alpine_saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 (edited) Sorry, something CLEARLY doesnt add up here... 1. If we only needed to get rid of two of the big 3 wage earners, why did we get rid of Stern John (the last of the 3 to go on loan) at all ? 2. How did we fund the loans for : Pekhart Robertson Smith Pearce Gasmi Pulis Size Forecast All of whom (except Size) played or will play sod-all games, when we couldnt afford a striker ? 3. Variation of #2, how the f**k did we pay for Schneiderlin ? 4. Backroom staff - we've paid off Poortvillet, taken on Gorre, and another Dutchman lurks in the background 5. Our attendances have been loss-making all season So, just MAYBE, the finanical predicament is not as bad as the leaks coming out of SMS have inferred, and this has been simply a cover for some (failed) footballing theory experimentation. All this suggests to me that the chief architect of our downfall hasnt been finance, but the self-opinionateness of our plc Chairman. Edited 22 February, 2009 by alpine_saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Yesterday's performance showed that with a decent manager we could be comfortably mid table this season. Finance is just a convenient excuse to shift blame to the previous board, other teams have spent less and are doing OK. My guess is thay've ditched the experimental set up and have given Wotte full management responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr X Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 we couldn't afford afford saga for a whole season it was a gamble to bring him back and pay the £250,000 for the rest of the season according to the echo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Martini Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Just a wild guess. 1. Perhaps JP didn't want him afterall and since we ditched him we can afford to keep Saga the second half of the season. 2. All the loans & small transfers were possible because they cost significantly less then those big earners. 3. This has always baffled me, maybe we splashed out on one player we thought could be quality (although I think he only costs 500.000 + salary this year). 4. JP was on **** all in the Netherlands and was probably quite cheap here as well. When we took Wotte to replace him we didn't sign new staff so no extra costs. Gorre is hardly going to be expensive and the other Dutch bloke is not on our payroll although he might be paid somerthing for consulting or something similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 we couldn't afford afford saga for a whole season it was a gamble to bring him back and pay the £250,000 for the rest of the season according to the echo. That's clearly not true, the money we spent on Schneiderlin and bringing in the other 15 or so players shows that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 we couldn't afford afford saga for a whole season it was a gamble to bring him back and pay the £250,000 for the rest of the season according to the echo. Oh. So, it's OK for Lowe to throw good money after bad in a gamble until the end of the season, but not Wilde and / or Crouch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 we couldn't afford afford saga for a whole season it was a gamble to bring him back and pay the £250,000 for the rest of the season according to the echo. That's as may be, but how much would an extra 5000 on the gates due to being in the top half of the division have brought in ? Surely that would cover it ? ( EG 5000 extra bums on seats for 8 home games = 40000 paying 'customers'. If each of them paid £20 per ticket, thats £800K ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Well we know there is an overdraft of £6M, which Crouch was going to chip away at with £2M if Lowe and Wilde would match him. Then we have the Stadium outstanding mortgage of around £20M, which has helped to sift away money, but obviously has to be paid out. The rest has been loan-ins, pay-offs of old contracts, new contracts to replace old contracts - the list goes on. And apart from the stadium mortgage, most of it would have been unnecessary if, instead of trying to be cheapskate in the first place, Saints had got in experienced, good quality staff with a track record of success, and stuck with them. That way stability lies. Remember stability..? It's the sort of thing successful clubs do. And if they are not successful, they pay the price and get the right people in. They don't try to do it on the cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Just a wild guess. 1. Perhaps JP didn't want him afterall and since we ditched him we can afford to keep Saga the second half of the season. 2. All the loans & small transfers were possible because they cost significantly less then those big earners. 3. This has always baffled me, maybe we splashed out on one player we thought could be quality (although I think he only costs 500.000 + salary this year). 4. JP was on **** all in the Netherlands and was probably quite cheap here as well. When we took Wotte to replace him we didn't sign new staff so no extra costs. Gorre is hardly going to be expensive and the other Dutch bloke is not on our payroll although he might be paid somerthing for consulting or something similar. Add up 2,3 and 4 and type me answer with a straight face that all that utter shiiit could not have funded the retention of one of our decent strikers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 I agree with alpine_saint, we should get rid of Saga now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 February, 2009 I agree with alpine_saint' date=' we should get rid of Saga now.[/quote'] Fine you think that, but it isnt in agreement with me. I have been clamouring loudly and persistently against the crass stupidity that befell Lowe back in August/September Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 I think the clue is in the "loaning" of players not selling. It immediately gets them off the pay role but allows you an option should things go pear shaped. Obviously to keep shareholders and the bank happy it is important we stay in this division at the expense of not saving as much money on wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 February, 2009 I think the clue is in the "loaning" of players not selling. It immediately gets them off the pay role but allows you an option should things go pear shaped. Obviously to keep shareholders and the bank happy it is important we stay in this division at the expense of not saving as much money on wages. And when did this little gem suddenly become obvious to Lowe (well after a helluva lot of us, I might add) ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 opinionateness ??? Did you learn this word whilst doing your masters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 guess none of us know without knowing wages, accounts etc Those loans would not have been costly - maybe in some such as Pekhart we didn't even pay his wages - I know we used to still pay wages of some of our young talent going out for first team football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 February, 2009 ??? Did you learn this word whilst doing your masters? Do you have an opinion you'd like to share or are you just going to continue you moronic Media Studies inspired trolling ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefuriousb Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 That's as may be, but how much would an extra 5000 on the gates due to being in the top half of the division have brought in ? Surely that would cover it ? ( EG 5000 extra bums on seats for 8 home games = 40000 paying 'customers'. If each of them paid £20 per ticket, thats £800K ). I did not think that our league position was why 5000 are said to be staying away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Do you have an opinion you'd like to share or are you just going to continue you moronic Media Studies inspired trolling ? Once again. I have a degree in Product Design. And engineering degree. The closest i got to doing Media Studies was screwing a Script Writing student i'm afraid... My opinion on the Saga situation is i'm very pleased to see him in the team scoring goals which could possibly keep us up... So in short...i'm pleased. And you're annoyed...no change there then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Once again. I have a degree in Product Design. And engineering degree. The closest i got to doing Media Studies was screwing a Script Writing student i'm afraid... My opinion on the Saga situation is i'm very pleased to see him in the team scoring goals which could possibly keep us up... So in short...i'm pleased. And you're annoyed...no change there then... "And engineering degree" ? hehehehehe. People in glass houses........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Those loans would not have been costly - maybe in some such as Pekhart we didn't even pay his wages - I know we used to still pay wages of some of our young talent going out for first team football Or maybe those loans were costly, like you said you don't know? It would be interesting to know who made the descision to blow the money on wages and fees of: Schneiderlin Forecast Wotton Gasmi Pulis Peckhart Robinson Molyneaux Liptick Saeijs Cork Smith Holmes And also who chose to freeze out Skacel and Euell whilst still paying their wages and play crap like Mills and Gobern instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Or maybe those loans were costly, like you said you don't know? It would be interesting to know who made the descision to blow the money on wages and fees of: Schneiderlin Forecast Wotton Gasmi Pulis Peckhart Robinson Molyneaux Liptick Saeijs Cork Smith Holmes And also who chose to freeze out Skacel and Euell whilst still paying their wages and play crap like Mills and Gobern instead? Thanks for elaborating on my original sentiment with further examples of this lunacy.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 And when did this little gem suddenly become obvious to Lowe (well after a helluva lot of us, I might add) ?? You will have to ask him that. The date he brought him back would be a starting point but just work backwards from there by a week or so I guess. Does this help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 February, 2009 You will have to ask him that. The date he brought him back would be a starting point but just work backwards from there by a week or so I guess. Does this help? Not really, considering it was obvious to most of us proles since early October... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 "And engineering degree" ? hehehehehe. People in glass houses........ Spend a lot on curtains? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Or maybe those loans were costly, like you said you don't know? It would be interesting to know who made the descision to blow the money on wages and fees of: Schneiderlin Forecast Wotton Gasmi Pulis Peckhart Robinson Molyneaux Liptick Saeijs Cork Smith Holmes And also who chose to freeze out Skacel and Euell whilst still paying their wages and play crap like Mills and Gobern instead? You do appreciate that we need to have a squad of players though right? Also i think Gobern will turn out to be a very good player... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Spend a lot on curtains? And sweat alot. And have to pay lots for their insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Spend a lot on curtains? Its a proverb that anybody with a decent grasp of the English language would know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Or maybe those loans were costly, like you said you don't know? It would be interesting to know who made the descision to blow the money on wages and fees of: Schneiderlin Forecast Wotton Gasmi Pulis Peckhart Robinson Molyneaux Liptick Saeijs Cork SmithHolmes And also who chose to freeze out Skacel and Euell whilst still paying their wages and play crap like Mills and Gobern instead? true, but would be surprised if the ones in bold cost any amount that would have significant impact, compared to the large salaries. Cork, Saeijs, Holmes -all worth it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowgli Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Fine you think that, but it isnt in agreement with me. I have been clamouring loudly and persistently against the crass stupidity that befell Lowe back in August/September Wooooosh......!!!! If you want people to take you seriously, trying posting something that does not involve you finding yet another bizarre and, frankly, distrurbingly obsessive attack on Lowe. Maybe the news hasn't filtered through to you yet but we won yesterday and I for one will take that as an excuse to celebrate. Most of the misinformation about the clubs finances appears on this board (often posted by you) so I'm hardly surprised by your confusion. You need to get out more to appreciate a more balanced view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Its a proverb that anybody with a decent grasp of the English language would know Actually it is half a proverb. Will you be learning full stops after you have completed all the proverbs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 The answer to the original question is the crux of what is going on ? Are we saying we could afford money to fund Rupert's dream ? Are we so broke that bring Saga back, playing Skacel and Euell now makes no difference? Have we in facted been conned by the pr machine from SMS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Wooooosh......!!!! If you want people to take you seriously, trying posting something that does not involve you finding yet another bizarre and, frankly, distrurbingly obsessive attack on Lowe. Maybe the news hasn't filtered through to you yet but we won yesterday and I for one will take that as an excuse to celebrate. Most of the misinformation about the clubs finances appears on this board (often posted by you) so I'm hardly surprised by your confusion. You need to get out more to appreciate a more balanced view. Who else is reponsible, exactly ? Who turfed out a decent English manager with the right experience in pursuit of an approach already discredited at this club ? We won yesterday. Great. Now what ? Are you going to start writing "we will walk this league" ? I have NEVER posted info about the club's finances, but I have posed plenty of questions. Cant you distinguish the difference ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Actually it is half a proverb. Will you be learning full stops after you have completed all the proverbs? Pedantry mixed with sarcasm. Superb. A couple more decades, and you may even approach the emotional range of a normal member of the Human Race... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Who else is reponsible, exactly ? Who turfed out a decent English manager with the right experience in pursuit of an approach already discredited at this club ? We won yesterday. Great. Now what ? Are you going to start writing "we will walk this league" ? I have NEVER posted info about the club's finances, but I have posed plenty of questions. Cant you distinguish the difference ? You are very boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Pedantry mixed with sarcasm. Superb. A couple more decades, and you may even approach the emotional range of a normal member of the Human Race... If ever I find myself wanting a really clever member of the human race to sort out any of my life issues I will source out your services as you come across as nothing other than seriously mega clever and well balanced. Now that is sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 You are very boring. Hello Mr Pot:smt115 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Martini Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Add up 2,3 and 4 and type me answer with a straight face that all that utter shiiit could not have funded the retention of one of our decent strikers... Where did I say that we couldn't have kept one of our decent strikers? I only think that perhaps John was the one we chose to keep after which JP lost faith in him. If we had gone with Saga from the start and loaned out John at the start I'm sure we could have done without players such as Pekhart and Robertson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 You have to hand it to Alpine. He can certainly make a sow's ear out of a sile purse. If this forum had been around in 1966 I bet he would be on for weeks after we won the World Cup berating Ramsey for dropping Paine and not playing wingers. We won but still he finds an excuse to pedal his own peculiar brand of negativity. Alpine, we won, knock yourself out why dont you and celebrate the fact! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 I only think that perhaps John was the one we chose to keep after which JP lost faith in him. John was told before the season started to look for another team and Poortvliet was not interested in playing him as he believed John only really performed in a 4-4-2 set up. He even said this publicly when John went to City. He got the odd game, but at one point even the lad who's now at Bournemouth got the nod ahead of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block 5 Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Sorry, something CLEARLY doesnt add up here... 1. If we only needed to get rid of two of the big 3 wage earners, why did we get rid of Stern John (the last of the 3 to go on loan) at all ? 2. How did we fund the loans for : Pekhart Robertson Smith Pearce Gasmi Pulis Size Forecast All of whom (except Size) played or will play sod-all games, when we couldnt afford a striker ? 3. Variation of #2, how the f**k did we pay for Schneiderlin ? 4. Backroom staff - we've paid off Poortvillet, taken on Gorre, and another Dutchman lurks in the background 5. Our attendances have been loss-making all season So, just MAYBE, the finanical predicament is not as bad as the leaks coming out of SMS have inferred, and this has been simply a cover for some (failed) footballing theory experimentation. All this suggests to me that the chief architect of our downfall hasnt been finance, but the self-opinionateness of our plc Chairman. Mind your own business...... Nosey Parker! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 In response to money to pay off Portvliet, he resigned so no pay off needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 I did not think that our league position was why 5000 are said to be staying away If we had had Saga playing from the outset, rather than McGoaldrought, we would have had more chance of scoring goals, hence of winning games, hence of being further up the league, hence peeps would not be boycotting because of a failed 'experiment', hence the 5000 would not be staying away from the home games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 I think the clue is in the "loaning" of players not selling. It immediately gets them off the pay role but allows you an option should things go pear shaped. Obviously to keep shareholders and the bank happy it is important we stay in this division at the expense of not saving as much money on wages. JFP...you are wrong on that one. We can't get Rasiak and John back if we wanted to - our wonderful astute businessmen running the club can't change FA rules.... Big fooooooooookk up yet again from Mr Lowe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 In response to money to pay off Portvliet, he resigned so no pay off needed. I do hope your tongue was firmly in your cheek there!!!!!!!! IMHO;) he took a wedge when he left and let's just say he jumped before he was pushed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 true, but would be surprised if the ones in bold cost any amount that would have significant impact, compared to the large salaries. Cork, Saeijs, Holmes -all worth it Hmmm Agents Fees? Signing Fees? Wages? Quantity over Quality has been tried before.......here when we got relegated from the Prem... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 In response to money to pay off Portvliet, he resigned so no pay off needed. Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALWAYS_SFC Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 In response to money to pay off Portvliet, he resigned so no pay off needed. Allegedly... do you or anyone actually believe that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALWAYS_SFC Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Sorry, something CLEARLY doesnt add up here... 1. If we only needed to get rid of two of the big 3 wage earners, why did we get rid of Stern John (the last of the 3 to go on loan) at all ? 2. How did we fund the loans for : Pekhart Robertson Smith Pearce Gasmi Pulis Size Forecast All of whom (except Size) played or will play sod-all games, when we couldnt afford a striker ? 3. Variation of #2, how the f**k did we pay for Schneiderlin ? 4. Backroom staff - we've paid off Poortvillet, taken on Gorre, and another Dutchman lurks in the background 5. Our attendances have been loss-making all season So, just MAYBE, the finanical predicament is not as bad as the leaks coming out of SMS have inferred, and this has been simply a cover for some (failed) footballing theory experimentation. All this suggests to me that the chief architect of our downfall hasnt been finance, but the self-opinionateness of our plc Chairman. I have to agree.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 In response to money to pay off Portvliet, he resigned so no pay off needed. DPS...I think we need to hold judgement on that episode until the Company Accounts come out...the last 9 months have been very smoky mirrory type thingies... On another side of thought regarding Alps' points regarding the loans, and Skacel etc returning.... Didn't Poortvliet state in the press that we couldn't afford to play him??? Hmmm.....Rupey Spin again eh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 You are very boring. It's a pity we can't get the old posts back from TSF, I don't remember Alpine being overly complimentary about Pearson . He certainly was very anti-Burley, in fact probably the anti Burley poster.Is there no way of looking back at TSF?? 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