Huffton Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=11293 Bottom paragraph. Sounds a bit ominous to me, eg leaving it until after the Swansea game in case of any more fuel for the protesters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 It does say arrivals too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 It does say arrivals too How dare you take a positive from a story you Lowe Luvvie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 says arrivals first -must be more significant than the departures! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSaint Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 eg leaving it until after the Swansea game in case of any more fuel for the protesters. Slightly OT but it could be a smart move in one instance - does Dyer get to play against us if a formal transfer hasn't gone through? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 Slightly OT but it could be a smart move in one instance - does Dyer get to play against us if a formal transfer hasn't gone through? think I remember there being a fuss when a team had a non-appearance against them clause in perm transfer and you can't do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSaint Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 think I remember there being a fuss when a team had a non-appearance against them clause in perm transfer and you can't do it Yeah, but that's in a permanent transfer isn't it Nick? How about a loan situation? I'm pretty sure that's legit. So, don't transfer him until after the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 sorry misread it -no he can't play if still on loan you are right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 "I was a little surprised that he's still around" FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 'The arrival of Lee Molineaux saw him lose his place against Barnsley'. He was ****. Stay Rudi!! PLEASE!!!!! And start playing him Wotte you cretin. I guess it's too late. Another player who couldve helped save us leaves due to club policy. You ****ing ****** Lowe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 'The arrival of Lee Molineau saw him lose his place against Barnsley'. He was ****. Stay Rudi!! PLEASE!!!!! And start playing him Wotte you cretin. But he wants to leave Robbie, that's the f*cking point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 Yeah, but that's in a permanent transfer isn't it Nick? How about a loan situation? I'm pretty sure that's legit. So, don't transfer him until after the game. I bet we don't see a bent farthing out of Swansea this side of August. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 'The arrival of Lee Molineaux saw him lose his place against Barnsley'. He was ****. Stay Rudi!! PLEASE!!!!! And start playing him Wotte you cretin. I guess it's too late. Another player who couldve helped save us leaves due to club policy. You ****ing ****** Lowe. Two points: 1. Which part of "Skacel hands in a transfer request" didn't you understand? He doesn't want to be here, and he's been making that view pretty clear since this time last year. 2. The comment you've quoted from the OS is actually factually inaccurate. Skacel was suspended for the Barnsley game, and because Molyneux had a good game at Barnsley, he kept his place for the Doncaster game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSaint Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 I bet we don't see a bent farthing out of Swansea this side of August. We're in the driver's seat on this because they desperately want Dyer for the Prem push, so hopefully our good negotiating skills will prevail. On second thoughts I see where you're coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 We're in the driver's seat on this because they desperately want Dyer for the Prem push, so hopefully our good negotiating skills will prevail. On second thoughts I see where you're coming from. They won't be in the Prem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 Personally I would be delighted to see both Dyer and Skacel go - two more overhyped and overrated players I'd struggle to think of (oh, except BWP & Euell) & we might just raise a bit of desperately needed folding stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 Personally I would be delighted to see both Dyer and Skacel go - two more overhyped and overrated players I'd struggle to think of (oh, except BWP & Euell) & we might just raise a bit of desperately needed folding stuff The only folding stuff we'll see is that that we're not giving them any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 They won't be in the Prem. They could be in the Premiership as they are playing really well at the moment. and their football is said to be of the highest quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSaint Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 They won't be in the Prem. As long as they think they might be there's a chance they'll pay us more than Dyer's worth. How much we get, and by when, is another story. But right now they're tough to bet against with their recent record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 Two points: 1. Which part of "Skacel hands in a transfer request" didn't you understand? He doesn't want to be here, and he's been making that view pretty clear since this time last year. Nothing to do with him being treated like a leper by Lowe and co then, and only played when it was clear he wasn't going anywhere. I'm surprised its taken this long for Rudi to finally stick 2 fingers up to the Club and say Im offski... Sad to see the guy forced out in this way, basically the only thing even remotely close to a flare player we have any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mesaint Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 Correct me if i'm wrong but Rudi was quite happy to be here until it was made clear you had no future at the club. If you were told that and knew you weren't going to be playing, you'd put in a transfer request too. LOWE FECK OFF NOW!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 Nothing to do with him being treated like a leper by Lowe and co then, and only played when it was clear he wasn't going anywhere. I'm surprised its taken this long for Rudi to finally stick 2 fingers up to the Club and say Im offski... Sad to see the guy forced out in this way, basically the only thing even remotely close to a flare player we have any more. Wages of £500000 must be have been something to do with the reason he was not required Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 I'm surprised its taken this long for Rudi to finally stick 2 fingers up to the Club and say Im offski. Hes been trying to leave for ages. The only stumbling block was finding somone stupid enough to meet his wages demands. Thats why he didnt go to Ipswich last summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 Christ...is Skacel now going to be afforded the same god like admiration around here that Pearson receives... "We'd have won the Premier League with Big Nige and Rudi if only Rupert hadn't gone and ruined it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 Nothing to do with him being treated like a leper by Lowe and co then Yes, it was "Lowe and co" who, from the safety of having nothing to do with the club, sent Skacel packing to Hertha Berlin to save money a year ago, almost to the day. Oh no, wait, that was Leon Crouch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 Wages of £500000 must be have been something to do with the reason he was not required Coupled with some pretty indifferent performances and asking to be transferred to a "better club" last January of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 Correct me if i'm wrong but Rudi was quite happy to be here until it was made clear you had no future at the club. If you were told that and knew you weren't going to be playing, you'd put in a transfer request too. LOWE FECK OFF NOW!!!!!!!! WRONG. RUDI SKACEL ASKED TO LEAVE LAST JANUARY, HE ASKED NOT TO COME BACK, Jesus how many times do you people need to be told that. He basically thinks he's too good for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirleysfc Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 Two points: 1. Which part of "Skacel hands in a transfer request" didn't you understand? He doesn't want to be here, and he's been making that view pretty clear since this time last year. 2. The comment you've quoted from the OS is actually factually inaccurate. Skacel was suspended for the Barnsley game, and because Molyneux had a good game at Barnsley, he kept his place for the Doncaster game. 1 - I'd run a mile if I'd been treated the way he has! He's been played out of position most of the time he's been here, and then when we've been crying out for an attacking player on the left due to Holmes' injury he see's Gobern and Smith get the chance instead of him. 2 - http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=11182 He was banned for the Doncaster game but as we'd signed a cheaper (and worse) left back in LM he got binned!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 I give up, you people win, there's just no getting through to your inner brain cells. Lee Hoos said last January that Rudi wanted to move on because the championship wasn't good enough for him. He's a left back that moved into midfield and back again.He's not a midfield player turned into a left back, he is a left back, although he considers himself as a midfield player. He's had a jaded history wherever he's been, Marseille,Panathanaikos. Only at Hearts did he look decent, and that's because of the standard of the football. He asked to leave there as well,not good enough for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 Yes, it was "Lowe and co" who, from the safety of having nothing to do with the club, sent Skacel packing to Hertha Berlin to save money a year ago, almost to the day. Oh no, wait, that was Leon Crouch... I wonder what VectisSaint has to say about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Forever Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 Another of Burley's overpaid over rated players wants to leave. He has been saying that for a year yet he is still here. Why? Surely if he was so desperate he would have taken a cut in wages to move. Nuff said!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 The resaon he never got to play left midfield was because after Burley splashed out all that cash on him he remembered he had somebody better - Surman - to play in his favoured position & Skacel slipped behind him in the play-off season & he was never more than mediocre in the games he played last season. His opinion of himself is seemingly only matched by those who rarely/ever saw him play. Sure there were some good moments but they were few and far between in my experience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madsent Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 Yeah, but that's in a permanent transfer isn't it Nick? How about a loan situation? I'm pretty sure that's legit. So, don't transfer him until after the game. We aren't in the Premiership any more so the rule put in place after the Tim Howard transfer wouldn't count. We're governed by Football League rules. As far as I know, players can play against their parent club unless the loan agreement forbids it. I'm sure you remember the Chris Lucketti situation last year when he was given the choice of whether he would play against Sheffield Utd or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Bones Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 Kind of weird that we hear this and also hear we are going into admin ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_ed Posted 29 January, 2009 Share Posted 29 January, 2009 I don't expect many/any in before the close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamesaint Posted 30 January, 2009 Share Posted 30 January, 2009 (edited) Yes, it was "Lowe and co" who, from the safety of having nothing to do with the club, sent Skacel packing to Hertha Berlin to save money a year ago, almost to the day. Oh no, wait, that was Leon Crouch... It couldn't have been Leon Crouch. You must ha been mistaken. He doesn't know how to run a business. Compared to Rupert what does Crouch know about running a business? After all that is why Lord rupert has had to come back to put our finances in order (by acquiring the likes of Forecast, Gasmi , Pullis,Peckhart , Dutch advisor no. 1, Dutch advisor no.2. paying off JP etc etc. ). Rupert knows everything about cost control... Crouch iknows nothing so it couldn't have been him who tried to cut our wage bill to meet our finances !!!!! Edited 30 January, 2009 by Tamesaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 30 January, 2009 Share Posted 30 January, 2009 Yes, it was "Lowe and co" who, from the safety of having nothing to do with the club, sent Skacel packing to Hertha Berlin to save money a year ago, almost to the day. Oh no, wait, that was Leon Crouch... Hang on, you cant have it both ways. According to you and your illk, it is Crouch that put us in the financial mess. Now you are whinging about his cost-cutting. What is your f**king problem with Crouch ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 30 January, 2009 Share Posted 30 January, 2009 But he wants to leave Robbie, that's the f*cking point. yes because of how he ( and no doubt a few others ) have been treated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danbert Posted 30 January, 2009 Share Posted 30 January, 2009 Two points: 1. Which part of "Skacel hands in a transfer request" didn't you understand? He doesn't want to be here, and he's been making that view pretty clear since this time last year. 2. The comment you've quoted from the OS is actually factually inaccurate. Skacel was suspended for the Barnsley game, and because Molyneux had a good game at Barnsley, he kept his place for the Doncaster game. I remember reading somewhere that all the senior players were told in the summer that if they didn't find a new club they'd be left to rot in the reserves. This is also what happened to Rudi for sometime. Saints signed a contract with him at a time when he could conceivably have gone to a Premier League club, and then found difficulty honouring the terms of that contract and the club did its best to push him out. When that didn't work they acted like nothing had happened and played him despite saying that they wouldn't. And now, when he has found himself a new club, bleat about his motivation and not wanting to stay. If that's not club policy making a player feel unwanted then I'm a tomato. If my employer ****ed me over like that I wouldn't stick around if I had the option - would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 30 January, 2009 Share Posted 30 January, 2009 Hang on, you cant have it both ways. According to you and your illk, it is Crouch that put us in the financial mess. Now you are whinging about his cost-cutting. What is your f**king problem with Crouch ? He doesn't have a problem with Crouch but merely pointing out a fact, something lost on you. As for the cost cutting and financial mess it's your ilk that are blaming Lowe As you say you can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capel Saint Posted 30 January, 2009 Share Posted 30 January, 2009 He doesn't have a problem with Crouch but merely pointing out a fact, something lost on you. As for the cost cutting and financial mess it's your ilk that are blaming Lowe As you say you can't have it both ways. Indeed. To expand on the above point, Lowe, Wilde and Crouch have all made mistakes whilst being Chairmen. Unfortunately there will always be players that don't fulfill their full potential for whatever reason. The problem is that at Southampton is that none of these guys are rich enough to dip into their pocket and are able to buy a different player. Which means that when Saints pay a lot of money for a player who doesn't perform, the effect is a lot more noticable. Think of how many players have failed, you will find a whole bunch of them at every club. Unfortunately Skacel falls into this category at Saints. It's the nature of football! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 30 January, 2009 Share Posted 30 January, 2009 Hang on, you cant have it both ways. According to you and your illk, it is Crouch that put us in the financial mess. I've said nothing of the sort. Now you are whinging about his cost-cutting. I'm not doing that either. I actually supported sending him out on loan to save on his wages. What is your f**king problem with Crouch ? I have no "f**king problem" with Crouch, so wind your neck in and start actually reading what people write rather than reading what you want people to have written so you can have a pop. I was stating a fact - Leon Crouch was the chairman who sent Skacel to Hertha Berlin a year ago. Neither Lowe or Wilde were on the board at the time. Plain and simple. 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