paulwantsapint Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 As is offten posted had Saga played all season his wages would have meant administration BUT had he played & scored imho he would have offset the minus 10 point penalty by winning us alot more than extra 10 points Thus we would be low end of mid table Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 We could easily have afforded playing him, the fee we paid for Schneiderlin alone would have covered his wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 As is offten posted had Saga played all season his wages would have meant administration BUT had he played & scored imho he would have offset the minus 10 point penalty by winning us alot more than extra 10 points Thus we would be low end of mid table Possibly the football would have been of a better standard and put the 500-1000 extra bums on seats that would have paid for him too...... whichever way you cut it, shipping out our three strikers was f**king lunacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Forever Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 I disagree. If Saga had played and we had been scoring and winning, Administration would probably not have been an issue. Good football would always bring fans to games IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_barmy_saints_army Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 one player can't change a team THAT much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Saints Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 one player can't change a team THAT much Goals can though and he is our only out and out goalscorer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 As is offten posted had Saga played all season his wages would have meant administration Are you stating that as fact? I think you'll find that if you offered the banks the option for us to maintain CCC status with all it's trappings and a couple of hundred k's more in the red or relegation, a 10 point reduction and the inevitable administration I think the answer will be quite obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cellone Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Bit of a **** up really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 one player can't change a team THAT much Le Tissier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Possibly the football would have been of a better standard and put the 500-1000 extra bums on seats that would have paid for him too...... whichever way you cut it, shipping out our three strikers was f**king lunacy. If we had played like we did yesterday for even 40% of the previous season, we would be looking at challenging for the play-offs and crowds of 20,000 plus - not just the exra 500 or 1000. I reckon we could have been tipping 25000 so the decision to loan out Saga (and/or Rasiak and Stern) could have cost us £200k a game or more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilsburydoughboy Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Bit of a **** up really. I wonder who sanctioned that move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 If we had played like we did yesterday for even 40% of the previous season, we would be looking at challenging for the play-offs and crowds of 20,000 plus - not just the exra 500 or 1000. I reckon we could have been tipping 25000 so the decision to loan out Saga (and/or Rasiak and Stern) could have cost us £200k a game or more... Many of us have been saying this all season. I did notice another extravagant expense yeterday. There were packs of bottled water along the touchline. What's wrong with refilling the bottles ffs? There's a river not more than 100yds away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 (edited) Many of us have been saying this all season. I did notice another extravagant expense yeterday. There were packs of bottled water along the touchline. What's wrong with refilling the bottles ffs? There's a river not more than 100yds away. Lol - maybe it was the high energy water that resulted in the victory... Edited 22 February, 2009 by Legod Third Coming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 I wonder who sanctioned that move. I know who it was! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 As is offten posted had Saga played all season his wages would have meant administration BUT had he played & scored imho he would have offset the minus 10 point penalty by winning us alot more than extra 10 points Thus we would be low end of mid table Well Paul, such insight would be welcomed at boardroom level, because it's taken them almost six foookin months to realise... Just as well we have astute businessmen in charge eh?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Many of us have been saying this all season. I did notice another extravagant expense yeterday. There were packs of bottled water along the touchline. What's wrong with refilling the bottles ffs? There's a river not more than 100yds away. I think that was Preston's water it was their trainer putting them down.. We don't have any because Rupert has turned it all into wine....at least that is what some on here would like you to believe.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpofshipperley Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Hang on we had Saga, Rasiak and the all the rest of them last year and we almost got relegated! How anyone can make such bold and frankly ridiculous statements is beyond me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 I think that was Preston's water it was their trainer putting them down.. We don't have any because Rupert has turned it all into wine....at least that is what some on here would like you to believe.... I believe he's turned this web-site into one long fecking whine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cellone Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Send off the best three strikers we have after a religation batle with out replacement and you can't see any problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Send off the best three strikers we have after a religation batle with out replacement and you can't see any problem. Only on Planet Rupert is such a move logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 Hang on we had Saga, Rasiak and the all the rest of them last year and we almost got relegated! How anyone can make such bold and frankly ridiculous statements is beyond me! You don't think miss-management was the issue last season, rather than a lack of tallent in the squad? Personally, I can't see this team getting to within 20 minutes of being relegated: Davis Ifil Davies Thomas Vignal Viafara Surman Safri Skacel Rasiak Saganowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 22 February, 2009 Share Posted 22 February, 2009 You don't think miss-management was the issue last season, rather than a lack of tallent in the squad? Personally, I can't see this team getting to within 20 minutes of being relegated: Davis Ifil Davies Thomas Vignal Viafara Surman Safri Skacel Rasiak Saganowski You'll have to be careful dissing Pearson around these parts Ari'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 You'll have to be careful dissing Pearson around these parts Ari'. I took it he meant Burley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 We could easily have afforded playing him, the fee we paid for Schneiderlin alone would have covered his wages. Finally, someone truly in the know. i've been trying to ascertain for a while the details of the Schneiderlin deals, how much we paid up front, how much in installments and what those additional payments were dependant on. Can you let us know, or drop me a PM if don't want everyone to know? Ta. Oh, and what, if anything, Arsenal have to do with the deal. While you're at it, can you also let me know how much we're paying Sagga, including appearance/goal/win bonuses? And how much Aalborg paid in a loan fee and how much of his wage they paid. Thank you kindly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 It never was admin v Saga It was as many as possible of our big earners v admin Skacel refused to go Nobody wanted Euell And the club tried hard to get them to go Thomas got crocked Presumably nobody wanted Davis or BWP or we didn't want to let them go (likely with Davis, unlikely with BWP, but his reputation is bigger than his ability) Offers were received for Saga, John & Rasiak, therefore they went If the first three had gone it is highly likely one or even two of our stikers would have stayed imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 It never was admin v Saga It was as many as possible of our big earners v admin Skacel refused to go Nobody wanted Euell And the club tried hard to get them to go Thomas got crocked Presumably nobody wanted Davis or BWP or we didn't want to let them go (likely with Davis, unlikely with BWP, but his reputation is bigger than his ability) Offers were received for Saga, John & Rasiak, therefore they went If the first three had gone it is highly likely one or even two of our stikers would have stayed imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 You don't think miss-management was the issue last season, rather than a lack of tallent in the squad? Personally, I can't see this team getting to within 20 minutes of being relegated: Davis Ifil Davies Thomas Vignal Viafara Surman Safri Skacel Rasiak Saganowski Funny that - I could have sworn i'd seen a squad containing all of the above come within twenty minutes of relegation last season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 You don't think miss-management was the issue last season, rather than a lack of tallent in the squad? Personally, I can't see this team getting to within 20 minutes of being relegated: Davis Ifil Davies Thomas Vignal Viafara Surman Safri Skacel Rasiak Saganowski Funny that - I could have sworn i'd seen a squad containing all of the above come within twenty minutes of relegation last season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Funny that - I could have sworn i'd seen a squad containing all of the above come within twenty minutes of relegation last season I think thats what he's trying to say. With a squad like that we should never have been in relegation trouble in the first place. As he said, it was mis-management that got us into trouble. See what a difference a manager can do to destroy the confidence of one player like Saga, now you see the same player we had when he first signed and what a difference he is under different guidance. Same can be applied to Rasiak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Funny that - I could have sworn i'd seen a squad containing all of the above come within twenty minutes of relegation last season I think thats what he's trying to say. With a squad like that we should never have been in relegation trouble in the first place. As he said, it was mis-management that got us into trouble. See what a difference a manager can do to destroy the confidence of one player like Saga, now you see the same player we had when he first signed and what a difference he is under different guidance. Same can be applied to Rasiak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 You don't think miss-management was the issue last season, rather than a lack of tallent in the squad? Personally, I can't see this team getting to within 20 minutes of being relegated: Davis Ifil Davies Thomas Vignal Viafara Surman Safri Skacel Rasiak Saganowski + Dyer ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 You don't think miss-management was the issue last season, rather than a lack of tallent in the squad? Personally, I can't see this team getting to within 20 minutes of being relegated: Davis Ifil Davies Thomas Vignal Viafara Surman Safri Skacel Rasiak Saganowski + Dyer ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Funny that - I could have sworn i'd seen a squad containing all of the above come within twenty minutes of relegation last season Davis - Not too many complaining about him now. Ifil - Got some decent results with him playing. Beat WBA IIRC Thomas - Jury still out. I like him. Davies - Player of the season after what, 13 games? Sold to Prem team. Vignal - When he was given a second chance was probably our best player second half of the season. Viafara - Bit hit and miss, but played a blinder there at Pride Park Surman - Good player, if inconsistent last year. Safri - I didn't think he influenced the game enough, but far better than Wotton. Skacel - A class apart in the 1 1/2 games he did play at LM. Rasiak - 3 things are guaranteed in life. Death, taxes and Rasiak scoring goals. Saganowski - Have faith, give him the ball and he can tear a new anus out of ANY defence in this league. Last season it wasn't the players, it was the management. Burley took us to midtable obscurity, Dodd/Gorman took us to the brink of relegation, Pearson did just enough to save us under tricky circumstances. It was a team full of BWPs, Jason Euells, Darren Powells, Adam Hammills and Jermaine Wrights that got us in trouble IMO. + Dyer ? He was injured, then hit and miss when he returned, but had a blinder at the start so point taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Le Shearer Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 As is offten posted had Saga played all season his wages would have meant administration BUT had he played & scored imho he would have offset the minus 10 point penalty by winning us alot more than extra 10 points Thus we would be low end of mid table thats an interesting point. IMO Saga COULD have brought 10 extra points,but that is only if he shows the sort of form he has found since his return. one player is very rarely responsible for ten points more/less. Man U without Ronaldo would still be top of the PL this year.. on the other hand..for all you conspiracy-theory lovers: maybe Lowe knew Saga was capable of doing this,and thus could effectively end Lowe`s regime (administration equals Lowe off) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintDonkey Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I'm guessing the choice initially was between Stern John and Saga. John was out top scorer last season so JP went with him, without noticing that John functioned best when he had Saga to do his running for him over half his goals coming whenh Saga was in the side. Result, partnered with McGoldrick John scores just one in ten games for Saints and becomes an expensive liability and gets shipped off on loan. I don't think Saga all season would have changed things that much. He's a very good player, and on his day a cut above most in this league, but his form is very streaky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Porter Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 John and Mcgoldrick where never partnered together though. John never got a fair chance this season. Saga would have made a difference if we played 4-4-2 all season, I don't really think he's going to do much of a job in a 4-5-1 like we had played until recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 John and Mcgoldrick where never partnered together though. John never got a fair chance this season. Saga would have made a difference if we played 4-4-2 all season, I don't really think he's going to do much of a job in a 4-5-1 like we had played until recently. That's not true, they played together at Hull last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintDonkey Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 John and Mcgoldrick where never partnered together though. John never got a fair chance this season. Saga would have made a difference if we played 4-4-2 all season, I don't really think he's going to do much of a job in a 4-5-1 like we had played until recently. Yep you're right. Apologies. The point was that he plays best with a partner like Saga. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzmeister Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Im not sure it would have made that much of a difference. He was clearly out of form and low on confidence. I think the loan away did him good and gave him hios much needed confidence back. How quickly would people of been on him had he carried on his form from the back end of last season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Davis - Not too many complaining about him now. Ifil - Got some decent results with him playing. Beat WBA IIRC Thomas - Jury still out. I like him. Davies - Player of the season after what, 13 games? Sold to Prem team. Vignal - When he was given a second chance was probably our best player second half of the season. Viafara - Bit hit and miss, but played a blinder there at Pride Park Surman - Good player, if inconsistent last year. Safri - I didn't think he influenced the game enough, but far better than Wotton. Skacel - A class apart in the 1 1/2 games he did play at LM. Rasiak - 3 things are guaranteed in life. Death, taxes and Rasiak scoring goals. Saganowski - Have faith, give him the ball and he can tear a new anus out of ANY defence in this league. Last season it wasn't the players, it was the management. Burley took us to midtable obscurity, Dodd/Gorman took us to the brink of relegation, Pearson did just enough to save us under tricky circumstances. It was a team full of BWPs, Jason Euells, Darren Powells, Adam Hammills and Jermaine Wrights that got us in trouble IMO. He was injured, then hit and miss when he returned, but had a blinder at the start so point taken. I think my point was that team of high earners failed miserably last season & those costs had to be addressed - hence the loaning out of Saga etc. I also think that JP thought McG could play loan striker - which was wrong & John couldn't - which was right, hence his departure, but I guess wages was still the deciding factor 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