it is pure poppy****.

 

Our man will be laying down targets and deadlines (and they may indeed be very harsh), but he will be leaving up to the management of the Club to deliver upon them.

 

Mr Barclays is not playing the role of the Administrator.

 

That is what I said. The additional point is tnot '..oh, they are telling us who to sell etc' it's that they don't give a **** as long as they have their money. Thats all they want. Nothing else, no promotion for us, not let you ioff 'casue the kids aint playing to well, just COLD HARD CASH.

[Weston Super Saint]

He couldn't guarantee John a game every week? Doesn't have a problem with promising just that to McGoldrick.

 

What a catch 22.

 

Couldn't promise him a game every week, because he's being told not to play him to save appearance fees.

 

But, because he can't promise him a game every week, then obviously he isn't needed, so off he goes on loan.

 

Is it just me or is this designed to look like it's all JP's fault for not picking him

[Chez]

He couldn't guarantee John a game every week? Doesn't have a problem with promising just that to McGoldrick.

 

perhaps because McGoldrick is on peanuts and Stern's appearance fee priced him out of the side.

[Chez]

I was goin to say why on earth did we not let Stern go in the summer if we knew we did not have the funds to afford to play him, but I dare say Lowe expected crowds of around 20k nto 15k and that 5k difference is what is hurting us.

 

Mind you why then did we not play him in the opening games - were we worrid about him getting injured and preventing a transfer? I guess thats the case and then the transfer they hoped would happen didn't.

 

What a mess.

[St Marco]

To be honest with you as much as Lowe is a tit and i want him out as much as the next fan i think this was the right choice to make. Reason i think that is if JP is not picking him and he openly says "i cannot gurantee he will play" then why bother paying his wages if he is not going to be used? The way i look at it is that if JP said he will use him then he would not be loaned out. JP should of said he will use him as we cannot score goals rather then rely on a striker who has scored only 3 goals all season. But he made the choice to stick with DMG and he must live with that decision. So while it is so easy to blame Lowe on this one i think we have to look at it in the way it is, if JP had John in his plans he would of stayed.

[Alucard]

(a) He hasn't really featured, and (b) the manager persists in playing a formation which is not achieving results.

 

4-4-2 didn't achieve any results last season but we persisted in playing it every game

 

 

But what about the money spent on the 9 or 10 new players we have got in (transfer fees, agents fees, players fees etc etc etc).

 

 

In case you hadn't noticed we've lost Baseya, A Davies ,Hammill, Idiakez, Licka, Lucketti, Ostlund, Pericard, Powell, Rasiak , Richard Wright, Safri, Saganowski, Viafara,Vignal, J Wright from the squad available to Pearson at the end of last season. Are you seriously suggesting we should shed 16 players from the squad that took us within 20 minutes of relegation and not bring in 9 or 10 players at vastly lower wages to replace them. How would your 15 man squad have coped with the long term injuries to Svensson, Thomas, Schneiderlin, Euell & Holmes. I take it you would have only been naming 3 substitutes two of which would be goalkeepers.

[Red and White Army]

 

In case you hadn't noticed we've lost Baseya, A Davies ,Hammill, Idiakez, Licka, Lucketti, Ostlund, Pericard, Powell, Rasiak , Richard Wright, Safri, Saganowski, Viafara,Vignal, J Wright from the squad available to Pearson at the end of last season. Are you seriously suggesting we should shed 16 players from the squad that took us within 20 minutes of relegation and not bring in 9 or 10 players at vastly lower wages to replace them. How would your 15 man squad have coped with the long term injuries to Svensson, Thomas, Schneiderlin, Euell & Holmes. I take it you would have only been naming 3 substitutes two of which would be goalkeepers.

 

um pahars has Crouch's tongue up his arse; don't try to reason with him or you'll just end up banging your head on a brick wall. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

[um pahars]

That is what I said. The additional point is tnot '..oh, they are telling us who to sell etc' it's that they don't give a **** as long as they have their money. Thats all they want. Nothing else, no promotion for us, not let you ioff 'casue the kids aint playing to well, just COLD HARD CASH.

 

I was actually agreeing with your analysis (just didn't say it).

[um pahars]

In case you hadn't noticed we've lost Baseya, A Davies ,Hammill, Idiakez, Licka, Lucketti, Ostlund, Pericard, Powell, Rasiak , Richard Wright, Safri, Saganowski, Viafara,Vignal, J Wright from the squad available to Pearson at the end of last season. Are you seriously suggesting we should shed 16 players from the squad that took us within 20 minutes of relegation and not bring in 9 or 10 players at vastly lower wages to replace them. How would your 15 man squad have coped with the long term injuries to Svensson, Thomas, Schneiderlin, Euell & Holmes. I take it you would have only been naming 3 substitutes two of which would be goalkeepers.

 

As a start, our squad last season was way too big for a Club in the CCC.

 

We were quite right to cull loads of them with many of the ones you mentioned not even getting a look in on a regular basis - Baseya, Hammill, Licka, Ostlund, Pericard, Rasiak etc etc etc. To be honest they were no real loss.

 

And then of course we're so desperate for players and our squad is so threadbare this season that only 2 of these new signings actually featured against Swansea on Saturday.

 

Good job we brought 9 in so that we could play 2 of them!!!!!!!!!

[SaintRichmond]

Could score goals being the operative phrase.Hasn't though.

Barclays aren't football experts, as they see it we're probably down to our core support anyway so to them it's even steven if we're in the CCC or League 1. All Barclays want,having promised to support us, is for us to cut our wage bill and stop losing f**king money.

 

The club has incompressible overheads that can't be cut, we're still losing money, so we have to cut the only thing we can-the wage bill. Jeez it's not high finance or lunar module science.

If I can understand that anybody can.

We pay our players more than we earn ,so we lose money.

Got that? Right.

 

Ok.... I've read all that ... So

 

WHY are we (still) losing money ??

 

Lowe has sold all (half decent) players that can command a fee

 

Lowe insisted upon an untried or unproven Dutch Duo "Total Football" concept

 

Lowe has insisted on his Dream of The Youth Policy, against the advice of very experienced Football Men, and it has failed already

 

We therefore have :-

 

A Krap Squad, getting Krap results, leaving us, even this early in the season, already all but relegated

 

Because of that, us Fans have lost faith in how Lowe is ruining things, and coupled with the results on the pitch, have stayed away from St Mary's by at least 10000

 

You are right, it's not high finance or lunar module science

 

It is ONE MAN running a Football Club purely as a BUSINESS, and thus forgetting completely WHAT, in Football's case, makes things Tick ........ DECENT Players, a DECENT Team, and DECENT results

 

Lowe SHOULD realise that the last bit, DECENT RESULTS, is the backbone of any SUCCESSFUL Business ........... but he will not

 

Think ahead ONE season .......... we will be in Div 1 ........ we will still need players .... they still need paying ....... Do you really expect Gates to be any higher than they are now ??? ......... The downward spiral will continue

 

St Mary's is a STAND ALONE Stadia ......... LOWE's brainchild after he could not get his own way with Stoneham ....... IT CANNOT SURVIVE on current Gates.......... and in one year it will be WORSE

 

Administration seems to be the Taboo word ........... but it is regretably the only way SAINTS are ever going to have a chance of starting afreshwith no debts around its neck

 

LOWE MUST GO ...... AND QUICKLY

[Alucard]

As a start, our squad last season was way too big for a Club in the CCC.

 

We were quite right to cull loads of them with many of the ones you mentioned not even getting a look in on a regular basis - Baseya, Hammill, Licka, Ostlund, Pericard, Rasiak etc etc etc. To be honest they were no real loss.

 

And then of course we're so desperate for players and our squad is so threadbare this season that only 2 of these new signings actually featured against Swansea on Saturday.

 

Good job we brought 9 in so that we could play 2 of them!!!!!!!!!

 

Your inability to count past 2 shows your ineptitude with figures Bum-Pahars. Perry, Cork & Scheiderlin played, Wotton & Forecast were on the bench . That's five of the 9 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! pillock

Gasmi has nearly recovered from injury. As far as I'm aware Smith, Svensson, Holmes, Pullis & Smith were all injured but in your 15 man squad they would have sat on the bench no doubt.

[um pahars]

Your inability to count past 2 shows your ineptitude with figures Bum-Pahars. Perry, Cork & Scheiderlin played, Wotton & Forecast were on the bench . That's five of the 9 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! pillock

Gasmi has nearly recovered from injury. As far as I'm aware Smith, Svensson, Holmes, Pullis & Smith were all injured but in your 15 man squad they would have sat on the bench no doubt.

 

Wotton and Forecast didn't feature and Perry was here last season.

 

So only 2 out the 9 odd new signings featured.

 

HTH.

[David Strover]

J

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/3792704.Jan__Stern_went_to_reduce_the_wage_bill/

 

I see Satellite is there posting his comments after the article.

 

You have to read what he says carefully but if you study his words you'll find he has been watching Saints for 65 years and he thinks Rupert Lowe is a great bloke...oh yeah and the current plight of the club can squarely placed on the shoulders of many by which I mean me and you folks - the supporters!

 

Thinking about it I think he might be Rupert Lowe-Life posting under pseudonym.

[alpine_saint]

I see Satellite is there posting his comments after the article.

 

You have to read what he says carefully but if you study his words you'll find he has been watching Saints for 65 years and he thinks Rupert Lowe is a great bloke...oh yeah and the current plight of the club can squarely placed on the shoulders of many by which I mean me and you folks - the supporters!

 

Thinking about it I think he might be Rupert Lowe-Life posting under pseudonym.

 

He's a wind-up mong, as that comment about Ted Bates bringing Lowe in as chairman proves.