Wes Tender Posted 17 August, 2008 Share Posted 17 August, 2008 So what you are saying is that a much more experienced team on much higher wages played as well as yesterday's young inexperienced team and lost by a similar margin, therefore we are heading for disaster this year? No. That is what you are saying. I was replying to saintkiptanui's assertion that had we somehow played Birmingham last season, (although they were then a Premiership team), they would have put five or six past our team. I'm assuming that he was talking about a hypothetical situation whereby our last season's team played this current Brum team. Please keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highfield Saint Posted 17 August, 2008 Share Posted 17 August, 2008 With most businesses the plug would already have been pulled and we would be floating don the river. That's an interesting perspective. There are or will be thousands of businesses out there which will be scrapping for survival. They do not have the luxury of being able to rely on customers to turn up even though the product is worse than it was a few years ago instead they have to put together a business plan and (what???) invest in this in order to deliver for them as shareholders. The board are looking to deliver a miracle for themselves by seeking to close the gap between outgoings and income without any investment or commitment. For almost all businesses outside of football this would, as you say, be untenable. Our decline in revenues even for a football club is likley to continue whilst the results do not deliver and surely the selling of our best players is only like to exacerbate the situation. Part of the difference on Saturday for me was the bench and changes. Brum brought on Campbell, Bent and Philips. We brought on Thompson (who??? - no disrespect) I went on Sat but havent renewed my season ticket as yet. If the board want me (any perhaps many like me) to renew then they should be clear about how they see the situation and what their strategy is (apart from the short term "balance the books"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 17 August, 2008 Share Posted 17 August, 2008 We played better yesterday in the 1st half than we did all last season, proper football. Football is a game of 90 minutes duration. We played brilliant football against Leeds for 45 minutes and were three goals up. We played brilliant football against Tranmere and were three goals up after 45 minutes there too. As I recall, on both occasions we lost 4-3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintkiptanui Posted 17 August, 2008 Share Posted 17 August, 2008 No. That is what you are saying. I was replying to saintkiptanui's assertion that had we somehow played Birmingham last season, (although they were then a Premiership team), they would have put five or six past our team. I'm assuming that he was talking about a hypothetical situation whereby our last season's team played this current Brum team. Please keep up. When did i say we played Birmingham, you've lost me now. Go to bed wesley, I've had enough of this clap trap. we played well viva le youth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totton Red Posted 17 August, 2008 Share Posted 17 August, 2008 We played better yesterday in the 1st half than we did all last season, proper football. Must have been a long season for you watching all 46 games....Respect to the top SFC fan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 17 August, 2008 Share Posted 17 August, 2008 Originally Posted by saintkiptanui against probably the best team in the league after giving them a lesson in football in the first half, FFS FFS FFS last year we would of lost by 5 or 6. I think it is you who should go to bed. I'm off to watch Pompey getting thrashed by Chelski. It is you who are apparently not able to express yourself well, as I suspect that most would have concluded that you had meant that our team last season would have lost by 5 or 6 playing against this Birmingham team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintkiptanui Posted 17 August, 2008 Share Posted 17 August, 2008 Must have been a long season for you watching all 46 games....Respect to the top SFC fan! I only saw 20 but I listened to 26 on the radio so like Alpine I know exactly how we played in those games:smt109 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintkiptanui Posted 17 August, 2008 Share Posted 17 August, 2008 Originally Posted by saintkiptanui I think it is you who should go to bed. I'm off to watch Pompey getting thrashed by Chelski. It is you who are apparently not able to express yourself well, as I suspect that most would have concluded that you had meant that our team last season would have lost by 5 or 6 playing against this Birmingham team.most people would of known what i meant but you being a pedantic old woman turned it into something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totton Red Posted 17 August, 2008 Share Posted 17 August, 2008 I only saw 20 but I listened to 26 on the radio so like Alpine I know exactly how we played in those games:smt109 Two peas in a pod then? Interesting to see that your based the Birmingham performance on radio commentators! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintkiptanui Posted 17 August, 2008 Share Posted 17 August, 2008 Two peas in a pod then? Interesting to see that your based the Birmingham performance on radio commentators!what? I went to the game, I was being sarcastic, lighten up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 17 August, 2008 Share Posted 17 August, 2008 most people would of known what i meant but you being a pedantic old woman turned it into something else. Back from Match of the Day and I see that you are still not able to accept that what you said was misleading and now make it worse by claiming that most others would have known what you meant. So here is what he said: against probably the best team in the league after giving them a lesson in football in the first half, FFS FFS FFS last year we would of lost by 5 or 6. Anybody got any clearer idea what he meant? I took it that he was talking about Birmingham. So who do you think that he was talking about that we would have lost to last year? Any takers? Oh, and by the way, as I'm so pedantic. It isn't we would of lost. It is we would have lost. But I'm sure that everybody realised what you meant to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintkiptanui Posted 17 August, 2008 Share Posted 17 August, 2008 Back from Match of the Day and I see that you are still not able to accept that what you said was misleading and now make it worse by claiming that most others would have known what you meant. So here is what he said: against probably the best team in the league after giving them a lesson in football in the first half, FFS FFS FFS last year we would of lost by 5 or 6. Anybody got any clearer idea what he meant? I took it that he was talking about Birmingham. So who do you think that he was talking about that we would have lost to last year? Any takers? Oh, and by the way, as I'm so pedantic. It isn't we would of lost. It is we would have lost. But I'm sure that everybody realised what you meant to say.I can't do this anymore, we're finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 17 August, 2008 Share Posted 17 August, 2008 Back from Match of the Day and I see that you are still not able to accept that what you said was misleading and now make it worse by claiming that most others would have known what you meant. So here is what he said: against probably the best team in the league after giving them a lesson in football in the first half, FFS FFS FFS last year we would of lost by 5 or 6. Anybody got any clearer idea what he meant? I took it that he was talking about Birmingham. So who do you think that he was talking about that we would have lost to last year? Any takers? Oh, and by the way, as I'm so pedantic. It isn't we would of lost. It is we would have lost. But I'm sure that everybody realised what you meant to say. *YAWN* Either way it has nothing to do with Surman going to Reading so why don't you both wind it in? As for the thread subject itself.... If we could get a good price for Drew (£2.5m ish - likely?) then this wouldn't actually be the worst thing in the world IMO. Players like Kelvin, Stern and Svensson (and Andrew Davies, but I think we can forget that) are much more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintkiptanui Posted 17 August, 2008 Share Posted 17 August, 2008 *YAWN* Either way it has nothing to do with Surman going to Reading so why don't you both wind it in? As for the thread subject itself.... If we could get a good price for Drew (£2.5m ish - likely?) then this wouldn't actually be the worst thing in the world IMO. Players like Kelvin, Stern and Svensson (and Andrew Davies, but I think we can forget that) are much more important. YAWN I said the same thing about 2038 posts back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scooby Posted 17 August, 2008 Share Posted 17 August, 2008 Selling a good player like Davies for a paltry 1.5 M is typical for Lowe. Has he got any contingency plan if Killer's knee packs up? Nope, didn't think so. The man is a slash and burn merchant, Actually, no. It's a good bit of business by Lowe. 50% profit on a player that we can well do without? I tip my hat to him on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 17 August, 2008 Share Posted 17 August, 2008 Actually, no. It's a good bit of business by Lowe. 50% profit on a player that we can well do without? I tip my hat to him on this one. You post some of the funniest, most ridiculous horse sh*te I have ever read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scooby Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 You post some of the funniest, most ridiculous horse sh*te I have ever read. Deny that a 50% profit on an asset is not a good bit of business, and take into account that we are a hair's breadth away from administration thanks to Crouch's reign of terror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torrent Of Abuse Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Deny that a 50% profit on an asset is not a good bit of business, and take into account that we are a hair's breadth away from administration thanks to Crouch's reign of terror. There's no point selling your home for 50% more than you bought it if it just means you end up sleeping on the street. Similarly, there is little point selling your best players for a profit today if it means you get relegated tomorrow. That is slippery soap bar of knowledge which you were ham-fistedly scrambling around trying to grasp while you get repeatedly pummelled from behind in the prison shower block of ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 There's no point selling your home for 50% more than you bought it if it just means you end up sleeping on the street. Similarly, there is little point selling your best players for a profit today if it means you get relegated tomorrow. That is slippery soap bar of knowledge which you were ham-fistedly scrambling around trying to grasp while you get repeatedly pummelled from behind in the prison shower block of ignorance. LOL. Post of the day, and its not even 8:00am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Deny that a 50% profit on an asset is not a good bit of business, and take into account that we are a hair's breadth away from administration thanks to Crouch's reign of terror. A reign of terror is Pol Pot in Cambodia, Hussein in Iraq, Hitler. I don't recall anybody dying during Crouch's term in charge and if you were terrified by him, Scabby, then it is long overdue that you were locked away somewhere safe and given counselling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 There's no point selling your home for 50% more than you bought it if it just means you end up sleeping on the street. Similarly, there is little point selling your best players for a profit today if it means you get relegated tomorrow. That is slippery soap bar of knowledge which you were ham-fistedly scrambling around trying to grasp while you get repeatedly pummelled from behind in the prison shower block of ignorance.some sense in what you say but it is not the post of the day. In your analogy you keep your car instead of selling it and lose your house a lot quicker because you failed to pay the mortgage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilf Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 That is slippery soap bar of knowledge which you were ham-fistedly scrambling around trying to grasp while you get repeatedly pummelled from behind in the prison shower block of ignorance. Pure poetry! Do you mind if I borrow that to use elsewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Deny that a 50% profit on an asset is not a good bit of business, and take into account that we are a hair's breadth away from administration thanks to Crouch's reign of terror. Do you know, with your vast knowledge of the workings of SFC ,whether there is a "sell on" clause that may mean that we have to pay Middlesborough part of that "50%" profit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scooby Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 \Similarly, there is little point selling your best players for a profit today if it means you get relegated tomorrow. . Actually, there is. Relegation > Administration and relegation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Actually, there is. Relegation > Administration and relegation Relegation would mean administration regardless of wether we sell Surman now or not. If we sell Surman and Davies it would be basically cutting our own throat, completely pointless. We would be way better of keeping the level of debt and hoping we stay up - at least then we have a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitch01 Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Actually, no. It's a good bit of business by Lowe. 50% profit on a player that we can well do without? I tip my hat to him on this one. Its an appalling bit of business considering: a) He's our best player b) We desperately need him as we are short of quality at the back, and Killer may still break down. c) We could get so much more than 1.5million for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintrich Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Its an appalling bit of business considering: a) He's our best player b) We desperately need him as we are short of quality at the back, and Killer may still break down. c) We could get so much more than 1.5million for him. This is the Surman thread, not the Davies one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Its an appalling bit of business considering: a) He's our best player b) We desperately need him as we are short of quality at the back, and Killer may still break down. c) We could get so much more than 1.5million for him. We only paid a million for him surely his value has not gone up that much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Its an appalling bit of business considering: a) He's our best player b) We desperately need him as we are short of quality at the back, and Killer may still break down. c) We could get so much more than 1.5million for him.This is the Drew thread but as much as I like him we have not had a host of clubs after him and we still dont know his overall fitness.If he gets through the medical when Jan has said he is still injured it will be a surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonist Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 There's no point selling your home for 50% more than you bought it if it just means you end up sleeping on the street. Similarly, there is little point selling your best players for a profit today if it means you get relegated tomorrow. to expand on the idea. yay my house went up in value by 50%. wait a minute, so did everyone elses. and now i'm in a higher stamp duty bracket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Deny that a 50% profit on an asset is not a good bit of business, and take into account that we are a hair's breadth away from administration thanks to Crouch's reign of terror. He is being undersold. That sir is not good business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Relegation would mean administration regardless of wether we sell Surman now or not. why? If the league 1 squad is on peanuts and the lower income could cover the lower wages and the same cost of our debt, then why would we go into administration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Surman is an awful left back, McFadden murdered him all game Saturday. If JP is only going to play him there, he had might aswell leave for a decent fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitch01 Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Surman is an awful left back, McFadden murdered him all game Saturday. If JP is only going to play him there, he had might aswell leave for a decent fee. I agree, anything over 2million would be good for us from Surman, hes far from a great left back based on saturdays performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Seems we can't get rid of Skacel so instead we will off load Surman, if we get 2.5 million that is a lot of money for a half decent player who most think isn't a left back but thats where he will be played this season so we are getting a lot of cash for an average left back, I'd snap there hand off and bring Skacel back in. 2.5m will only keep us going until New Year. Then we will still have to offload Skacel and Euell, other wise another youngster with any value will have to be sold. Had Skacel agreed terms with Ipswich our position would have been a bit less desperate. Instead he would rather rot in the reserves and watch the club sink. Can you imagine the frustration Lowe must have, working with the man who dealt out these ridiculous contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scooby Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 . Can you imagine the frustration Lowe must have, working with the man who dealt out these ridiculous contracts. Agreed that Lowe is in a practically untenable position. The previous administration tied this club to a host of dross on ridiculous terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Can you imagine the frustration Lowe must have, working with the man who dealt out these ridiculous contracts. Probably something similar to what Crouch and Wilde experienced working with a useless disinterested manager - appointed by Lowe and given millions to spend - for most of last season.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 McFadden murdered him all game Saturday. there are not many £6m internationals at this level Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Medway Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Back from Match of the Day and I see that you are still not able to accept that what you said was misleading and now make it worse by claiming that most others would have known what you meant. So here is what he said: against probably the best team in the league after giving them a lesson in football in the first half, FFS FFS FFS last year we would of lost by 5 or 6. Anybody got any clearer idea what he meant? I took it that he was talking about Birmingham. So who do you think that he was talking about that we would have lost to last year? Any takers? Oh, and by the way, as I'm so pedantic. It isn't we would of lost. It is we would have lost. But I'm sure that everybody realised what you meant to say. Yep I can see exactly what he means! And yep you are being pedantic. I guess he was talking about the best team in the league last season - it ain't rocket science! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Probably something similar to what Crouch and Wilde experienced working with a useless disinterested manager - appointed by Lowe and given millions to spend - for most of last season.... Don't think Lowe was here when Burley was spunking £7m. Would he have agreed to spending that much, plus the contracts issue. Guilty of hiring Burley I admit. But I recall he was the fans choice when we first appointed him. So he was not the only one who was fooled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Yep I can see exactly what he means! And yep you are being pedantic. I guess he was talking about the best team in the league last season - it ain't rocket science! I think most people can see what he meant except Wes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Don't think Lowe was here when Burley was spunking £7m. Would he have agreed to spending that much, plus the contracts issue. Guilty of hiring Burley I admit. But I recall he was the fans choice when we first appointed him. So he was not the only one who was fooled. we did get to the playoff semi final the season Burley spent 7m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 The previous administration tied this club to a host of dross on ridiculous terms. Lowe was part of a previous administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 I'd be gutted to see Surman go, but if he is going i'd want at least £2m and Liam Rosenior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Thank you all for your input, however I have chosen to believe that Surman will stay. You may now consider the matter closed. Move along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/articles/article.php?page_id=10461 The change-in-tone is astounding. Makes it sound like they are coming back from injury... Looks like "total football" is dying at birth on the South Coast... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toofarnorth Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Bennet is still at reading (on loan at Brentford) and would be a welcome addition as part of the deal. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Released by Reading, I believe now at Brentford permanently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 Yes with contract I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 18 August, 2008 Share Posted 18 August, 2008 http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/articles/article.php?page_id=10461 The change-in-tone is astounding. Makes it sound like they are coming back from injury... Looks like "total football" is dying at birth on the South Coast... Actually, by OS standards that article is refreshingly devoid of spin. Bordering on factual, FFS. Lowe out, Lowe In, Lowe out, Lowe in ad nauseam... 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