DT Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 I don't bother to post so often these days given the level of simplistic solutions that some people keep returning to. (1) The directors have a duty to the shareholders to try to avoid administration. (2) If the cost cutting measures by the current board had not been taken the club's financial position would be even worse than it is now. (3) In an administration, the administrators act in the interests of the creditors, not the previous directors and would only sell to former directors if there was no better offer. To those who constantly return to the refrain that if only Rupert Lowe was not involved all would be well, its true that is consistent with the LAW OF LOGICAL ARGUMENT - "All is possible if you don't know what you are talking about!" If the club needs to raise capital in January and has no more credit with the banks, selling players is the only option. Better ideas, on postcards please to SMS, but doubt if the postman will be busy. Phew! Thank goodness you're posting again! We all really missed your insights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 I don't bother to post so often these days given the level of simplistic solutions that some people keep returning to. (1) The directors have a duty to the shareholders to try to avoid administration. (2) If the cost cutting measures by the current board had not been taken the club's financial position would be even worse than it is now. (3) In an administration, the administrators act in the interests of the creditors, not the previous directors and would only sell to former directors if there was no better offer. To those who constantly return to the refrain that if only Rupert Lowe was not involved all would be well, its true that is consistent with the LAW OF LOGICAL ARGUMENT - "All is possible if you don't know what you are talking about!" If the club needs to raise capital in January and has no more credit with the banks, selling players is the only option. Better ideas, on postcards please to SMS, but doubt if the postman will be busy. 1) We know 2) We know 3) We know Doesn't mean we have to like the medicine or the person administering it does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 I don't bother to post so often these days given the level of simplistic solutions that some people keep returning to. (1) The directors have a duty to the shareholders to try to avoid administration. (2) If the cost cutting measures by the current board had not been taken the club's financial position would be even worse than it is now. (3) In an administration, the administrators act in the interests of the creditors, not the previous directors and would only sell to former directors if there was no better offer. To those who constantly return to the refrain that if only Rupert Lowe was not involved all would be well, its true that is consistent with the LAW OF LOGICAL ARGUMENT - "All is possible if you don't know what you are talking about!" If the club needs to raise capital in January and has no more credit with the banks, selling players is the only option. Better ideas, on postcards please to SMS, but doubt if the postman will be busy. difference between us and other businesses/clubs who have money problems 1) shareholders and directors same people 2) in other football clubs major creditor is often a director/shareholder so administrator is working with the club. But of course we are a plc in this instance ( conviently forgetting run as a private concern for a few individuals) But of course our Directors are owed nothing by the company because they have never put anything in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 I think what needs to made vERY clear to anyone advocating administration as a preferred option is as follows: Administrators act in the interests of Creditors first and for most - to try wherever possible to get them to agree to reduction in net debt - get something or nothing - and hopefully leave a going concern t theend, if they cant find a suitable buyer in the first instance willing to take on the debt - What we need to remember here is that anyone who is currently unwilling to take o the club and 'waiting' for admin to try and get it on the cheap, cant be that loaded, afterall, we you could currently buy the club for about 8 or 9 mil.... Many on here have lamented Lowes inability to recognise that a club is nothing without its fans and he does not have the clubs interests at heart, only his own... Well whatever you think on this one thing is for sure - The Administrators would not give a flying feck about fans, only the creditors... Lowes best option for opersonal gain is footballing success - stability, survival, and long term growth to a premiership return, a return to profit and dividends and better share value - he might as some believe want this purely for ego and personal greed, but if thats the case at least it would deliver the success we crave - Administrators dont give a feck about football, just getting the max for those we owe to. In teh abscence of any body coming forward to take us on with cash in tehir pocket, sticking with 'greedy bastards' who want to suckle at the premiership teet, is by far the best option... the problem is we need to stablise first - and that means continued cost cutting or realisation of assets that someone is actually interested in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Porter Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 If Lallana goes for 2m someone will be getting a massive bargain. Would rather he goes somewhere like Fulham where he can get a game than one of the top sides. Not really sure where Surman would go, I doubt any Premiership clubs would be interested and I'm not sure if he'd be very happy about leaving Souhampton for another Championship side. I do think we can still avoid relegation without them. Both great players but if we replace them with players who are probably less skillfull but more effective in the league we should be ok. Euell and Cork into midfield instead of them both would give more experience, muscle and probably goals which is something we've been lackign this season. Will be a shame to lose our two most promising academy players but it doesn't automatically mean relegation. I would prefer it if we just tried to sell Skacel, Saga, Rasiak, Dyer, John, Forecast and Bialskowski before those two but they are obviously the two most sellable assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Porter Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 Also, I think Euell might possibly be more productive in the hole than Lallana. Certainly could help having an experienced head in the final third. I'd expect more goals from Euell than Lallana. I agree, would make McGoldrick more productive as well, Euell is far better in the air than Patterson or McGoldrick. They could probably both switch around as well with Euell going upfront and McGoldrick deeper. Hopefully they will play together on Saturday, use Robertson as an impact sub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Porter Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 McGoldrick was by far our most threatening attacking player against Charlton on Saturday and is the new "Jermaine Wright" IMO. People have to blame someone and it's easy to point the finger at a creative player. Given that we are clearly not going to see John, Rasiak or Saga in a Saints shirt again would someone like to suggest who in our current squad is remotely capable of playing upfront? Wright Phillips missed two great chances against Charlton and has a proven track-record of being unable to find the net on a consistent basis. Peckhart and Robertson are awful. Paterson may be good but frankly, who knows how good or whether good enough. McGoldrick is one of our only players actually able to hurt the opposition. When isolated against a defender he will beat him more often than not. He was taking the **** out of Cranie when he moved to left wing. By the way, I probably would have included Euell in the list but I forgot about him. You're asking for trouble trying to defend McGoldrick on here, I'm sure people will see the light eventually. He certainly is the new Jermaine Wright though which is ridiculous IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 1) We know 2) We know 3) We know Doesn't mean we have to like the medicine or the person administering it does it? Suppository? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 Tottenham, Arsenal and Liverpool are chasing Lallana, 20, who is rated at around £2 million. http://www.tribalfootball.com/arsenal-spurs-liverpool-scramble-available-lallana-214655after wathing Arsenals kids the other night I doubt they need to pay millions for AL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 You're asking for trouble trying to defend McGoldrick on here, I'm sure people will see the light eventually. He certainly is the new Jermaine Wright though which is ridiculous IMO.Ive defended him as well, and i state that he will become a top player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Porter Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 I meant he's the teams new scapegoat. Which he is, people give him far too much stick about his attitude, effort, lack of goals or anything else he does wrong. This last month he's probably been our best attacking player mainly down to his improved work ethic. Sadly I think a lot of Saints fans have already formed an opinion on McGoldrick no matter how well he played or how hard he tries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offix Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 In an effort to "save" the club they kill the club by selling everything. Either way there will be no club left with these morons in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forestroad saint Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 Rupert Lowe on the radio now saying that this is not the case we do not have to sell and its probably a premier league club putting these rumors around to force saints hand into selling during the transfer window!!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 I meant he's the teams new scapegoat. Which he is, people give him far too much stick about his attitude, effort, lack of goals or anything else he does wrong. This last month he's probably been our best attacking player mainly down to his improved work ethic. Sadly I think a lot of Saints fans have already formed an opinion on McGoldrick no matter how well he played or how hard he tries.agreed but the hate mob love their scapegoats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 Rupert Lowe on the radio now saying that this is not the case we do not have to sell and its probably a premier league club putting these rumors around to force saints hand into selling during the transfer window!!. And how many are going to see this as RL saying "show us the colour of your money, but we want more" Say what you like about him, he knows how to get top dollar for the players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martel Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 Can we avoid the drop without Surman & Lallana? If not, avoiding the 10 point penalty is balanced out by relegation. Either way, we are totally buggered As far as Lallana is concerned then I reckon Jamie White could fill that role well, as for Surman though I think he would be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 Rupert Lowe on the radio now saying that this is not the case we do not have to sell and its probably a premier league club putting these rumors around to force saints hand into selling during the transfer window!!. The old "It's not us, it's the others" routine. Bet he didn't say they wouldn't be sold though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 In an effort to "save" the club they kill the club by selling everything. Either way there will be no club left with these morons in charge. Offix, 2-3 seasons ago many fans were telling us on here they 'wanted anyone but Lowe.' Fans like myself questioned the choice and were not fooled by the Wilde bunch.We swallowed the nonsense and took it gracefully but with trepidation. The fans who could see through the madness didn't start the 'Im not going while they are here.' etc but carried on supporting the club even though it was patently the wrong choice at that time. That reckless period of 'football first' was patently not right and we are now further back than IMO we would be now if we had stayed patient and waited for a proper group to come forward and take us on. In that time that the new lot were here the worlds economy was in a better state . Having just taken over i doubt that other parties would have looked at us and the new people i doubt would have sold as they were putting forward their new fan friendly scheme. Now RL has come back, not as a saviour in my book but to get some sort of plan going to keep the club alive. Now of course it is not to some fans liking that RL has returned but at least there is a plan (that may fail miserably) but at least the club and squad know which way they are going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 Rupert Lowe on the radio now saying that this is not the case we do not have to sell and its probably a premier league club putting these rumors around to force saints hand into selling during the transfer window!!. The old "It's not us, it's the others" routine. Bet he didn't say they wouldn't be sold though? Eh?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 Eh?? There's a difference between saying "we do not have to sell" and "we are not selling". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 There's a difference between saying "we do not have to sell" and "we are not selling".you are right, but how can a football club chairman in the CCC say 'we are not selling' that is obviously nonsense as everyone has a price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 So what's new? We have successfully harboured a few players, a couple of which might be sold. Wow. Debts need paying whoever is in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 you are right, but how can a football club chairman in the CCC say 'we are not selling' that is obviously nonsense as everyone has a price. Obviously but so is deflecting blame to unnamed Premiership clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 Obviously but so is deflecting blame to unnamed Premiership clubs.he is saying we dont have to sell. of course he is protecting our assets in respect that if clubs are looking to rob us cheaply of players they can't. You are right that he is not saying that they wont be sold. Anyone who thinks that there is not a player at the club we will not seell is naive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Wayman Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 It's an easy decision for me if Surman & Lallana are sold. My current anti-Lowe stay away stance this season has gone quite some way towards curing my lifelong Saints addiction. When the time comes to renew my not-in-use ST it won't be necessary as I'll no longer be interested. Of course, I really want the reverse to happen, Lowe is sold off i January and Surman becomes Chairman and Lallana becomes Dirctor of Football.. if only! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonsaint1604 Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 When the time comes to renew my not-in-use ST it won't be necessary as I'll no longer be interested. I'll give you a tenner for it now, at least then you'll get something out of it. It's a shame to let it go to waste after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 When the time comes to renew my not-in-use ST it won't be necessary as I'll no longer be interested. Ignore londonsaint1604...i'll give you a fiver for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFKA South Woodford Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 Tottenham, Arsenal and Liverpool are chasing Lallana, 20, who is rated at around £2 million. http://www.tribalfootball.com/arsenal-spurs-liverpool-scramble-available-lallana-214655 And a hefty sell on clause! On the subject of administration. It would be better not to have a points deduction to contend with. Starting next season on -10 points does not bode well for a promotion campaign. Plus you then have to let the FA look at all of your accounts and if they find anything they don't like, we'll be facing an even bigger penalty of somewhere between 25 and 40 points, if the Rotherham and Luton debacle's are anything to go by. So Administration, no thanks! As it will mean non league football for a club with a 32,000 seat stadium that they can't afford the upkeep on, let alone paying off whatever is left of the percentage in the pound to any of their creditors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 The problem here is people are talking as if the loanees are our players. They are not!! If we manage to extend their loans and that is a big IF, their parent clubs will have instant recall on them. I would love to keep Cork and don't really see him as part of Chelsea's immediate plans but if another Premiership club were to come in for him, we would lose out. It's interesting people's opinions of Pearce because he has only played 2 1/2 games of the 5 we've played since his arrival, therefore surely too early to make any real decision. Robertson's been no better than average and Smith and Peckhart haven't done anything. I think if we lose Surman and Lallana, we will get relegated and that would almost certainly lead to administration anyway. At last some common sense. Well said. Can't understand how so many people think selling Lallana and Surman would not result in relegation? Like above poster says Pearce has played 2.5 games. Gasmi has played no games at this level and suddenly he's good enough to play right side midfield? Holmes is injured. Robertson, Pekhart and Smith have not proved they are good enough. Which other midfielder left is going to make forward runs? Wotton? Gillett? James? Gobern? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callysaint76 Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 I think if we had to get rid of one it would be Lallana. Although he is great to watch he doesn't have much of an end product, so i dont think we would miss him that much. Surman on the other hand is crucial to our survival, he seems to really care and is a real driving force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docker-p Posted 4 December, 2008 Share Posted 4 December, 2008 Getting rid of Lowe would be a major saving off the wage bill. Money grabbing bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 5 December, 2008 Share Posted 5 December, 2008 So what's new? We have successfully harboured a few players, a couple of which might be sold. Wow. Debts need paying whoever is in charge. More truth in 3 lines than in 100 posts! Excellent post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now