Administration inevitable

[Gordon Mockles]

So it seems that although Tom thought that I had somehow contradicted myself, he hasn't proved where yet. As you say, he certainly doesn't appear to know his facts about the Stoneham project. I had taken the trouble to find out about that from speaking to officers at Eastleigh Borough Council and it is indisputable that had not Southampton City Council bailed out Lowe after Stoneham collapsed, we would not have had anywhere to go. Tom says that he prefers St. Mary's to the Stoneham proposal anyway, but Stoneham could have had several other facets to it that would have made it a better investment prospect for a takeover.

 

You have part of the story, but the important bits you gloss over or fail to acknowledge.

Yes Lowe pulled the plug on Stoneham.

Yes Southampton City Council helped with St Mary's.

 

Lowe pulled the plug on Stoneham because the economics did not stand up. You can bluster on about what could or could not have been done to improve the Stoneham economics, but you have no figures and are just ****ing in the wind. If it made economic sense Lowe would have gone for it, exactly as he did with St Mary's. At the end of the day we ended up with a far better deal at St Mary's and your only concern is that we knocked back a far worse deal at Stoneham? Where exactly are your priorities here?

 

By your analysis we should have moved from the Dell irrespective of cost, priceless.

 

I’ve been reading this thread over the past few days and intended not to comment but I can’t stand it anymore.

 

Up and away – I don’t believe it was quite so cut and dry as Lowe pulling the plug on the Stoneham project. The planning application was refused (after an epic 8 year struggle) and that is not at the fault of Lowe. Many, MANY people were extremely p*ssed off at Eastleigh Borough Council for, what they felt was, stringing the club along (at great expense to SFC.) It culminated in the application refusal and a rather passionate and scathing attack (a half time rant, in length), from Dennis Rolfe at The Dell. He bled red and white that day!

 

I feel, in many ways, Eastleigh Council took the p*ss. I’ve see a lot of planning applications in my job so I hope I can offer the debate something and not bore you senseless. I wasn’t involved with the first stadium application (although I was working alongside the planning supervisor @ WSP – dealing with Cowen – when we designed and built St Mary’s). If memory serves me correct, the stumbling block with the Stoneham Project was the revenue making facilities (cinema and supermarket) that Lowe wanted to piggy back on top of the sports facility (i.e. The Stadium). It was always a sensitive issue as many locals didn’t want an out-of-town football club bring large numbers of football fans to their town (although you wonder what the problem is when you consider the plethora of anti-social housing orders relocated in Eastleigh). I believe the project never truly had the legs but this leisure and shopping addition may have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Maybe the council saw it as excessive business and profit being shoe-horned into the equation.

 

I don’t know if Eastleigh were looking for excuses. I was not at the meetings, nor liaising with councillors, MPs and councils. I have my doubts concerning EBC masquerading for a project they never truly intended to follow through (a hell of a lot of money was involved and wasted on the project). Still, my opinion or cynicism isn't relevant.

 

One important point stood out to me – I believe Saints put all their eggs in one basket with Stoneham and relied on it too much, even when it looked unlikely to proceed. However, I am not knocking Lowe in this respect as there were very limited options (as with most clubs and new grounds in this over-crowded country) and I may well have done the same thing. Still, this is all history.

 

What I take issue with Up and Away is the comment you make about Lowe “pulling the plug because the economics didn’t stand up”. Whilst I agree with the sense in you (and Lowe) dicsussing the economics of the business at the Stoneham facility, in this situation I believe some stubbornness was involved on the club’s part in dealing with the Eastleigh council and the respective councillors, representatives and MPs. Maybe there never was any middle ground but the site at Stoneham was always much preferred to St Mary’s (which has pretty much zero scope to expand – they even had to adopt park and ride schemes and close off roads due to parking/access issues. Far from ideal, I’m sure you agree).

 

Still, I like our ground and we’ve grown into it, but your debate got me thinking. However, one fact remains – With St Mary’s, we did not end up with a much better deal than Stoneham. In no way, shape or form. All our monies were ploughed into Stoneham. St Mary’s was always second choice and, in essence, the site was the proverbial safety net that broke our fall (thanks, for once, to So’ton City Council ). Maybe our inflated parking rates and the soon to be Ikea bottle neck are their way of getting us back! LOL.

 

St Mary’s was always a stadium built very much on the cheap (on the same model as Derby’s ‘Pride Park’) because we had ran out of time, money and options and everyone was justifiably desperate to move from The Dell – the smallest ground in the league (if we’re honest, it had become a bit of an embarrassing tag – still, we can always look down the road to cheer us up!). The move to a larger capacity stadium was essential, due to demand, increased gates receipt to accumulate profit (or not) and the relevant infrastructure. If we were still in the Premiership, it certainly would have offered better takeover options (room for expansion and relevant planning, travel links, parking/access, proximity to airport, etc.) However, relegation and the subsequent financial demise is always a threat. It all depends upon how you manage it (no easy task). In our case, we failed, spectacularly. The rest, as they say, is history.

 

Sorry for the lengthy post but there are some points close to my heart. Let’s all hope we remain in the division and we can eventually build and restructure and SUCCEED. Regardless of personal issues, (God, I have enough of mine with the board) we don’t want to see our beloved club fall apart.

[um pahars]

However, I am not knocking Lowe in this respect as there were very limited options (as with most clubs and new grounds in this over-crowded country) and I may well have done the same thing. Still, this is all history.

 

I too am not knocking Lowe here. As you recount, the search for a new stadium had taken years (probably back in to the 70's if you include the schemes encompassing Wide Lane, Western Esplanade and I'm sure even a rumoured attempt to do a Wolves and rotate The Dell 90 degrees!!!).

 

He inherited a project that had begun something like 5 or 6 years before he even turned up at The Dell.

 

This was a scheme that would probably require the support of all three councils involved, SCC (mainly Labour during key points of the period), EBC (mainly Liberal) and HCC (mainly conservative) and with all the vested interests and party politics at play, it was always going to be a big ask.

 

As you state we appeared to have had limited options, as although at the point Stoneham became the favourite choice in the early 90's there were something like 10+ other sites that had also been put put forward, but these were all rejected.

[hughieslastminutegoal]

In my opinion it's rather selfish of thousands of stay away fans to enforce relegation and administration on the paying customers who don't want it!! IMO but each to their own I suppose

 

Is it selfish stay-away MFI customers who have enforced administration on other MFI customers who wanted to buy a kitchen?

 

Do inhabitants of the Southampton area have a duty, an obligation, to carry on paying for a product they don't much want, from a company they don't much like, just so other football fans can continue to get what they want, just because they want it?

[hughieslastminutegoal]

There are many very influential supporters who have looked at this and are worried that Lowe can pick us up from Administration. It is a REAL possibility.

 

Why Lowe? Why not Crouch, who actually has more shares, and presumably more interest in Saints?

 

In administration, the people who offer the best deal to the Administrator get the business. Do you really believe that Lowe would offer that?

I don't, and that's why he will fight tooth and nail to avoid Administration.

 

We might not like what he does to avoid it though.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

Do inhabitants of the Southampton area have a duty, an obligation, to carry on paying for a product they don't much want, from a company they don't much like, just so other football fans can continue to get what they want, just because they want it?

 

We are not talking broadly about inhabitants of the town, I would not expect my old mum to go but I would expect 'fans' to return, especially those that have not experienced 'the product' this season and to see how 'the product' although being much cheaper to make, alot more effort seems to be put in to it and in parts is far better quality than 'the product' produced in the last round of production.

[Wes Tender]

Why Lowe? Why not Crouch, who actually has more shares, and presumably more interest in Saints?

 

In administration, the people who offer the best deal to the Administrator get the business. Do you really believe that Lowe would offer that?

I don't, and that's why he will fight tooth and nail to avoid Administration.

 

We might not like what he does to avoid it though.

 

Agree entirely. In the event of Administration, they would have a duty to allow the people to take over who had the best chance of making a going concern of it. Firstly Lowe and Wilde have not exactly covered themselves with glory by what they did after they returned and their bizarre policy could be directly attributable to our collapse.

 

Secondly, I'm sure that the fan base will make it abundantly clear to the Administrators that if Lowe or Wilde take over, that many will not support them by attending. It would be under those circumstances that I would stop going to matches, that's for certain.

[Guided Missile]

Is it selfish stay-away MFI customers who have enforced administration on other MFI customers who wanted to buy a kitchen?

 

Do inhabitants of the Southampton area have a duty, an obligation, to carry on paying for a product they don't much want, from a company they don't much like, just so other football fans can continue to get what they want, just because they want it?

We're supporters of a football club, FFS, not prospective buyers of a flat pack wardrobe. If many of our fans are like you and can't see that there is a difference between a shop selling cheap furniture and a club that is meant to be the heart and soul of the community, then the inhabitants of Southampton will end up with the football club they deserve...

[hughieslastminutegoal]

We are not talking broadly about inhabitants of the town, I would not expect my old mum to go but I would expect 'fans' to return, especially those that have not experienced 'the product' this season and to see how 'the product' although being much cheaper to make, alot more effort seems to be put in to it and in parts is far better quality than 'the product' produced in the last round of production.

 

 

You have no right whatsoever to expect a previous customer to carry on being a customer just because it suits you, just because you want to carry on being able to go. Nor do you have the right to tell other customers that they should buy the product because you think the quality is good enough.

 

This is exactly what Lowe thinks fans should be doing, that somehow once a fan always a fan, and whatever the quality of the product on offer, and however he talks to his customers, we somehow must carry on being customers, that it's our duty to do so.

 

Every individual fan has the right to buy or not to buy, and to comment on the quality. Disagree with their view of the product's quality if you like, disagree with their view of the quality of all-round service or business direction, but don't tell them that they have an obligation to buy what is on offer.

[OldNick]

Worth repeating.

that post is for people who dont understanding basic budgeting.

[OldNick]

Actually, I know Keith House quite well and he told me that EBC were prepared to approve the stadium and associated sports facilities but it was the shopping/multiplex cinema part that they refused to permit, so Lowe pulled the plug on the application (ie didn't resubmit with amendments) and pursued St. Marys instead.

Eastleigh were worried about the effect that additional shops and a cinema would have on the "vibrant" Eastleigh Town Centre.

Was House the bloke on TV who LM showed up when he didnt realise International cricket would be played at the Rose Bowl and the size of the crowds expected.

As for Stoneham, dont most new stadia try and have supermarkets and hotels on the site to help pay towards the stadium.Come on I know RL has made some mistakes (haven't we all ) but to knock for trying to get another revenue stream to help pay for the stadium is wrong. Perhaps had we had those things at SMS we may not be so up s### creek.

[Wes Tender]

We're supporters of a football club, FFS, not prospective buyers of a flat pack wardrobe. If many of our fans are like you and can't see that there is a difference between a shop selling cheap furniture and a club that is meant to be the heart and soul of the community, then the inhabitants of Southampton will end up with the football club they deserve...

 

I think that the problem moreover is that the people who are running/ruining the club are the ones who do so more from the perspective of manufacturers of flat pack wardrobes rather than a football club that is the heart and soul of the community. They have expected our loyal support on that basis and are starting to see that their customer base has no more obligation to buy their product than MFI's customers did.

[hughieslastminutegoal]

We're supporters of a football club, FFS, not prospective buyers of a flat pack wardrobe. If many of our fans are like you and can't see that there is a difference between a shop selling cheap furniture and a club that is meant to be the heart and soul of the community, then the inhabitants of Southampton will end up with the football club they deserve...

 

It is a plc. It is not the club it used to be. And I can't see anything that smacks of a concerted effort to make it the heart and soul of the community.

 

I can be accused of hankering after the past, after the days when I felt I was supporting a club that existed because it felt itself to be the heart and soul of the community, when the directors were not there to aggrandise themselves and make themselves a grubby buck.

 

But we now have an industry that is just money oriented, and is only interested in fans in so far as they buy tickets and merchandise.

 

You say the club is meant to be the heart and soul of the community. You tell me exactly how this club enthusiastically opens its arms to fans beyond the 120 minutes they are in the ground on match days.

[Wes Tender]

Was House the bloke on TV who LM showed up when he didnt realise International cricket would be played at the Rose Bowl and the size of the crowds expected.

As for Stoneham, dont most new stadia try and have supermarkets and hotels on the site to help pay towards the stadium.Come on I know RL has made some mistakes (haven't we all ) but to knock for trying to get another revenue stream to help pay for the stadium is wrong. Perhaps had we had those things at SMS we may not be so up s### creek.

 

Nick,

 

Did you not read my post detailing the other items that EBC would have been happy for us to build on the site? So I feel perfectly vindicated in accusing Lowe for the failure to proceed with the Stoneham project on the basis that he was intransigent over wanting the two things that EBC could never grant as revenue streams.

 

Having spoken at length with Roberto Tambino (EBC's officer in charge of the project), with others who were concerned about how the club were approaching Stoneham, we gained a detailed perspective of EBC's stance on this. The site was to have been the Southern equivalent of the Crystal Palace and Gateshead Sports centres with the Stadium as the centrepiece. On that basis, other things like luxury hotels, restaurants, night clubs, ice rinks, bowling alleys etc would have added to the amenities that would dovetail with such an enterprise.

 

Granted that Freddy Emery-Wallis and Hampshire County Council were against it but with Southampton Council and EBC for it, it could have gone to Central Government for a decision, where I'm certain that Prescott would have rubber stamped it.

 

Anyway, water under the bridge now, but I won't have posters who don't know what they're talking about attempting to make out that getting us St. Mary's was down to Lowe when it was him that failed to get us Stoneham and Southampton City Council who gave us St Mary's.

[StInky]

It is a plc. It is not the club it used to be. And I can't see anything that smacks of a concerted effort to make it the heart and soul of the community.

 

I can be accused of hankering after the past, after the days when I felt I was supporting a club that existed because it felt itself to be the heart and soul of the community, when the directors were not there to aggrandise themselves and make themselves a grubby buck.

 

But we now have an industry that is just money oriented, and is only interested in fans in so far as they buy tickets and merchandise.

 

You say the club is meant to be the heart and soul of the community. You tell me exactly how this club enthusiastically opens its arms to fans beyond the 120 minutes they are in the ground on match days.

See "An Interesting Evenning" thread. Someone's evidently trying.

[Big Bad Bob]

Agree entirely. In the event of Administration, they would have a duty to allow the people to take over who had the best chance of making a going concern of it. Firstly Lowe and Wilde have not exactly covered themselves with glory by what they did after they returned and their bizarre policy could be directly attributable to our collapse.

 

Secondly, I'm sure that the fan base will make it abundantly clear to the Administrators that if Lowe or Wilde take over, that many will not support them by attending. It would be under those circumstances that I would stop going to matches, that's for certain.

 

Wes that's ****** and you know it.

 

The administrators will sell to the people who bid the highest and can prove they have the money.

 

Whilst they may take into account the forward running of the company I doubt very much if they'll take much notice of [such an emotive subject as] 'fans feelings'.

 

Is the recent Bournemouth saga not fresh in your memory!

[JohnnyFartPants]

Surely if the bank have stood by us and we now have a smaller debt than we had a year ago, AND keep our Championship status then they will be happy to throw the dice for another year?

[solentstars]

Wes that's ****** and you know it.

 

The administrators will sell to the people who bid the highest and can prove they have the money.

 

Whilst they may take into account the forward running of the company I doubt very much if they'll take much notice of [such an emotive subject as] 'fans feelings'.

 

Is the recent Bournemouth saga not fresh in your memory!

thats why admin is not a good option and they could also sell vital parts of the club to different people. .

[OldNick]

Nick,

 

Did you not read my post detailing the other items that EBC would have been happy for us to build on the site? So I feel perfectly vindicated in accusing Lowe for the failure to proceed with the Stoneham project on the basis that he was intransigent over wanting the two things that EBC could never grant as revenue streams.

 

Having spoken at length with Roberto Tambino (EBC's officer in charge of the project), with others who were concerned about how the club were approaching Stoneham, we gained a detailed perspective of EBC's stance on this. The site was to have been the Southern equivalent of the Crystal Palace and Gateshead Sports centres with the Stadium as the centrepiece. On that basis, other things like luxury hotels, restaurants, night clubs, ice rinks, bowling alleys etc would have added to the amenities that would dovetail with such an enterprise.

 

Granted that Freddy Emery-Wallis and Hampshire County Council were against it but with Southampton Council and EBC for it, it could have gone to Central Government for a decision, where I'm certain that Prescott would have rubber stamped it.

 

Anyway, water under the bridge now, but I won't have posters who don't know what they're talking about attempting to make out that getting us St. Mary's was down to Lowe when it was him that failed to get us Stoneham and Southampton City Council who gave us St Mary's.

Well if it meant us to have a running track around the stadium Im glad we didnt get it.Would the club have owned those facilities or was EBC going to have those costs.

Wes I respect that you know far more than I do on this subject and I dont know who we should tham for the stadium, but I do know that since the 60's I had seen the promoise of a stadium time and again come to nothing.Under RL the stadium was delivered and so he must have some credit as SCC does as well. I do not see a problem though him trying to be shrewd and get the best deal.

[Guided Missile]

See "An Interesting Evenning" thread. Someone's evidently trying.

I was just going to post the same. I can't remember the last time I was invited for a pint and a chat by MFI, when they unveiled their new spring catalogue....haven't see many MFI employees visiting kids in hospital at Christmas, either...

Edited 28 November, 2008 by Guided Missile

[david cross swe]

that post is for people who dont understanding basic budgeting.

 

(Well, here I am back after being sidetracked for some time, nickh)

 

...I see I haven't missed much in the intervening time, except that I do enjoy watching the boys (on cable TV in Sweden)..even 'though the end results are somewhat disappointing.

Needs one or two older heads to complement the youth. Davis is at last accepted I suppose. Pity Svensson is injured and Euell out. If any of our THREE out-loaned, " non-scoring " strikers could have maintained their form they showed in the last 2 seasons,

we'd be up around the play-off spots instead of our present placing.

 

Seems to me that Georg Prost's legacy to the club..... has become Jan's inheritance.

...and think that just six months ago half of the " lads" would have been glad of a place on the reserves bench. Survival this season, and much better next- if we can keep them...?

 

Sorry, I've no time for the out Lowe brigade, what's done is done and we have to move on.

 

COYR !!!!!!!!

[Secret Site Agent]

The stay aways are just moronic, my friend. So the club goes under faster (and perhaps needlesly??) because of your (and a few others) dislike of two blokes? Gimmie a break, you obviously dont love the club as much as you think you do, just because you dont want to watch CCC football. Take off your beer goggles and see the bigger picture eh? Administration and the points deduction that comes with it will be THE FINAL nail in out coffin, there will be NO comming back from that. If there is, it wont be for a VERY long time (leeds, luton, bournmouth) - I know we're a "bigger" club than those I just mentioned, but that counts for **** when you've got no money. How can you think your better than the LOYAL fans, when its people like you that are killing the club at the moment? We need all the support we can get ffs.

 

I totally agree with the above and, in actual fact, I would add to the above that we don't want you any more. Please go and support someone else, your not welcome here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and not everyone can go to all the home games due to various reasons. But not going because you don't like Lowe and Wilde? That is totally ******s. I hate those two with a passion and it will be a cold day in hell before I forgive them, but I love my team more than I hate Lowe and Wilde, so I continue to show my support to the team. I supported Saints before Lowe and Wilde, while Lowe and Wilde are here, and long after Lowe and Wilde are gone.

[OldNick]

(Well, here I am back after being sidetracked for some time, nickh)

 

...I see I haven't missed much in the intervening time, except that I do enjoy watching the boys (on cable TV in Sweden)..even 'though the end results are somewhat disappointing.

Needs one or two older heads to complement the youth. Davis is at last accepted I suppose. Pity Svensson is injured and Euell out. If any of our THREE out-loaned, " non-scoring " strikers could have maintained their form they showed in the last 2 seasons,

we'd be up around the play-off spots instead of our present placing.

 

Seems to me that Georg Prost's legacy to the club..... has become Jan's inheritance.

...and think that just six months ago half of the " lads" would have been glad of a place on the reserves bench. Survival this season, and much better next- if we can keep them...?

 

Sorry, I've no time for the out Lowe brigade, what's done is done and we have to move on.

 

COYR !!!!!!!!

Good that you are back.

[Tom28]

Wes and Um, your blinkered negative view on this club is bewildering.

[Wes Tender]

Wes and Um, your blinkered negative view on this club is bewildering.

...As is your blinkered positive view.

 

As they say, there's none so blind as those who will not see.

[Danny]

 

But as for financial viability of the two projects, kindly explain to me why just a stadium is viable financially at St. Mary's, but just a stadium is not financially viable at Stoneham? It wasn't a case with Stoneham of mere financial viability; it was a case of a stonking profit that he wanted and probably jobs for the boys with the development along the way too. But as mentioned, the Stoneham project could have been so much more had Lowe not fallen out with EBC through his arrogance and getting up the noses of those who he needed to get onside.

 

At St Mary's we don't have any of the community facilities we would have had at Stoneham. No athletics track and grandstand, no community pitches, no five-a-side pitches, no tennis courts. Nada. Nothing.

 

All we have is the stadium (which itself had to be upped in size to make it viable as a standalone option). The extra commercial aspects of the were going to fund the extras which we don't have now.

 

And as far as I recall, Southampton City Council came to the club with the St Mary's site, rather than the other way around.

[Tom28]

My positive view is not blinkered. On many occasions in my posts I've openly stated that mistakes have been made. My view is balanced, I just take a positive slant and have a positive outlook. Make the most of what you've got and stop complaining all the time. Its boring.

[Gordon Mockles]

We're supporters of a football club, FFS, not prospective buyers of a flat pack wardrobe. If many of our fans are like you and can't see that there is a difference between a shop selling cheap furniture and a club that is meant to be the heart and soul of the community, then the inhabitants of Southampton will end up with the football club they deserve...

 

Just a tad arrogant. We'd expect comments like that from our boardroom, but from fans too?! That logic equates to your sweeping thread about the war and how people are cowards for not wanting to be bombed, and how it must be inherent to Southampton people to run and hide, not stand and support in trying times. I think someone has issues with anyone of principal, or just anyone enigmatic, or on a different viewpoint to you.

 

Actually, I know Keith House quite well and he told me that EBC were prepared to approve the stadium and associated sports facilities but it was the shopping/multiplex cinema part that they refused to permit, so Lowe pulled the plug on the application (ie didn't resubmit with amendments) and pursued St. Marys instead.

Eastleigh were worried about the effect that additional shops and a cinema would have on the "vibrant" Eastleigh Town Centre.

 

Exactly as I said. I believe the club could (and should) have resubmitted proposals. I felt there was a hint of stubbornness (Whether Lowe or not is open to question, who cares) and a certain degree of ego scuppered matters. After all, a hell of a lot of work (time and money) had been invested by the club. I felt the project was a great proposition (as did certain councillors) but the club seemed to pull out abruptly, like a spoilt child not getting their own way (with the cinema/supermarket add ons). I am not having a personal knock at Lowe. I am pleased he delivered us the stadium but I am being subjective, not merely pragmatic and objective. However, we did seem to just up our train set and stomp away from what was potentially a project/stadium with much more solid foundations than we currently have. As a side thought, even the sharing of the ground with athletics, or other community uses on a green belt heavily reserved for sport, may have helped share the burden of the inevitable overdraft/stadium with additional funding, rather than soley the club. Especially upon the threat of relegation, and the undeniable revenue drop. Still, hindsight and all that…although foresight……………….

 

It is a plc. It is not the club it used to be. And I can't see anything that smacks of a concerted effort to make it the heart and soul of the community.

 

I can be accused of hankering after the past, after the days when I felt I was supporting a club that existed because it felt itself to be the heart and soul of the community, when the directors were not there to aggrandise themselves and make themselves a grubby buck.

 

But we now have an industry that is just money oriented, and is only interested in fans in so far as they buy tickets and merchandise.

 

You say the club is meant to be the heart and soul of the community. You tell me exactly how this club enthusiastically opens its arms to fans beyond the 120 minutes they are in the ground on match days.

 

It’s a good point well put. Some on here can’t accept balanced sense so expect over-zealous, over-defenceless fence sitting and non-committal or rose tinged views. Due to the large plethora of anti-Lowe feeling (some balanced, some wildly blinkered), there is equally a wildly narrow minded faction (mentioning no names but look on this thread! ;o) that defend any stance against the current board, without due diligence or consideration. I won’t get embroiled in any more of that (much like Roman has now had enough posting on matters, it’s rhetorical and dull).

[Gordon Mockles]

Well if it meant us to have a running track around the stadium I’m glad we didn’t get it. Would the club have owned those facilities or was EBC going to have those costs.

 

Wes I respect that you know far more than I do on this subject and I don’t know who we should thank for the stadium, but I do know that since the 60's I had seen the promise of a stadium time and again come to nothing. Under RL the stadium was delivered and so he must have some credit as SCC does as well. I do not see a problem though him trying to be shrewd and get the best deal.

 

I wasn't going to engage any of the "support Lowe regardless" comments but Nickh, you're priceless. Are you so far up Lowe's arse you can't hear the people talking? Your views seem so short sighted and entirely one-sided, despite your vain attempts to mildly belittle Lowe and purport to being objective.

 

You are aware of the intricacies, or indeed, main stalling points, that scuppered the Stoneham Project? Read above if not or read Daily Echo archives (or other available literature or government planning archives for a wider picture)

 

Sorry if my riposte seems harsh but come on, be fair. I clearly do not like Lowe but I have posted above without personal feeling, merely concerns for the club back in the time of Stoneham, etc. You need to look and delve a bit further.

 

As I just mentioned, running tracks wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing if cost and ownership were shared (i.e. less burden around our neck, yet we still get to play on the pitch and sit in our seats – who cares how the finances are shared as long as we get to see the football or a quality we deserve). Ideally, we own the stadium, have no track and have no debt. But we don’t live in Pleasantville and just look at our current predicament! Looking at the prospective stadium, the ball was rolling before Lowe arrived at The Dell (although I will not bandwagon and Lowe bash, just for the sake of habit on this forum. Lowe can duly take credit for giving us the stadium. I feel, once he started, he was determined to deliver us a new ground. It is entirely relevant that Southampton County Council played a key part (Obviously) but more so following the collapse of Stoneham. That needs be said if you are to look at ALL the facts. You agreed, SCC are due credit but (and it’s a big BUT(t) and Lowe did deliver but do you not think it odd how no plan was resubmitted on Stoneham following the failed planning application?! It seemed odd that the additional leisure facilities were refused, then the plug was pulled and the club stomped away. Pangs of ego and having to answer to no-one struck me all those years back, and they have a certain resonance now! Do you not agree?

[TheSaint75]

You have no right whatsoever to expect a previous customer to carry on being a customer just because it suits you, just because you want to carry on being able to go. Nor do you have the right to tell other customers that they should buy the product because you think the quality is good enough.

 

This is exactly what Lowe thinks fans should be doing, that somehow once a fan always a fan, and whatever the quality of the product on offer, and however he talks to his customers, we somehow must carry on being customers, that it's our duty to do so.

 

Every individual fan has the right to buy or not to buy, and to comment on the quality. Disagree with their view of the product's quality if you like, disagree with their view of the quality of all-round service or business direction, but don't tell them that they have an obligation to buy what is on offer.

 

 

Could I just reiterate that when I referenced 'stay away' in my original post I meant the anti-lowe stay aways, NOT people who feel the product on offer is sub-standard.

 

That said I don't feel the product is worse than last season when we had higher gates.

 

But some will not know this as they don't go......more fool them IMO

[Gordon Mockles]

Wes and Um, your blinkered negative view on this club is bewildering.

 

I thought they offer reasoned, balanced and objective points. All for the greater good, unless you have other ideas?! Ok, Um (Steve isn't it) does go off on one at times (I can't comment! LOL) and sometimes won't let certain matters go but we all have our viewpoints and stand up for what we believe in. I know I do, probably much to the bewilderment of many!

 

I'd much rather read their comments than the overtly defensive, non-committal fence sitting from many on here. You know the type – They’re happy and they clap, they smile (I hope they don’t wear sandals and socks too! LOL), they sometimes belittle the moaners but offer nothing to the table, merely nodding and agreeing with whatever they’re served , while toasting their marshmallows & keeping their feet warm, whilst St Mary's burns!! Not stereotyping of course!

 

My positive view is not blinkered. On many occasions in my posts I've openly stated that mistakes have been made. My view is balanced, I just take a positive slant and have a positive outlook. Make the most of what you've got and stop complaining all the time. Its boring.

 

If you're not blinkered and open minded, then you shouldn't let the obligatory moaning that comes with football effect you. After all, look at our past few seasons and league position. That merits some criticism, surely!? There's positive, there's optimistic and there's realistic. Judging by recent (and not so) history, we've ever right to be cynical and question matters. I find it more boring when people blindly hope for the best and sit on their fence. I still go and support the team whenever I can, but I put my view and opinion across. It just differs to yours!

 

It’s all about personal standards. I have higher expectations (in our case [for now], just playing well enough to remain, rebuild and play competitively in this league) than some. Others, evidently, do not. Don’t let that bewilder you. :smt075

 

;o)

Edited 28 November, 2008 by Gordon Mockles

[OldNick]

I wasn't going to engage any of the "support Lowe regardless" comments but Nickh, you're priceless. Are you so far up Lowe's arse you can't hear the people talking? Your views seem so short sighted and entirely one-sided, despite your vain attempts to mildly belittle Lowe and purport to being objective.

 

You are aware of the intricacies, or indeed, main stalling points, that scuppered the Stoneham Project? Read above if not or read Daily Echo archives (or other available literature or government planning archives for a wider picture)

 

Sorry if my riposte seems harsh but come on, be fair. I clearly do not like Lowe but I have posted above without personal feeling, merely concerns for the club back in the time of Stoneham, etc. You need to look and delve a bit further.

 

As I just mentioned, running tracks wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing if cost and ownership were shared (i.e. less burden around our neck, yet we still get to play on the pitch and sit in our seats – who cares how the finances are shared as long as we get to see the football or a quality we deserve). Ideally, we own the stadium, have no track and have no debt. But we don’t live in Pleasantville and just look at our current predicament! Looking at the prospective stadium, the ball was rolling before Lowe arrived at The Dell (although I will not bandwagon and Lowe bash, just for the sake of habit on this forum. Lowe can duly take credit for giving us the stadium. I feel, once he started, he was determined to deliver us a new ground. It is entirely relevant that Southampton County Council played a key part (Obviously) but more so following the collapse of Stoneham. That needs be said if you are to look at ALL the facts. You agreed, SCC are due credit but (and it’s a big BUT(t) and Lowe did deliver but do you not think it odd how no plan was resubmitted on Stoneham following the failed planning application?! It seemed odd that the additional leisure facilities were refused, then the plug was pulled and the club stomped away. Pangs of ego and having to answer to no-one struck me all those years back, and they have a certain resonance now! Do you not agree?

I will refrain from sniping back on your first childish response.

I do not support everything Rl does and says. I just look at it how I feel.

I have been going since 1968 in that long period i had my hopes raised on many occasions about getting a stadium. Under, some what seem great chairman, they never came up with the goods in fact they held us back when LM was doing wonderful things and we could well have won the league had they stumped up for Trevor Francis in the season we finished 2nd. RL was our chairman when by hook or by crook (I dont care who) he got it done. It matters not 1 iota to me who put what where,but he at least signed it off with whoever.

Yes Stoneham may have been good but if the running track was inside the stadium, which for cost it probably would be, that would have made a difference to my pastime as the pitch would be father away and the atmosphere lessened. I dont go ten pin bowling and don't see why other sports should be levered into a bigger sports facilities.

The shopping aspect I would have stomached as i would see that as being something that the profits/rents would have made the club healthier.

As for stomping away, well perhaps they did i suspect dealing with a load of Liberals who didnt know international cricket was going to be played at the Rose bowl that they didnt object to. They couldnt see that it would have made a big difference to Eastleigh in regeneration and have shopping centres that people might actually want to visit. Tell me how much better Eastleigh is now compared to then and I will say it has gone backwards as a centre and the residents have lost out, mainly due to a few who scared them by telling thewm that football thugs would be running through their streets.

I put on here as i see it and would listen if the opposing people understood that just because people understand some of what RL does that it doesnt mean we love him.

[s0108787]

WTF has Stoneham got to with things?!

 

I support a football club that has had to keep evolving to survive, it is now a Plc but it is still the club i support.

 

FFS! We have an important game tomorrow, lets all hope we win and can get some momentum for a push up the table.

 

Enjoy the rollercoaster ride that is football, life is too short to worry about things beyond our control.

 

Lets make the best of what we have and support the team.

 

COYR!

[Gordon Mockles]

WTF has Stoneham got to with things?!

 

I support a football club that has had to keep evolving to survive, it is now a Plc but it is still the club i support.

 

FFS! We have an important game tomorrow, lets all hope we win and can get some momentum for a push up the table.

 

Enjoy the rollercoaster ride that is football, life is too short to worry about things beyond our control.

 

Lets make the best of what we have and support the team.

 

COYR!

 

In case it had slipped your attention, this thread was about finances, administration and some interesting topics had arisen in the Saints timeline, and the subject moved on to stadia and the ill fated Stoneham project, as well as the Dell, etc. If you don’t understand the relevance of that...well, no comment. Have another pint son! (and treat yourself some peanuts!)

 

If you’ve no interest in that, try posting on one of the many football threads rather than inanely cheering and whooping like some blind-folded, over-enthusiastic puppy in a bonio factory. LOL

 

[sorry to be rude Nick but I do sometimes wonder]

[s0108787]

In case it had slipped your attention, this thread was about finances, administration and some interesting topics had arisen in the Saints timeline, and the subject moved on to stadia and the ill fated Stoneham project, as well as the Dell, etc. If you don’t understand the relevance of that...well, no comment. Have another pint son! (and treat yourself some peanuts!)

 

If you’ve no interest in that, try posting on one of the many football threads rather than inanely cheering and whooping like some blind-folded, over-enthusiastic puppy in a bonio factory. LOL

 

[sorry to be rude Nick but I do sometimes wonder]

 

No it hadn't escaped me, but you people are always inanely banging on about finance / political issues / conspiracy theories. When frankly, what you actually know about these things could be written on the back of a postage stamp.

Edited 28 November, 2008 by s0108787

[Wes Tender]

No it hadn't escaped me, but you people are always inanely banging on about finance / political issues / conspiracy theories. When frankly, what you actually know about these things could be written on the back of a postage stamp.

 

If in your opinion the sum of our knowledge can be written on the back of a postage stamp, then no doubt you will kindly enlighten us where we have gone wrong in our posts with your dazzling expertise on the subject.

 

Unless we receive this information together with the backing that gives it gravitas as being factual, then we will be forced to conclude that you are ignorant of the goings on and just trying to be the know it all. Which is it? Put up or shut up.

[Wes Tender]

And by the way, Nickh, the running track was not to have been around the stadium, but part of the separate complex of the Sports Centre that EBC would have had built. Logically, of course the cost of building the stadium with a running track around a pitch is higher than one without, as naturally the stadium itself has to be bigger to accommodate it.

[s0108787]

If in your opinion the sum of our knowledge can be written on the back of a postage stamp, then no doubt you will kindly enlighten us where we have gone wrong in our posts with your dazzling expertise on the subject.

 

Unless we receive this information together with the backing that gives it gravitas as being factual, then we will be forced to conclude that you are ignorant of the goings on and just trying to be the know it all. Which is it? Put up or shut up.

 

You do appear to be quite sensitive about this so maybe i touched a nerve...

 

I don't profess to know about all of the internal happenings at SMS but then there is no point asking me anyway, i'm just a "blind-folded, over-enthusiastic puppy in a bonio factory".

 

LOL

 

Some of the drivel, opinion and assumption banded around on here as fact make me laugh my nuts off.

 

If i'm ignorant, at least i'm intelligent enough to realise it.

Edited 28 November, 2008 by s0108787

[Wes Tender]

You do appear to be quite sensitive about this so maybe i touched a nerve...

 

I don't profess to know about all of the internal happenings at SMS but then there is no point asking me anyway, i'm just a "blind-folded, over-enthusiastic puppy in a bonio factory".

 

LOL

 

Some of the drivel, opinions and assumptions banded around on here as fact make me laugh my nuts off.

 

If i'm ignorant, at least i'm intelligent enough to realise it.

 

Ah. So you're all mouth. And your contention that the sum total knowledge of all who posted on this subject could be written on the back of a postage stamp is totally without foundation.

 

It didn't touch a nerve; I just don't like posters disparaging others by saying that their opinions are garbage without explaining why. It is a very easy thing to do, but more difficult to sunstantiate, as you have found out.

 

And your last two sentences are contradictory, unless you would laugh at something not knowing why it was funny. But I could believe that too.

[s0108787]

Ah. So you're all mouth. And your contention that the sum total knowledge of all who posted on this subject could be written on the back of a postage stamp is totally without foundation.

 

It didn't touch a nerve; I just don't like posters disparaging others by saying that their opinions are garbage without explaining why. It is a very easy thing to do, but more difficult to sunstantiate, as you have found out.

 

And your last two sentences are contradictory, unless you would laugh at something not knowing why it was funny. But I could believe that too.

 

 

It took you that long to come up with that response? Not worth waiting for really.

 

I think'll you find if you really think about what i've written - it may be a stretch for you admittedly - you'll realise none of it was contradictory.

 

I'll leave you to play in your own little fantasy land, where your opinion on things actually matters.

[surrey1saint]

well said:smt041

 

i can't be arsed to argue with anyone on here b'cos at the end of the day we all really want the best for the team

 

coyrs

 

+1 coyr!!

[Wes Tender]

It took you that long to come up with that response? Not worth waiting for really.

 

I think'll you find if you really think about what i've written - it may be a stretch for you admittedly - you'll realise none of it was contradictory.

 

I'll leave you to play in your own little fantasy land, where your opinion on things actually matters.

 

It took me how long? Did you have your little mickey mouse stopwatch on it?

 

It might surprise you to know that others have a life other than on here and just pop on from time to time as their schedules permit.

 

As I said before, the point is that I challenged you to substantiate disparaging remarks you made about other posters knowledge about what they wrote on this thread, or to shut up. You have proven that you cannot pick fault with anything so far and are having to resort to juvenile responses instead. Don't you have homework to do?

[um pahars]

Wes and Um, your blinkered negative view on this club is bewildering.

 

With all due respect, you offered up your view point and Wes and I merely offered up our own views (as well as correcting a few factual inaccuracies in your post).

 

Now if you find our views bewildering, then ultimately that is your decision.

 

However, I do think your use of the word bewildering is rather strange. Apart from a few obstinate posters, a few weirdos and a few wind up merchants, posters on here tend to form and hold their own beliefs after much thought and mulling over.

 

I may disagree with some people's outlooks an opinions on certain matters, but I can appreciate they are their own validly held and espoused opinions and I certainly wouldn't be bewildered just because someone disagreed with me!!!!!

 

In fact, I would probably find it more bewildering if everyone in the Saints family held the same viewpoint about things (apart from everyone accepting Shilton as our best ever goalkeeper....... now hang on, don't some think it's Niemi??? How bewildering!!!!).

 

If you have a different outlook then fair enough, if you have some different information then fair enough, but to come on here and post two lengthy posts and then resort to one line quips when people respond is slightly akin to taking your ball away in a huff.

[um pahars]

Was House the bloke on TV who LM showed up when he didnt realise International cricket would be played at the Rose Bowl and the size of the crowds expected.

 

He was indeed, and I cornered him after that interview for Meridian at the time. I'm even sure it was a Friday night as I ended up missing my lift into town!!!!!!!!

 

He had no idea that the capacity at the Rose Bowl could eventually go up to something like 20,000, and that internationals would possibly be held there. He also couldn't give a decent response to why it would was different to build on greenfield land at West End than for Stoneham.

 

Eventually, he trotted out the old line about marauding football supporters spilling into Eastleigh etc etc etc.

 

EBC and House did eventually warm to Stoneham (although as many have pointed out, I'm not overly sure just how committed they were), but earlier in the project EBC councillors did vote 16-0 against it (before they were overturned by the Dept of the Environment)!!!!

[OldNick]

He was indeed, and I cornered him after that interview for Meridian at the time. I'm even sure it was a Friday night as I ended up missing my lift into town!!!!!!!!

 

He had no idea that the capacity at the Rose Bowl could eventually go up to something like 20,000, and that internationals would possibly be held there. He also couldn't give a decent response to why it would was different to build on greenfield land at West End than for Stoneham.

 

Eventually, he trotted out the old line about marauding football supporters spilling into Eastleigh etc etc etc.

 

EBC and House did eventually warm to Stoneham (although as many have pointed out, I'm not overly sure just how committed they were), but earlier in the project EBC councillors did vote 16-0 against it (before they were overturned by the Dept of the Environment)!!!!

Thanks for that Um, he made my blood boil and to be fair to LM he really made him look the p#### he was

[miserableoldgit]

Is it selfish stay-away MFI customers who have enforced administration on other MFI customers who wanted to buy a kitchen?

 

Do inhabitants of the Southampton area have a duty, an obligation, to carry on paying for a product they don't much want, from a company they don't much like, just so other football fans can continue to get what they want, just because they want it?

Did people stop going to MFI because they didn`t like the Chairman?:confused:

[s0108787]

It took me how long? Did you have your little mickey mouse stopwatch on it?

 

It might surprise you to know that others have a life other than on here and just pop on from time to time as their schedules permit.

 

As I said before, the point is that I challenged you to substantiate disparaging remarks you made about other posters knowledge about what they wrote on this thread, or to shut up. You have proven that you cannot pick fault with anything so far and are having to resort to juvenile responses instead. Don't you have homework to do?

 

You have almost 2000 posts, you obviously have a really fulfilling life!

 

And I think you'll find you were disparaging about me first, so perhaps you should practice what you preach grandad.

[Snowballs2]

My positive view is not blinkered. On many occasions in my posts I've openly stated that mistakes have been made. My view is balanced, I just take a positive slant and have a positive outlook. Make the most of what you've got and stop complaining all the time. Its boring.

 

 

For every one positive view there are 8 negative views...so who is right ?

[Snowballs2]

Did people stop going to MFI because they didn`t like the Chairman?:confused:

 

No..lack of money and poor product !!!

[John B]

For every one positive view there are 8 negative views...so who is right ?

 

I dont think that is right there are more negative posters but the positive posters are more sensible and more realistic

[Snowballs2]

I dont think that is right there are more negative posters but the positive posters are more sensible and more realistic

 

 

 

Says you...you forgot to put, IMO, and I guess you are a positive who thinks he is always right !