Scummer Posted 1 April, 2009 Share Posted 1 April, 2009 If things are as bad as is now being publicised, does it not seem a little strange that we didn't raise any funds by selling Lallana, Surman etc in January? The BBC are saying our overdraft was slashed by Barclays in October, so this has been brewing for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 1 April, 2009 Share Posted 1 April, 2009 A very good question indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spades Posted 1 April, 2009 Share Posted 1 April, 2009 Maybe nobody wanted them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommo86 Posted 1 April, 2009 Share Posted 1 April, 2009 Sheer delusion on behalf of the board i should imagine, although i dont think selling those players would have generated enough income it would have at least bought some time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 1 April, 2009 Share Posted 1 April, 2009 Perhaps the Club were already in preliminary discussion with the Administrators (etc) and as such weren't 'allowed' to sell off assets cheaply and the only offers they got were below this threshold? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopkins Posted 1 April, 2009 Share Posted 1 April, 2009 2 reasons most probably... 1) The money we got offered for some of these players probably was peanuts and wouldn't make much difference. (It was reported we got offered stupidly low sums for them on the last day of the window) and 2) Keeping them gives us the best chance of staying up, therefore a better chance to sell the club. I imagine if we stay up we could just about stay in buisness (as long as we get some sort of investment) however if we go down it could be cheerio Southampton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 1 April, 2009 Share Posted 1 April, 2009 I suspect that if they were sold it would significantly reduce the appeal of the club to any investors. Probably was a tough call but realistically would you buy the club if it had no real assets ?? As hopkins has said we would be in a better position to 'sell' the club if we are in a position to maintain our CCC status, or even if in the case of a points deduction we are strong enough to come back up, a fire sale would have doomed us, IMO anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 1 April, 2009 Share Posted 1 April, 2009 Had we sold them Stanley et al would have informed us it was a "false economy" as we wouldn't get anyone through the gate to watch a depleted team, therefore we should have kept spending well outside our means to ensure people turned up. Sadly that is what f*cked us up in the past, but lucky Stanley et al like repeating the mistakes of the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
labibs Posted 1 April, 2009 Share Posted 1 April, 2009 Similarly, why did we sign Euell, Davies, Saga and John at the beginning of last season if we couldn't really afford their wages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 1 April, 2009 Share Posted 1 April, 2009 Perhaps there were no buyers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Man Do Posted 1 April, 2009 Share Posted 1 April, 2009 Maybe nobody wanted them? That or everyone knew we were up **** creek and offered ridiculously low money making any transfer potentially unhelpful to us, buying an extra few days out of administration gets us no where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alanh Posted 1 April, 2009 Share Posted 1 April, 2009 Similarly, why did we sign Euell, Davies, Saga and John at the beginning of last season if we couldn't really afford their wages? Because the board in charge at the time were convinced that there were real investors out there (SISU being the only one that actually made any form of offer) and that when these investors bought in we would have the funds to pay the high wages. The decisions taken in the summer of 2007 were the ones which set us on the course that brought us to where we are today. if anyone wants stringing up over this it's the likes of Hone, Hoos and Dulieu and anyone still connected to the club who let them make those decision - that could include Wilde, Jones, Crouch, McMenemy, Lowe etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 1 April, 2009 Share Posted 1 April, 2009 Because the board in charge at the time were convinced that there were real investors out there (SISU being the only one that actually made any form of offer) and that when these investors bought in we would have the funds to pay the high wages. The decisions taken in the summer of 2007 were the ones which set us on the course that brought us to where we are today. if anyone wants stringing up over this it's the likes of Hone, Hoos and Dulieu and anyone still connected to the club who let them make those decision - that could include Wilde, Jones, Crouch, McMenemy, Lowe etc. I thought they were judged on league position and not on debt situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Posted 1 April, 2009 Share Posted 1 April, 2009 Similarly, why did we sign Euell, Davies, Saga and John at the beginning of last season if we couldn't really afford their wages? you'll have to ask Hone, Wilde and Hoos that one! As we couldn't afford the fees or the wages - and probably should have sold Rasiak and Skacel at the time instead of buying anyone I think it was something to do with the £5 -£7 million Wilde promised to inject into the club and Hone started spending before it arrived - and then it never did - and then kept spending thinking it was the only way to secure a takeover No - I didn't understand his thinking either! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Man Do Posted 1 April, 2009 Share Posted 1 April, 2009 you'll have to ask Hone, Wilde and Hoos that one! As we couldn't afford the fees or the wages - and probably should have sold Rasiak and Skacel at the time instead of buying anyone I think it was something to do with the £5 -£7 million Wilde promised to inject into the club and Hone started spending before it arrived - and then it never did - and then kept spending thinking it was the only way to secure a takeover No - I didn't understand his thinking either! Not doubting what you're saying but is there anywhere you know of where this was quoted? I remember Crouch offering 2million if the other two directors matched it but thats about it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlehead Posted 1 April, 2009 Share Posted 1 April, 2009 Perhaps there were no buyers? Or perhaps the 'Big 4' bidding war for £25m+ McG is still ongoing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreog Posted 1 April, 2009 Share Posted 1 April, 2009 They are not players that would enhance any premiership side nor arguably many championship sides either....... therefore they were not sold!!......poor product usually means few customers!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 1 April, 2009 Share Posted 1 April, 2009 Or perhaps the 'Big 4' bidding war for £25m+ McG is still ongoing. I hadn't thought of that! 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