Bon Call Night Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 Provided a CVA can be agreed, its only a 10-point deduction. Three games with a rejuvenated Rasiak and Saga playing. Go Figure......... Yep because they did so well for us last season!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 14 August, 2008 Author Share Posted 14 August, 2008 Yep because they did so well for us last season!!! They have to play to do anything. They were both fine the season before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 Sorry, it is complete nonsense to state that the players are not interested and cannot be bothered considering the environment they were in and the person who was managing them last season. In 2006-2007, Rasiak scored 20-odd goals in half a season, then popped up and nearly rescued the play-off for us. In 2006-2007, Saganowski score almost as many goals as he had starts... Are you trying to tell me these guys are suddenly shiit players ? Rasiak was humilliated by Burley mid-way thru 2006-2007, and last season was Saga's turn. The two could never play successfully together, nor could Raziak and John. It looks as though the team on Saturday will have John starting and Mcgoldrick on the right with Svennson alongside Perry, It doesn't look a bad combination to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 14 August, 2008 Author Share Posted 14 August, 2008 The two could never play successfully together, nor could Raziak and John. It looks as though the team on Saturday will have John starting and Mcgoldrick on the right with Svennson alongside Perry, It doesn't look a bad combination to me. Let's see how McG and John goes on Saturday, as you wrote. As for Killer, I am not expecting him to play on Saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintDonkey Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 Provided a CVA can be agreed, its only a 10-point deduction. Three games with a rejuvenated Rasiak and Saga playing. Go Figure......... How exactly are a rejuvenated Rasiak and Saga going to get us 10 points when in all likelihood they'll be playing for different clubs? The first thing the adminstrators would do is say 'sell the high earners'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 Davis James Svensson Davies Surman Schneiderlin Gillett Holmes DMG Lallana John Bart Perry Dyer BWP Wooton or Bart Ostlund Makin Benett Vignal Viafara Wright Safri Surman Saga Rasiak Safri, Saga and Rasiak are only big misses - although Saga was scared of shooting for a lot of last season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 How exactly are a rejuvenated Rasiak and Saga going to get us 10 points when in all likelihood they'll be playing for different clubs? The first thing the adminstrators would do is say 'sell the high earners'. That's what the bank said in May, but in order to sell someone, there must be a willing buyer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 Sorry, it is complete nonsense to state that the players are not interested and cannot be bothered considering the environment they were in and the person who was managing them last season. In 2006-2007, Rasiak scored 20-odd goals in half a season, then popped up and nearly rescued the play-off for us. In 2006-2007, Saganowski score almost as many goals as he had starts... Are you trying to tell me these guys are suddenly shiit players ? Rasiak was humilliated by Burley mid-way thru 2006-2007, and last season was Saga's turn. No offence Alpine but i saw most of the home and away games last year and have seen all of the games thus far this season. I can tell you right now our system we played last year even under Pearson was luck football. Nobody played in a team it was individuals playing for themself and when things start to go bad majority of them went and hid. Rasiak isn't a bad player, John isn't a bad player, Skacel isn't a bad player but Viafara,Wright,Euell,Safri,Licka,Saga,Idiakez,Thomas,Vignal were all crap last year. Majority of the games John and Rasiak played they were crap but they would score a goal. The story doesn't mention the amount of chances they would miss. Point being they were not working as a team and that is what bought us close to being relegated. They were not interested in playing for our club and the stats show that. Now that does not mean the youngsters are better because they currently are not but they have something the others don't have, time to improve. When we went 1 down at Cardiff most of us thought we would cave in and be thumped like under Burley. But we didn't we as a team came back and scored a well worked team goal. Again i don't mean this in a nasty way but the key word here is "Team", and right now we are playing like a group of people who all want to play with each other and do well for the club. They work as a team not individuals. If they make a mistake they don't argue with each other, if they can they get into positions to help each other, if they lose the ball they try hard to re-get it. When they have the ball they don't take the easy option and just launch it up the field. Now anyone who is a fan of football would be more happier with their team the way we are currently trying to play then the way we tried to play last season. And any fan of this club and more importantly any fan who has seen it with their own eyes knows we have a better chance of staying up with our current system then reverting back to how we played last season, i hope i never have to witness football like that again. Lazy football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danbert Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 Alpine - many of the posters on this thread feel that getting rid of the high earners and relying on academy graduates is unavoidable given our current financial constraints - you on the other hand clearly feel that there is some sort of alternative. Would you care to sketch it for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totton Red Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 How exactly are a rejuvenated Rasiak and Saga going to get us 10 points when in all likelihood they'll be playing for different clubs? The first thing the adminstrators would do is say 'sell the high earners'.[/QUOTE] Are we allowed to sell those on the board? Could be a fun thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 Alpine - many of the posters on this thread feel that getting rid of the high earners and relying on academy graduates is unavoidable given our current financial constraints - you on the other hand clearly feel that there is some sort of alternative. Would you care to sketch it for me? fair point. We could all agree that we would be more likely to be promoted with Andy Johnson or BT etc up front -but it ain't going to happen. Equally we are not able to keep Saga and Rasiak -but we have one of the top scorers in last years league left as well as good younger players -watching DMG a few years ago I was struck with the confidence he had -he knew he would score however he played. I saw more physical and mental commitment in the West Ham friendly, from these "lightweight (6ft?!) young players than I did in nearly any game for the last two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintDonkey Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 That's what the bank said in May, but in order to sell someone, there must be a willing buyer True - which is pretty much why they're going on loan rather than being sold. Still it's better we at least try to do what the bank says rather than go into administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 I am left feeling that we have fallen for a wind up again! I honestly don't believe that any saints fan can slag off some many players and things about the club and believe all is bad - without any firm information, making up assumptions as facts and totally lacking understanding or logic. I accept there are a range of views as to how well this will work out but this Schneidlerling is lightwieght and lacking character, DMG is poor etc is getting silly. BUT one poster has, looking at it positively acted as a catalyst for over 100 posts mainly of solidarity and understanding of our position, or negatively winding us all up. I don't think he can believe it himself (as falls when asked for alternatives or facts) but is winding us up. Although on my ignore I find myself dragged into this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintkiptanui Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 Plan B is put you on ignore because you sir are an arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 I tried that but can't help looking at all threads (sad!) and people keep quoting the nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totton Red Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 I tried that but can't help looking at all threads (sad!) and people keep quoting the nonsense Lidl selling crystal balls now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St_Tel49 Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 (edited) Sorry, but I am f**king livid that we are going into this season depending on David McGoldrick. Alps - you are always livid about something. Rather than ask what we would do let me ask you what you would do given the financial constraints we have to work under, and would have to work under, whether Lowe, Wilde, Crouch or Uncle Tom Cobleigh was in charge. Edited 15 August, 2008 by St_Tel49 misplaced comma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 Come on, I'd like to know from those of you who unequivocally endorse every single action Lowe and Wilde takes, and sneer at those of us who dont, what the Plan "B" is if it turns out that the level of competition in the CCC is totally incompatible with 32%...errr..."total football" - but that in the meantime we've sold every player with any nous about them that may be able to help turn such a nosediving situation around ? What happens if attendances fall due to dire results and performances as strong, physical teams pick off SFC due to good reading of the single tactic, badly executed due to players of insufficient talent ? Come on, I'd like to know what we do next, except ask Messrs Barclays and Norwich Union to call in the administrators ? You havent got a clue, have you ? Shearer! SHEARER! SHEARER! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 Plan B is put you on ignore because you sir are an arse. ....says the biggest arse on the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 You have a point but one of Lowe's faults last time he did not react until it was too late. The autumn Wigley was in charge loads of fans saw it was not working but Lowe stubbornly failed to see it himself (just a blimp he said). Having a plan B with the slightly unhinged Rupert around is a sensible tactic. If John goes - quite possible - we simply cannot rely on David McG who if you remember Burley farmed out to Port Vale last season and he failed to impress.I agree Lowe stuck with Wigley for too long. As I recall there were reasons, Sturrock had walked so to lose another manager so quickly was an issue, the squad was suffering from injuries that could have accounted for the run of drawn games and defeats, and having complained about poaching of managers the replacment had to be someone not currently employed. Of these, the weakest reason was not changing managers again so quickly, because that should have been seen as a risk when Wigley was appointed. Turning to the present, if John goes now that Rasiak has gone, I would see that as very bad judgement. DMG is looking good, but we can't have all the eggs etc. If the intention now is that John is staying, it would be a good PR move (and good for SJ), if the club were to make that clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 Come on, I'd like to know from those of you who unequivocally endorse every single action Lowe and Wilde takes, and sneer at those of us who dont, what the Plan "B" is if it turns out that the level of competition in the CCC is totally incompatible with 32%...errr..."total football" - but that in the meantime we've sold every player with any nous about them that may be able to help turn such a nosediving situation around ? What happens if attendances fall due to dire results and performances as strong, physical teams pick off SFC due to good reading of the single tactic, badly executed due to players of insufficient talent ? Come on, I'd like to know what we do next, except ask Messrs Barclays and Norwich Union to call in the administrators ? You havent got a clue, have you ? For God's sake man. get a life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 ....... Sturrock had walked ...... He was pushed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 I was pretty sure that players held no value on the balance sheets.... Players' values are written down over the length of their contracts. If they had no value on the balance sheet then there would be a number of ways of hiding trading profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torrent Of Abuse Posted 14 August, 2008 Share Posted 14 August, 2008 Why the feck are people talking about relegation with one game gone?? There is one thing I know about football. If you give up hope, you should give up going. Agreed. It is craziness. W0 D0 L1 is only relegation form if you like basing your figures on the shakiest of statistical ground. Alpine, just out of interest, what would be your plan B? Given that we've been losing money hand over fist and given that we're more likely to see the US cavalry riding over the brow of Lances Hill then we are to see an investor coming in to give us money, what do you suggest? None of us like NEEDING to rely on youth, but what do you think the alternative is? How many senior players do we need to keep to make you happy? (*serious question*) I think we can discount one alternative plan, though. Sacking the manager seems to be a bad idea. I think we can take it as read that if Poortvliet goes, we will replace him with the cheapest (and possibly most disastrous) option possible. I guess we don't have to go down that road again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 I thought this season was Plan B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alucard Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 They have to play to do anything. They were both fine the season before. Saganowski played in 32 matches last season and scored 3 goals. David McGoldrick has scored 6 goals in his last 4 games. It's bleedin obvious to me which one should be playiing. Why should we ignore Saga's abysmal record over 32 games last season and select him on what he did over 12 games the previous season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baird of the land Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 We're in hock to the bank who want us to slash our wage bill, it's as simple as that. Personally i'm happier with that than administration. Administration would mean docked points at the very least plus total carte blanche for other teams to take whatever player's they want from us by administrators. aka davies, surman etc would be sold to satisfy debtors. People who think administration is the answer look to luton, where they had a good little team playing neat passing football. A year later all those good young players are playing elsewhere after being sold.At least now we can choose which players are off the market and try and build around them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 With no money and still having to sell to avoid administration, what would you do as a plan B Alpine ? You are trying to hard to find every concievable fault. Sit back and relax a bit. You never know, you might enjoy the ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 (edited) Little side bet with you Alp's. I bet McGoldrick will score at least 20 this season. Edited 15 August, 2008 by slickmick spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Second Coming Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 Little side bet with you Alp's. I bet McGlodrich will score at least 20 this season. How appropriate for a bet with Alpine - our new Austrian striker??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitySaint Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 Can people please accept that the predicament we are in is down to the period of time the club was left without the stewardship of Mr R Lowe. Granted his football based decisions can at times be questioned, but his business nouse never could. In current climate, this years leadership and general attitude around the club can not be doubted, and I personally am far happier giving my money to this football club, than the poorly organised, pipe dream, joke of an organisation we had become over the last 2 seasons. Let's keep the positive vibe going on Saturday at home, believe . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 Provided a CVA can be agreed, its only a 10-point deduction. It will never happen like this. It has been impossible for previous clubs to agree a CVA with the tax and vat man. Customs and excise have been embroiled in litigation, most of which they have lost, on this subject so refuse to agree a CVA on principle. 17 points seems the going rate for a new start on top of the 10 points deduction in the year of Administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 We're in hock to the bank who want us to slash our wage bill, it's as simple as that. Personally i'm happier with that than administration. Administration would mean docked points at the very least plus total carte blanche for other teams to take whatever player's they want from us by administrators. aka davies, surman etc would be sold to satisfy debtors. People who think administration is the answer look to luton, where they had a good little team playing neat passing football. A year later all those good young players are playing elsewhere after being sold.At least now we can choose which players are off the market and try and build around them. Try telling that to Alpine saint because he does not have the nous to take this into his rabid rants against Rupert Lowe. Apparently only Lowe has the purse strings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 15 August, 2008 Author Share Posted 15 August, 2008 My Plan B, for those that have asked, is to take a more discriminatory approach to which players should be shipped out. I reckon a couple of senior pros could be saved, and with the correct man-management, would become productive members of the squad again. I am convinced that, if the Chairman were interested in doing so, he could make a convincing argument to the bank for saving a couple of players that the manager feels could make a difference. I dont believe Portvillet has had the opportunity to argue such a case and try to work with any of those players Lowe is trying to get rid of. I also feel those wages could probably be saved elsewhere, at least partially. As that 10-point list of conversation topics with JP has already indicated, he fears Lowe will sell players without consultation. One player I would have definitely saved is Saga. My annoyance at the Rasiak news is just a cumulative reaction at our massively reducing our attacking options and quality. Oh, and NickG, why do you feel compelled to remind everybody you are ignoring me whilst making sniping comments about my posts ? Sounds like attention-seeking to me. Also, why do you dismiss my posts as a wind-up and cannot accept I simply have a different perspective to you ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 It will never happen like this. It has been impossible for previous clubs to agree a CVA with the tax and vat man. Customs and excise have been embroiled in litigation, most of which they have lost, on this subject so refuse to agree a CVA on principle. 17 points seems the going rate for a new start on top of the 10 points deduction in the year of Administration.Alpine thinks that going intoadministration is fine.He doesnt factor in the uncertainty the morale sapping -10+ points and all of a sudden Rasiak andSaga are going to start scoring shedloads of goals. Rasiak is probably the laziest forward I have ever seen and yes he scores goals but he is so greedy he doesnt provide any chances for others.Therefore you get a forwardline scoring 20 goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 My Plan B, for those that have asked, is to take a more discriminatory approach to which players should be shipped out. I reckon a couple of senior pros could be saved, and with the correct man-management, would become productive members of the squad again. I am convinced that, if the Chairman were interested in doing so, he could make a convincing argument to the bank for saving a couple of players that the manager feels could make a difference. I dont believe Portvillet has had the opportunity to argue such a case and try to work with any of those players Lowe is trying to get rid of. I also feel those wages could probably be saved elsewhere, at least partially. As that 10-point list of conversation topics with JP has already indicated, he fears Lowe will sell players without consultation. One player I would have definitely saved is Saga. My annoyance at the Rasiak news is just a cumulative reaction at our massively reducing our attacking options and quality. Oh, and NickG, why do you feel compelled to remind everybody you are ignoring me whilst making sniping comments about my posts ? Sounds like attention-seeking to me. Also, why do you dismiss my posts as a wind-up and cannot accept I simply have a different perspective to you ?You have not addressed the 300k a week loss.That means all avenues are open for selling players,and obviously the big earners are prioritised. Selling/giving away the young blood saves very little. As for you happily going into administration...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 No offence Alpine but i saw most of the home and away games last year and have seen all of the games thus far this season. I can tell you right now our system we played last year even under Pearson was luck football. Nobody played in a team it was individuals playing for themself and when things start to go bad majority of them went and hid. Rasiak isn't a bad player, John isn't a bad player, Skacel isn't a bad player but Viafara,Wright,Euell,Safri,Licka,Saga,Idiakez,Thomas,Vignal were all crap last year. Majority of the games John and Rasiak played they were crap but they would score a goal. The story doesn't mention the amount of chances they would miss. Point being they were not working as a team and that is what bought us close to being relegated. They were not interested in playing for our club and the stats show that. Now that does not mean the youngsters are better because they currently are not but they have something the others don't have, time to improve. When we went 1 down at Cardiff most of us thought we would cave in and be thumped like under Burley. But we didn't we as a team came back and scored a well worked team goal. Again i don't mean this in a nasty way but the key word here is "Team", and right now we are playing like a group of people who all want to play with each other and do well for the club. They work as a team not individuals. If they make a mistake they don't argue with each other, if they can they get into positions to help each other, if they lose the ball they try hard to re-get it. When they have the ball they don't take the easy option and just launch it up the field. Now anyone who is a fan of football would be more happier with their team the way we are currently trying to play then the way we tried to play last season. And any fan of this club and more importantly any fan who has seen it with their own eyes knows we have a better chance of staying up with our current system then reverting back to how we played last season, i hope i never have to witness football like that again. Lazy football. It''s all very well talking about the 'team' ethic and how much better it is this year but if the players are not good enough then they're not good enough. I'm not saying they are by the way I'm just pointing out that playing as a team is not the be-all and end-all of things. If we wanted a truly integrated team to fight for one another then look no further than the local youth team leagues. These guys would die for one another but I doubt they'd do too well in the CCC. Despite his cracking start to the pre-season / season I too worry that we will rely on DMG and it would now appear that JP is perhaps sensing the same as he has brought John back into the frame and talked him up somewhat. Let's hope the club can balance the real longer term economies of maintaining CCC status with a marginally higher wage outlay (in keeping John) than having false short term economies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 15 August, 2008 Author Share Posted 15 August, 2008 You have not addressed the 300k a week loss.That means all avenues are open for selling players,and obviously the big earners are prioritised. Selling/giving away the young blood saves very little. As for you happily going into administration...... So getting rid of Saganowski saves £300K a week, does it ? Riiiighhht...... This discussion gets more and more ridiculous as people bend over even further backwards to defend the indefensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hacienda Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 So getting rid of Saganowski saves £300K a week, does it ? You are missing the blindingly obvious that we could recall him from loan at anytime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 15 August, 2008 Author Share Posted 15 August, 2008 You are missing the blindingly obvious that we could recall him from loan at anytime. But that's not true, is it ? Besides, can you see Lowe handing a part of the fee back to Aalborg ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hacienda Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 But that's not true, is it ? Besides, can you see Lowe handing a part of the fee back to Aalborg ? A loan player can be recalled at anytime. If we lost DM & SJ to injury and Lowe didn't recall him then we'd all see where is priorities really are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Second Coming Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 My Plan B, for those that have asked, is to take a more discriminatory approach to which players should be shipped out. I reckon a couple of senior pros could be saved, and with the correct man-management, would become productive members of the squad again. I am convinced that, if the Chairman were interested in doing so, he could make a convincing argument to the bank for saving a couple of players that the manager feels could make a difference. I dont believe Portvillet has had the opportunity to argue such a case and try to work with any of those players Lowe is trying to get rid of. I also feel those wages could probably be saved elsewhere, at least partially. As that 10-point list of conversation topics with JP has already indicated, he fears Lowe will sell players without consultation. One player I would have definitely saved is Saga. My annoyance at the Rasiak news is just a cumulative reaction at our massively reducing our attacking options and quality. Oh, and NickG, why do you feel compelled to remind everybody you are ignoring me whilst making sniping comments about my posts ? Sounds like attention-seeking to me. Also, why do you dismiss my posts as a wind-up and cannot accept I simply have a different perspective to you ? The international credit crisis passing you by...??? The idea that Lowe could argue with Barclays to save a man who scored 3 goals in a season is bonkers on so many levels. Totally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 15 August, 2008 Author Share Posted 15 August, 2008 The international credit crisis passing you by...??? The idea that Lowe could argue with Barclays to save a man who scored 3 goals in a season is bonkers on so many levels. Totally. I am fed up of trying to point out that Saganowski was mis-managed last season........ And when banks are losing BILLIONS of dollars a quarter, using this as an argument against Saganowski's wages is the funniest thing I have heard on here - EVER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 Plan B is put alpine in charge because he clearly knows best and the rest of us are mongs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 So getting rid of Saganowski saves £300K a week, does it ? Riiiighhht...... This discussion gets more and more ridiculous as people bend over even further backwards to defend the indefensible.you are the one trying to fudge your stupid arguement that its ok to go inot administration. If you are losing 300k a week to offload someone who is on 15k helps let alone all his add ons and of course us receiving a loan fee. I wouldnt want you to be in charge of a budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danbert Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 My Plan B, for those that have asked, is to take a more discriminatory approach to which players should be shipped out. I reckon a couple of senior pros could be saved, and with the correct man-management, would become productive members of the squad again. I am convinced that, if the Chairman were interested in doing so, he could make a convincing argument to the bank for saving a couple of players that the manager feels could make a difference. I dont believe Portvillet has had the opportunity to argue such a case and try to work with any of those players Lowe is trying to get rid of. I also feel those wages could probably be saved elsewhere, at least partially. As that 10-point list of conversation topics with JP has already indicated, he fears Lowe will sell players without consultation. One player I would have definitely saved is Saga. My annoyance at the Rasiak news is just a cumulative reaction at our massively reducing our attacking options and quality. Oh, and NickG, why do you feel compelled to remind everybody you are ignoring me whilst making sniping comments about my posts ? Sounds like attention-seeking to me. Also, why do you dismiss my posts as a wind-up and cannot accept I simply have a different perspective to you ? How do you know that this is not what is actually taking place? Perry is still with us and the signs are that John will be as well. I to am disappointed that Saga will be leaving but hey - life goes on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 I am fed up of trying to point out that Saganowski was mis-managed last season........ And when banks are losing BILLIONS of dollars a quarter, using this as an argument against Saganowski's wages is the funniest thing I have heard on here - EVER.YES the banks are losing money/or were, we are paying now. They wish to look deeply at any company whose overdraft is rising or at its limit.They want to see the company activily cutting costs not sitting on their hands as you would do. I find it incredible that somebody who doesnt watch a player becomes an expert on how good he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madruss Posted 15 August, 2008 Share Posted 15 August, 2008 I am fed up of trying to point out that Saganowski was mis-managed last season........ I think the reason you keep having to point this out is that it's a fairly lame argument. He was 'mis-managed'? What does that even mean? Even when he was scoring goals in 06/07, he consistently ran out of steam in the 65-75 minute period and had to be substituted. Same thing happened in 07/08. Every time I watched him play, he looked off the pace and could not carry on from about 15 minutes into the second half. Take away his goals, and you've got a pretty ineffective player. It can't help the manager's gameplan if you know that one of your strikers can't last 90 minutes (granted D&G didn't ever seem to have much of a gameplan, but I'm talking about Pearson's reign) If you then take his wages into account, you have to come to the conclusion that DMG provides massively more value for money than the Pole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 15 August, 2008 Author Share Posted 15 August, 2008 you are the one trying to fudge your stupid arguement that its ok to go inot administration. If you are losing 300k a week to offload someone who is on 15k helps let alone all his add ons and of course us receiving a loan fee. I wouldnt want you to be in charge of a budget. As I said the other day, if Saga's goals were to bring in a few results, I can easily imagine attendances increasing by 1000. Ergo, he's paid for.......... But no, you carry on lapping up the short-term blinkered spin being fed to you.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 15 August, 2008 Author Share Posted 15 August, 2008 YES the banks are losing money/or were, we are paying now. They wish to look deeply at any company whose overdraft is rising or at its limit.They want to see the company activily cutting costs not sitting on their hands as you would do. I find it incredible that somebody who doesnt watch a player becomes an expert on how good he is. So, if we keep Saganowski the bank will suddenly say SFC is not cutting costs ? So, you ARE saying he costs us £300K a week..... We could have two Frank Lampards for that.......... 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