The short sightedness in loaning out players.

[ooohTerryHurlock]

Rasiak scored for Watford this weekend against Charlton - the two points difference between the win and draw could make the difference between CCC survival for us and admin and relegation - so how much financial sense is there in getting these players off the wage bill - To me its like dropping a tenner and finding a penny.

 

Super Brett scored for Blackpool as well this weekend to make things even worse. It is easier to swallow with him but Rasiak remains a saints player and therefore by scoring for watford can actually jepordise our future - can't grasp this really. Have struggled to understand the motives behind the way all the senior players have been dealt with this season. 3 20plus goalscorers bombed out on loan, other senior payers left to laguish in the reserves whilst we have been struggling..... madness!

[Whitey Grandad]

Agreed. Why buy them in the first place if we're not going to play them?

[Saint_clark]

Agreed. Why buy them in the first place if we're not going to play them?

 

It's not like we bought them and then loaned them straight out. Situations change.

[Whitey Grandad]

It's not like we bought them and then loaned them straight out. Situations change.

No, but they are still on the books as expensive assets which are depreciating.

[VectisSaint]

Brett is not an issue, he wasn't a loan. But what is madness is loaning players to rivals. I have no problem loaning Rasiak out, I was never a fan of his, and although he did score 20+ in the past time has moved on and he is not the player he was. Nevertheless to loan him to a rival relegation candidate is utter lunacy (OK, some will say Watford were not expected to be a relegation candidate, fair enough, in which case don't loan within the same division). At least when Stern went to Bristol we knew he was not going to a rival, and perhaps he could more damage playing against our rivals (as it turned out he hasn't done much of that either).

 

My view is that loans to other teams within the same division should be outlawed. It makes a mockery of competitive football.

[ooohTerryHurlock]

Brett is not an issue, he wasn't a loan. But what is madness is loaning players to rivals. I have no problem loaning Rasiak out, I was never a fan of his, and although he did score 20+ in the past time has moved on and he is not the player he was. Nevertheless to loan him to a rival relegation candidate is utter lunacy (OK, some will say Watford were not expected to be a relegation candidate, fair enough, in which case don't loan within the same division). At least when Stern went to Bristol we knew he was not going to a rival, and perhaps he could more damage playing against our rivals (as it turned out he hasn't done much of that either).

 

My view is that loans to other teams within the same division should be outlawed. It makes a mockery of competitive football.

 

Think I said that!

[ooohTerryHurlock]

Brett is not an issue, he wasn't a loan. But what is madness is loaning players to rivals. I have no problem loaning Rasiak out, I was never a fan of his, and although he did score 20+ in the past time has moved on and he is not the player he was. Nevertheless to loan him to a rival relegation candidate is utter lunacy (OK, some will say Watford were not expected to be a relegation candidate, fair enough, in which case don't loan within the same division). At least when Stern went to Bristol we knew he was not going to a rival, and perhaps he could more damage playing against our rivals (as it turned out he hasn't done much of that either).

 

My view is that loans to other teams within the same division should be outlawed. It makes a mockery of competitive football.

 

Agree whole heartedly with this

[Mole]

Rupert knows best.

[hamster]

Agree whole heartedly with this

 

Ban loans, end of. Bring an end to the shambolic circus that is "£he £ransfer Window' and let's get back to basics.

 

Imho transfer windows are illegal anyway, can anyone imagine agreeing to this sort of restriction in any other business as a blanket policy, it is ridiculous. People talk of 'fire sales' in December and January! Ridiculous, absoloutely ridiculous.

[eelpie]

At the AGM a couple of years ago I asked Leon Crouch if he would guarantee that no Saints player would be loaned out to a CCC club for this very reason. He would not. I was shocked.

 

It is madness.

[Wes Tender]

It is all part of Rupert's plan and he does indeed know best. At the vital stage of the season which is fast approaching, Rasiak will be sent off in vital matches and score own goals to help us out. John will score vital goals against our direct relegation rivals when they have dismissed him as not being a real danger. Cunning plan, eh? Brilliant in its simplicity.

Edited 9 March, 2009 by Wes Tender

[Toussaint]

Rupert knows best.

 

Rupert wishes to express his grattitude for your loyalty.

[West End Saint]

Rasiak scored for Watford this weekend against Charlton - the two points difference between the win and draw could make the difference between CCC survival for us and admin and relegation - so how much financial sense is there in getting these players off the wage bill - To me its like dropping a tenner and finding a penny.

 

Super Brett scored for Blackpool as well this weekend to make things even worse. It is easier to swallow with him but Rasiak remains a saints player and therefore by scoring for watford can actually jepordise our future - can't grasp this really. Have struggled to understand the motives behind the way all the senior players have been dealt with this season. 3 20plus goalscorers bombed out on loan, other senior payers left to laguish in the reserves whilst we have been struggling..... madness!

 

This decision and the decision to play the youth team from the start of the season is the main reason I want Lowe out of our club for ever to send 3 20 goals a season Strikers out on loan 2 to teams in our league was mental

we all knew that in this league you need a blend of youth and experience we all knew we needed a decent settled back four we all knew we needed a decent left back.

 

Wether we survive or not Lowe's gamble and penny pinching has failed big time to list all his failings would take all day it is time for him to go and time for some sense reason and stability for Southampton Football Club

[david in sweden]

Rasiak scored for Watford this weekend against Charlton - the two points difference between the win and draw could make the difference between CCC survival for us and admin and relegation - so how much financial sense is there in getting these players off the wage bill - To me its like dropping a tenner and finding a penny.

 

Super Brett scored for Blackpool as well this weekend to make things even worse. It is easier to swallow with him but Rasiak remains a saints player and therefore by scoring for watford can actually jepordise our future - can't grasp this really. Have struggled to understand the motives behind the way all the senior players have been dealt with this season. 3 20plus goalscorers bombed out on loan, other senior payers left to laguish in the reserves whilst we have been struggling..... madness!

 

 

Of course it's difficult to take when former players score and ours don't; But consider the circumstances about their leaving - and also ask yourself - How long do you persevere with players before you let them go?

 

The likes of Brett Ormerod; a nice guy, hard working and loyal was hardly ever up to standard with us, although the kindest that can be said is that he was a good partner (with assists) to James Beattie in JB's high scoring seasons. Other names like Mills (Donc), Howard (Barnsley) and Blackstock (QPR) keep coming up to haunt some people, but in fairness ; Mills wanted to go (and follow Wigley to Man.City), Howard was (by some accounts) someone with "an attitude" and not a good influence in the dressing room and Blackstock was only one of three or four in his generation in U18 side, not on top form just then, and it was a good deal at the time.

 

In recent years, few strikers have had so much criticism (from fans) as had Greg Rasiak DESPITE the fact that he was ONE of only THREE strikers to have scored 20 goals in a season - in the last 20 years ! Now he is away on loan ..and scores OCCASIONALLY suddenly lots of people think it's a mistake.

 

Rasiak is often sub. (not even first choice at Watford) and the last time I looked... hadn't scored as many goals this season as that other much-criticised, but much less experienced striker - David McGoldrick !

 

We need some perspective, and must learn to live with the fact that other (former) players will sometimes pop up and score goals that hurt us, however they can rarely be considered MUCH better than the talent we have now.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

Rasiak could not be considered prolific, how many has he scored this season ? when he first joined Watford he didn't score for 2 months, whilst here split opinions categorised as a lazy c unt by some, similar to Stern, how many has he bagged this season ? before the loan extension his ratio was something like 1 goal every 6 games, who knows if their form would be different had they remained with us, these decisions made by Lowe and Crouch were clearly forced upon them due to the financial position, misguided or not but the only motive would seem to be attempting to improve on that ...false economy ? we'll know that in 9 games time (or less )

[madsent]

Rasiak scored for Watford this weekend against Charlton - the two points difference between the win and draw could make the difference between CCC survival for us and admin and relegation - so how much financial sense is there in getting these players off the wage bill - To me its like dropping a tenner and finding a penny.

 

Super Brett scored for Blackpool as well this weekend to make things even worse. It is easier to swallow with him but Rasiak remains a saints player and therefore by scoring for watford can actually jepordise our future - can't grasp this really. Have struggled to understand the motives behind the way all the senior players have been dealt with this season. 3 20plus goalscorers bombed out on loan, other senior payers left to laguish in the reserves whilst we have been struggling..... madness!

 

What about the points that Rasiak has cost Watford ? By all accounts, he's played poorly when he's made it onto the pitch and many Watford fans think he's one of the reasons they are so low in the table.

[alpine_saint]

How ironic that the tw*t that wouldnt let us buy Saha and Malbranque because the transfer fee would enrichen a club at the same level of us has lent out our best striker to a club on the same level as us.......

[bungle]

Does anyone remember that we were paying massive amounts on wages we couldn't afford and had to get some players off the wage bill? Does no-one remember that? Honestly?

[Pancake]

Does anyone remember that we were paying massive amounts on wages we couldn't afford and had to get some players off the wage bill? Does no-one remember that? Honestly?

 

Sadly if you speak up an honest and reflective thought like that Bungle you will be labeled a "luvvie". No wonder the main board is slowly dying.

[West End Saint]

Does anyone remember that we were paying massive amounts on wages we couldn't afford and had to get some players off the wage bill? Does no-one remember that? Honestly?

 

Why didnt we loan the players out abroad or to anybody not in our league or sell them ? why did we loan in and buy underate players to replace them why did we not start the season with the squad we had utilising the players we were paying anyway rather than let seasoned pro's rot in the reserves why gamble with our CCC future by playing all the kids at once ?

 

So many questions 1 persons fault in my opinion massive gamble massive mistake.

[St Landrew]

How ironic that the tw*t that wouldnt let us buy Saha and Malbranque because the transfer fee would enrichen a club at the same level of us has lent out our best striker to a club on the same level as us.......

 

Just another example of how the possible [probable..?] relegation, and if that happens, almost certain administration, will have been quite unecessary, and almost entirely self inflicted. Ironically, the better form since, our other Dutch connection, Wotte took over the reigns actually demonstrates this.

 

If someone actually wants this club to go under, they couldn't be planning this convincing drama out any better.

[SaintRobbie]

Rasiak scored for Watford this weekend against Charlton - the two points difference between the win and draw could make the difference between CCC survival for us and admin and relegation - so how much financial sense is there in getting these players off the wage bill - To me its like dropping a tenner and finding a penny.

 

Super Brett scored for Blackpool as well this weekend to make things even worse. It is easier to swallow with him but Rasiak remains a saints player and therefore by scoring for watford can actually jepordise our future - can't grasp this really. Have struggled to understand the motives behind the way all the senior players have been dealt with this season. 3 20plus goalscorers bombed out on loan, other senior payers left to laguish in the reserves whilst we have been struggling..... madness!

 

Been moaning about Rasiak's loan since the summer. The fact he is likely to keep them up whilst we go down is criminal incompetence. Add Dyer and Stern John and it gets worse. What's worse it that appears we have allowed them to go without recall clauses. Utter incompetence.

 

Lowe has killed/is killing our club.

[saintjay77]

Brett is not an issue, he wasn't a loan. But what is madness is loaning players to rivals. I have no problem loaning Rasiak out, I was never a fan of his, and although he did score 20+ in the past time has moved on and he is not the player he was. Nevertheless to loan him to a rival relegation candidate is utter lunacy (OK, some will say Watford were not expected to be a relegation candidate, fair enough, in which case don't loan within the same division). At least when Stern went to Bristol we knew he was not going to a rival, and perhaps he could more damage playing against our rivals (as it turned out he hasn't done much of that either).

 

My view is that loans to other teams within the same division should be outlawed. It makes a mockery of competitive football.

 

LOL sometimes you talk sence but other times you talk complete waffle.

 

How can it be bad to loan Ras to Watford who no-one expected to be battling near the bottom and therefor our rivals yet OK to loan Stern to Bristol who no-one expected to do as well as last year and therefore actually expect them to be closer to being our rivals than Watford?

 

Im amazed how much you think we all knew when these players were being loaned out.

 

We didnt like them being loaned out but we needed to reduce the wages (or so we are led to believe and I have seen nothing that suggests otherwise yet) Prem clubs and foreign clubs didnt want them and they were too good to go to leagues below so if the CCC were the only clubs to come calling and the choice is keep them and put a greater risk of admin or shift them and hope we have enough about us to survive this season then its pretty good business IMO.

 

Like Rupes or not this is the same sort of stuff that anyone at the top should have been doing when there is still no sign of external money coming in to save us.

[saintjay77]

Been moaning about Rasiak's loan since the summer. The fact he is likely to keep them up whilst we go down is criminal incompetence. Add Dyer and Stern John and it gets worse. What's worse it that appears we have allowed them to go without recall clauses. Utter incompetence.

 

Lowe has killed/is killing our club.

 

So the other option is tell everyone else to do one and let us go into admin?

 

The recall clauses has been explained loads of times already, if you dont want to listen to the facts then thats your problem and imo makes you incompetent

[JohnnyFartPants]

How ironic that the tw*t that wouldnt let us buy Saha and Malbranque because the transfer fee would enrichen a club at the same level of us has lent out our best striker to a club on the same level as us.......

 

I am sure he would never have stopped you and your mates buying Saha or Malbranque. If you had that sort of money you should have just done it. If you mean that he and other shareholders on the board decided by a vote that they couldn't afford to buy them (not you, they) then that is entirely different.

[Weston Super Saint]

Does anyone remember that we were paying massive amounts on wages we couldn't afford and had to get some players off the wage bill? Does no-one remember that? Honestly?

 

Until you - or anyone else - can demonstrate that loaning our top earners out, and replacing them with numerous players not even good enough to get a game, is / was financial viable, then the argument about finances is dead in the water....

[Panda]

The advantage of hind sight eh?

 

I am struggling to understand the logic here. Who are these three 20+ goals per season players we have loaned out? We have not had any of those since Matt Le Tiss, Micky Channon, Ron Davies and Derek Reeves (OK they were a few more) but in recent times we have not had one. Raisak, John and Dyer are hardly in that category and, apart from a short spell of good reviews at Swansea for Dyer, none have really set the world alight elsewhere. So Raisak scored for Watford on Saturday - are you telling me that we are where are because of that!!!!

[Danbert]

What about the points that Rasiak has cost Watford ? By all accounts, he's played poorly when he's made it onto the pitch and many Watford fans think he's one of the reasons they are so low in the table.

 

Quite - and if they hadn't spent/wasted their money on him they'd've got someone else in who might well have done a better job.

 

Also when other clubs borrow our players they have to drop them when they play us - this making it easier for us to play them than it would be if they'd borrowed players from a third club.

 

And... Saints players playing for other clubs may have contributed to defeats suffered by our relegation rivals. I haven't checked but I'm guessing John has done so.

[Frank's cousin]

Ban loans, end of. Bring an end to the shambolic circus that is "£he £ransfer Window' and let's get back to basics.

 

Imho transfer windows are illegal anyway, can anyone imagine agreeing to this sort of restriction in any other business as a blanket policy, it is ridiculous. People talk of 'fire sales' in December and January! Ridiculous, absoloutely ridiculous.

 

To be honest I think GREATER restrictions should be enforced - naming as 25 player squad at teh strat of the season - only replacements allowed when someone is out for the season, transfers closed season only and no loans - the idea is to level the playing field so you are not penalizing clubs for not being able to carry huge squads... sorry but I think this would go a long way to leveling things a bit....

[VectisSaint]

LOL sometimes you talk sence but other times you talk complete waffle.

 

How can it be bad to loan Ras to Watford who no-one expected to be battling near the bottom and therefor our rivals yet OK to loan Stern to Bristol who no-one expected to do as well as last year and therefore actually expect them to be closer to being our rivals than Watford?

 

Im amazed how much you think we all knew when these players were being loaned out.

 

We didnt like them being loaned out but we needed to reduce the wages (or so we are led to believe and I have seen nothing that suggests otherwise yet) Prem clubs and foreign clubs didnt want them and they were too good to go to leagues below so if the CCC were the only clubs to come calling and the choice is keep them and put a greater risk of admin or shift them and hope we have enough about us to survive this season then its pretty good business IMO.

 

Like Rupes or not this is the same sort of stuff that anyone at the top should have been doing when there is still no sign of external money coming in to save us.

I'm honoured that you think I talk sense sometimes

 

My point was, and perhaps I didn't make it as well as I could have done, that at the time when Stern went to City (several weeks into the season) it was much clearer how they were doing. They were not down among the dead men scrapping with us to avoid relegation, and in theory at least if John had started banging them in it may have benefited us (it didn't but thats another story). The Rasiak situation was in my opinion just daft. Before the season started we should not have loaned anyone to any of our CCC rivals, which I think is what I said, because at that stage we did not know whether we would be battling against them or not.

 

I am completely against loans within the same division, so disagree with John and Dyer as well, but at least with the current set up I could sort of understand the logic, whereas with Rasiak it was just plain stupidity.

 

Responding to someone's point about Crouch not guaranteeing that he would not loan to another CCC rival, perhaps he didn't, but at least he actually loaned Rasiak and Skacel to the Prem and Bundesliga respectively.

[aintforever]

Does anyone remember that we were paying massive amounts on wages we couldn't afford and had to get some players off the wage bill? Does no-one remember that? Honestly?

 

Can you not remember the 15 + players we have brought in, or the 1.2mill spunked out on Schederlin?

 

Or the fact that we were still paying Skacel and Euell's wages while they were sat in the stands watch the team with the likes of Mills, Gobern and Paterson in, get dicked?

Edited 10 March, 2009 by aintforever

[Weston Saint]

I am told the overdraft since the start of the season was coming down. Not enough to satisfy the bank but coming down. In the last 2 months it has steadily gone back up.

 

That is the reality if my information is correct and I have no reason to doubt it is correct.

 

A combination of high earners coming back with appearance bonuses and lower gates are the reason in my opinion. We needed the experience, we now have it and now we need the attendances to make it pay.

[aintforever]

I am told the overdraft since the start of the season was coming down. Not enough to satisfy the bank but coming down. In the last 2 months it has steadily gone back up.

 

That is the reality if my information is correct and I have no reason to doubt it is correct.

 

A combination of high earners coming back with appearance bonuses and lower gates are the reason in my opinion. We needed the experience, we now have it and now we need the attendances to make it pay.

 

Makes sense to dip into the overdraft to try and stay up. Of course it means admin is way more certain if we go down but that was pretty much nailed on anyway so it's a sensible gamble.

[saintjay77]

I'm honoured that you think I talk sense sometimes

 

My point was, and perhaps I didn't make it as well as I could have done, that at the time when Stern went to City (several weeks into the season) it was much clearer how they were doing. They were not down among the dead men scrapping with us to avoid relegation, and in theory at least if John had started banging them in it may have benefited us (it didn't but thats another story). The Rasiak situation was in my opinion just daft. Before the season started we should not have loaned anyone to any of our CCC rivals, which I think is what I said, because at that stage we did not know whether we would be battling against them or not.

 

I am completely against loans within the same division, so disagree with John and Dyer as well, but at least with the current set up I could sort of understand the logic, whereas with Rasiak it was just plain stupidity.

 

Responding to someone's point about Crouch not guaranteeing that he would not loan to another CCC rival, perhaps he didn't, but at least he actually loaned Rasiak and Skacel to the Prem and Bundesliga respectively.

 

Ah that makes more sence

 

To be fair though just because Bristol did well at the start it didnt mean they would continue to do so, likewise Watford were not expected to struggle the whole season.

 

I can see your point on Loaning to the same division but that can be said in any league. I dont think we were in a position to be choosey and I think JP thought we would have done better with the kids. So on 1 hand we had to do something and on the other the plan b wasnt good enough.

 

Neither can be gaurenteed as facts without hindsight which I got the impression this thread is made up of.

[Johnny Shearer]

I could see the need to loan out Rasiak due to gettting costs off the wage bill. And who would have thought that Watford would eb scrapping for relegation with us? I certainly didn't.

 

I don't recall anyone complaining when Rasiak went on loan and then subsequently got injured for a couple of months. If he had stayed here and got injured we would have been in a worse position.

 

Also if Dyer and Stern manage to help Swansea/Bristol to beat teams around us I'd be more than happy.

 

Although them being here in the first place and being played would probably have been better and ensuring we weren't in a relegation battle in the first place!

 

Its a ruddy viscious circle at SFC.

Edited 10 March, 2009 by Johnny Shearer

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Can you not remember the 15 + players we have brought in, or the 1.2mill spunked out on Schederlin?

 

Or the fact that we were still paying Skacel and Euell's wages while they were sat in the stands watch the team with the likes of Mills, Gobern and Paterson in, get dicked?

 

The fact is you don't play players that could earn you money just in case they get injured, and Skacel was unwilling to play and was unfit.

 

I think you'll find the money that we spent on loans would be negligible, even though there were so many, compared to Rasiak and Stern, in fact, a lot of loans, especially for younger players you don't pay for, apart from the £250 wages a week that they're on.

 

Personally I find it amazing so stupid people on this board are. It utterly astounds me, it truly does. People like Alpine I get because he's just a wind up merchant along the lines of Sundance, Scooby, etc, but it's when supposedly 'educated' people start spouting this cr@p. Amazing.

[Frank's cousin]

Can you not remember the 15 + players we have brought in, or the 1.2mill spunked out on Schederlin?

 

Or the fact that we were still paying Skacel and Euell's wages while they were sat in the stands watch the team with the likes of Mills, Gobern and Paterson in, get dicked?

 

Think the schneiderlin deal was purely commercial - give a young player with potential a year or 18 months and then sell on for a profit - seen as a better option that 'spunking' 1.2 mil on wages for teh overpaid or on players near the ned of careers with no sell on value.... does not amke sense from a footballing perspective but does from a commercial one when in the mire financially - naturally you have to choose a player that will improve, shine and increase in value though! ;-)

[saintjay77]

I am told the overdraft since the start of the season was coming down. Not enough to satisfy the bank but coming down. In the last 2 months it has steadily gone back up.

 

That is the reality if my information is correct and I have no reason to doubt it is correct.

 

A combination of high earners coming back with appearance bonuses and lower gates are the reason in my opinion. We needed the experience, we now have it and now we need the attendances to make it pay.

 

if that is anywhere near to the truth then it shows how important it is to get people back in the stadium on match days.

 

Its been catch 22 since the start though as without a strong team the gates will drop but the club need a strong team to get the gates up.

 

I dont want it to sound like its the fans fault but the boycott's if they were as effective as some like to think were probably closer to damaging the club then helping it get rid of Lowe.

 

i hope what ever happens over the sumer doesnt put the fans off going back to SMS next seaason.

[eelpie]

if that is anywhere near to the truth then it shows how important it is to get people back in the stadium on match days.

 

Its been catch 22 since the start though as without a strong team the gates will drop but the club need a strong team to get the gates up.

 

I dont want it to sound like its the fans fault but the boycott's if they were as effective as some like to think were probably closer to damaging the club then helping it get rid of Lowe.

 

I agree. Now is the time for ALL fans to be at St Mary's in force for the reasons you have stated. The Lowe boycotts can resume if we become mathematically relegated. We are all needed in full voice meantime. And we need to do our bit towards paying for the experienced players we have been demanding, like Saha and Euell, if we are to survive relegation and bankruptcy.

[SaintRobbie]

if that is anywhere near to the truth then it shows how important it is to get people back in the stadium on match days.

 

Its been catch 22 since the start though as without a strong team the gates will drop but the club need a strong team to get the gates up.

 

I dont want it to sound like its the fans fault but the boycott's if they were as effective as some like to think were probably closer to damaging the club then helping it get rid of Lowe.

 

i hope what ever happens over the sumer doesnt put the fans off going back to SMS next seaason.

 

Its a paradox. People will return if Lowe goes as he fails to generate optimism. How he can be allowed to continue by the shareholders and bank I dont know - its insane.

 

Fans wont return with Lowe. That's reality. So we need to remove Lowe.

 

I liked the idea of picketting Barclays Bank and Lowe's other businesses until he leaves.

[St Landrew]

The advantage of hind sight eh?

 

I am struggling to understand the logic here. Who are these three 20+ goals per season players we have loaned out? We have not had any of those since Matt Le Tiss, Micky Channon, Ron Davies and Derek Reeves (OK they were a few more) but in recent times we have not had one. Raisak, John and Dyer are hardly in that category and, apart from a short spell of good reviews at Swansea for Dyer, none have really set the world alight elsewhere. So Raisak scored for Watford on Saturday - are you telling me that we are where are because of that!!!!

 

Can see where where you are coming from Panda.

 

Actully Beatts was one, but you're right. If we dip the sights to a reliable 15+ goals per season, then people's opinions on the loan outs obtain a little more weight. Playing them regularly and providing them with the right service, Rasiak, John and Saga are all easily capable of 15+ goals per season. Thankfully, we have one of them back.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

And we need to do our bit towards paying for the experienced players we have been demanding, like Saha and Euell, if we are to survive relegation and bankruptcy.

 

 

But Alpine said Rupert wouldn't buy Saha ???

[INFLUENCED.COM]

How he can be allowed to continue by the shareholders and bank I dont know - its insane.

 

Really does need answering....do you think it could be because they are better informed than us with regard to his ability to keep the club solvent ?

[eelpie]

I don't think we needed to keep Rasiak AND John AND Saga here - because of the financial situation. But it was

1. Madness to loan all out.

2. Madness to loan John and Rasiak to competitor CCC clubs.

3. Madness not to have Saga here, and on the pitch, upfront with another striker.

 

Similarly, I think it has not been wise of fans who could have been attending matches to stay away simply because Lowe returned, because we needed large attendances to be able to afford these guys. Were Lowe not here attendances would have been higher, that's for sure - a chicken and egg situation. If Rasiak and John had been here, Lowe wouldn't have allowed them to play anyway, so results and attendances would have dipped. It all comes back to Lowe and his meddling in team affairs.

 

But we have all got a job to do, whatever the historic rights and wrongs. Be at St Mary's in full voice whenever we can. The Lowe out boycott should be temporarily suspended imho until we are either mathematically saved from relegation - or not.

 

Either way, Lowe must be gone by the end of the summer.

[saintjay77]

Its a paradox. People will return if Lowe goes as he fails to generate optimism. How he can be allowed to continue by the shareholders and bank I dont know - its insane.

 

Fans wont return with Lowe. That's reality. So we need to remove Lowe.

 

I liked the idea of picketting Barclays Bank and Lowe's other businesses until he leaves.

 

But thats the problem. You want Lowe out for your reasons but the people who actually make the decissions are doing so based on the facts and not the gossip and rumour that goes around on here.

 

Dont get me wrong because I think if someone shows up that looks like they could do things even slightly better, those making the decissions will ditch lowe like a hot shyte. But right now enough of the board think that "Lowe's" plan or "The" plan is currently the best chance of keeping the club afloat and therefor keeping there shares at least worth something. Most of the fans dont like that but the only thing we can do about it is make thinngs harder for the club or make things easier for the club.

 

We all want lowe out but instead of ruining the club to make it happen we should all be trying to find someone that can do it better IMO

[eelpie]

But Alpine said Rupert wouldn't buy Saha ???

 

lol. typo. Saga

[Whitey Grandad]

lol. typo. Saga

Didn't he mean when WGS was in charge?

[saintjay77]

I don't think we needed to keep Rasiak AND John AND Saga here - because of the financial situation.

 

Think you got that the wrong way round but think your saying that we didnt need to loan them all out? If so you may be right but if the 1st priority was to keep the bank happy to remain in business then surley everything possible had to be done and I wouldhave thought almost everyone would have been up for grabs but we could only shift those that other clubs came looking for and we only did it at the right price.

 

But it was

1. Madness to loan all out.

2. Madness to loan John and Rasiak to competitor CCC clubs.

3. Madness not to have Saga here, and on the pitch, upfront with another striker.

 

1. like i said probably everyone was up for grabs and as some of the highest earners they made the most effect in going so makes sence in the 1st instance to the bank.

2. If no-one else comes knocking for them we dont have much of an option. we could of course keep them and not play them to save some money but it wont save as much as loaning them out, or we could of course play them and stick 2 fingers up to the bank and watch them call the administrators because we fail to do anything about our finacial situation.

3. JP's tactics could only include the players he had available. he may have said we can do without the high earners which was a mistake but my guess is that those that wernt shipped out were out of bounds to a certain extent because of the position with the bank and the opinion that what was left would be good enough to keep us safe.

 

Similarly, I think it has not been wise of fans who could have been attending matches to stay away simply because Lowe returned, because we needed large attendances to be able to afford these guys. Were Lowe not here attendances would have been higher, that's for sure - a chicken and egg situation. If Rasiak and John had been here, Lowe wouldn't have allowed them to play anyway, so results and attendances would have dipped. It all comes back to Lowe and his meddling in team affairs.

 

But we have all got a job to do, whatever the historic rights and wrongs. Be at St Mary's in full voice whenever we can. The Lowe out boycott should be temporarily suspended imho until we are either mathematically saved from relegation - or not.

 

Either way, Lowe must be gone by the end of the summer.

 

I kind of agree in that the fans can help allot and maybe they are reluctant too because everything that happens is looked upon as if Lowe is doing it to wind everyone up. But the idea that Lowe meddles in team affairs is amuzing. He has his ideas on how the club should move forward and he believes he knows what needs to be done to keep us in business but he employes a manager that looks after the team affairs and the board choose who that will be. We have gone through several that do it there way and now we have one that has bought into Lowes way of thinking. If that way is successful would that be down to Lowes meddling?

 

The only way I want Lowe gone in the summer is if there is someone better to replace him. That doesnt mean I think he is great as im sure there should be plenty of better options. I just want 1 of them to pipe up and show us a better way forward. It shouldnt be that hard surely?

[Weston Super Saint]

Really does need answering....do you think it could be because they are better informed than us with regard to his ability to keep the club solvent ?

 

Time will tell....

[Alanh]

Until you - or anyone else - can demonstrate that loaning our top earners out, and replacing them with numerous players not even good enough to get a game, is / was financial viable, then the argument about finances is dead in the water....

 

How can the argument be dead in the water. We know from the last accounts that outgoings exceeded incomings so our overdraft is increasing. we have read statements in various reports saying that the club would have to raise money or reduce costs to keep the bank happy. Just about everything written about the club in the media since the end of last season has mentioned that we are cash strapped.

 

We might not have definitive financial information but I think we've got enough to believe that Saints have needed to raise money / reduce costs since the SISU deal was vetoed. Crouch started the process by loaning out Rasiak and Skacel last January and it just continued with John, Rasiak and Saga going out last summer. I'm guessing we would have preferred to sell at least one of them but there were no offers. I don't think the new players coming in either permanently or on loan would have brought costs to the wage bill any where near the combined wages of the three above that were loaned out plus the other players that left at the end of last season that they replaced.