benjii Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 We would have raised approx £1m? Maybe a bit more. The team would not have suffered one iota. To allow SLH to fall into administration was lazy and incompetent and smacks of a half-arsed approach. Not surprising considering the CEO who came back to "save Saints", apart from beng barking mad, worked a two-day week. Not surprising considering the chairman of the football club is a tax exile. Useless, incompetent idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_saints Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 Gotta love hindsight. There would have been an utter uproar if we sold Lallana in January. Anyway, my conclusion is: Shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 7 April, 2009 Gotta love hindsight. There would have been an utter uproar if we sold Lallana in January. Anyway, my conclusion is: Shut up. Those in uproar would have been idiots. Actually, that's harsh. Those in uproar would not have been fully appraised of the facts; unlike the board. He's gash anyway. In fact, I'm not even sure there would have been uproar. Everyone was expecting player sales. Fair enough, we hoped it would be Rasiak or John or Saga etc... but it wasn't, so it should have been someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 7 April, 2009 Probably could have signed Messi when he was 8 or 9. Good point. Souness wanted to but Lowe vetoed it. That's the real reason Souness left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 Probably could have signed Messi when he was 8 or 9.Very Lol You cant win anything with youngsters got to have a team full of 30+year old players i keep getting told by the judges on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 Good point. Souness wanted to but Lowe vetoed it. That's the real reason Souness left.Lol again good follow up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1ex2001 Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 We would have raised approx £1m? Maybe a bit more. The team would not have suffered one iota. To allow SLH to fall into administration was lazy and incompetent and smacks of a half-arsed approach. Not surprising considering the CEO who came back to "save Saints", apart from beng barking mad, worked a two-day week. Not surprising considering the chairman of the football club is a tax exile. Useless, incompetent idiots. Who cares? Whats done is done why can we not just stop picking over the bones and debating the what ifs etc. Look to the future and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 We would have raised approx £1m? Maybe a bit more. The team would not have suffered one iota. To allow SLH to fall into administration was lazy and incompetent and smacks of a half-arsed approach. Not surprising considering the CEO who came back to "save Saints", apart from beng barking mad, worked a two-day week. Not surprising considering the chairman of the football club is a tax exile. Useless, incompetent idiots. Pity you didnt lend Rupes your crystal ball, isnt it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 7 April, 2009 Who cares? Whats done is done why can we not just stop picking over the bones and debating the what ifs etc. Look to the future and move on. Listen mate, I didn't pay a fiver to look to the future and move on. I consider membership of this place a gold-plated licence to moan and I intend to use it to its full potential as and when I see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 7 April, 2009 Pity you didnt lend Rupes your crystal ball, isnt it ? He would only have used it to bludgeon trout to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 He would only have used it to bludgeon trout to death. Is this true? My god is there anything the man isn't capable of?! He's gone to far this time...i'm going to right a letter to my local MP... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_stevo Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 £1m for both? The way Dyer has been playing he is worth that alone, and if Lallana learns to kick, and has a chance to mature rather than us pinning our hopes on him then he could be worth £3m in a year or so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 I was under the impression that we were trying to off load players. The trouble is, when clubs know you are in trouble they are going to offer low money, if anything at all. Thing is, wasn't Lowe slated for trying to shift players? Now he is being slated for not shifting them???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 I was under the impression that we were trying to off load players. The trouble is, when clubs know you are in trouble they are going to offer low money, if anything at all. Thing is, wasn't Lowe slated for trying to shift players? Now he is being slated for not shifting them???? Glad he has been shifted out of here....NOW we can get down to signing Messi at last:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 Glad he has been shifted out of here....NOW we can get down to signing Messi at last:D Ottery, I am always up for a bit of gallows humour but I doubt if we could even sign the likes of Ali Dia nowdays!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 7 April, 2009 (edited) I was under the impression that we were trying to off load players. The trouble is, when clubs know you are in trouble they are going to offer low money, if anything at all. Thing is, wasn't Lowe slated for trying to shift players? Now he is being slated for not shifting them???? Any slating that he may or may not have got would probably have been based on the assumption/belief that the situation wasn't completely, utterly, imminently, disastrously critical. If people had been aware that it was, then they would not slate. There were sound commercial reasons for not making the precise position public and so I'm not criticising over a lack of publicity, more that it seems more than a little odd that we refused bids for Lallana, Surman(?) and Dyer when the situation was this bad. When was Lowe ever influenced by fan criticism in any case (apart from when he wants to cite it retrospectively to excuse his terrible decisions)? We seem to have pinned all our hopes on someone coming in for a late bid for Euell, Saga, KD or Skacel. Given that it was obvious to most clubs that they could pick any of these up on loan in any case, is it not surprising that this didn't happen. Yes, we might have had to accept lower prices than we would otherwise like to for the younger players but if we only needed a few hundred grand to get us through to the summer then surely it would be worth it? The whole things just smacks of lazyness and is as much "head in the hand" style management as Crouch is, rightly or wrongly, sometimes accused of. I can't countenance that Lowe and Wilde's part-time meddlings have been more productive than the efforts of a highly motivated, competent, full-time CEO would have been. Edited 7 April, 2009 by benjii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 Any slating that he may or may not have got would probably have been based on the assumption/belief that the situation wasn't completely, utterly, imminently, disastrously critical. If people had been aware that it was, then they would not slate. There were sound commercial reasons for not making the precise position public and so I'm not criticising over a lack of publicity, more that it seems more than a little odd that we refused bids for Lallana, Surman(?) and Dyer when the situation was this bad. When was Lowe ever influenced by fan criticism in any case (apart from when he wants to cite it retrospectively to excuse his terrible decisions)? We seem to have pinned all our hopes on someone coming in for a late bid for Euell, Saga, KD or Skacel. Given that it was obvious to most clubs that they could pick any of these up on loan in any case, is it not surprising that this didn't happen. Yes, we might have had to accept lower prices than we would otherwise like to for the younger players but if we only needed a few hundred grand to get us through to the summer then surely it would be worth it? The whole things just smacks of lazyness and is as much "head in the hand" style management as Crouch is, rightly or wrongly, sometimes accused of. Benjii, we can't force people to invest or take players off our hands. Skacel made a decsion NOT to go to Ispwich...not our fault. The impression I got was that the Board were woking hard to get the wage bill down and were getting a lot of stick for it. I don't call that laziness. They did get the cost base down but obvioulsy Barclays lost patience. What were the Board supposed to do? Slagged for playing youth. Slagged for not playing the experience pros and then slagged for keeping them. I assume that there were regular meetings with the bank. Why then were the VBOard not told to sell no matter what the price was? It doesn't sound like that happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 Ottery, I am always up for a bit of gallows humour but I doubt if we could even sign the likes of Ali Dia nowdays!!! Yeah, Sorry as you have said before....I have to grow up....Back to the job in hand......You having a dig at Leon and Lawrie and me having a dig at Rupert and Michael....OR should we come together and fight for the club:smt017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 7 April, 2009 (edited) Benjii, we can't force people to invest or take players off our hands. Skacel made a decsion NOT to go to Ispwich...not our fault. The impression I got was that the Board were woking hard to get the wage bill down and were getting a lot of stick for it. I don't call that laziness. They did get the cost base down but obvioulsy Barclays lost patience. What were the Board supposed to do? Slagged for playing youth. Slagged for not playing the experience pros and then slagged for keeping them. I assume that there were regular meetings with the bank. Why then were the VBOard not told to sell no matter what the price was? It doesn't sound like that happened. I'm not suggesting we can or should do that. It is a fact that we have turned down bids for players though and we are now insolvent due to a fairly small amount of unarranged borrowing that would have been covered by the amounts raised. That doesn't look too sharp. What were they supposed to do? Sell the players we had bids for! If the bank have unexpectedly moved the goalposts then yes, we were stitched up a bit, but nonetheless it seems very odd in hindsight that we didn't sell these players. Perhaps because if we'd done so, it wouldn't have fit in with lowe's messiah-complex total kindergarten philosophy. Who knows? Edited 7 April, 2009 by benjii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 7 April, 2009 To put this in context, here's something from the Beeb: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/7873058.stm Southampton's head coach Mark Wotte has thanked the club's board members for holding their nerve during the January transfer window. Financially-stricken Saints turned down bids for two of their main assets last month and brought two players in. Wotte told BBC Radio Solent: "I'm very happy that they didn't negotiate with the clubs that made offers for Adam Lallana or Andrew Surman." Saints signed defenders Jan Paul Saeijs and Zoltan Liptak in January. The Dutchman added: "We didn't lose one player during the window, which is a big thing for us. Everyone was expecting us to lose one or two good, talented players." "It would have been easy for them to sell another player because we need the money. But they assured me that the quality in the team is more important than the short-term finance at the moment." The board assured me that the quality in the team is more important than the short-term finance at the moment. Saints' head coach Mark Wotte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dogman Of Bassett Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 We would have raised approx £1m? Maybe a bit more. The team would not have suffered one iota. To allow SLH to fall into administration was lazy and incompetent and smacks of a half-arsed approach. Not surprising considering the CEO who came back to "save Saints", apart from beng barking mad, worked a two-day week. Not surprising considering the chairman of the football club is a tax exile. Useless, incompetent idiots. What a load of rubbish. I hate Lowe and Wilde with a passion, but selling those two players would merely have bought the club time as it is plain for all to see that Administration was inevitable. Only a fool would suggest otherwise. I think if there were any bids for those two players they would have been sold, but the scouts and 'real' football people would have seen those two players for what they are: barely average. Hence why they were not sold! I think you will find Administration will be the saviour of SFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modern matron Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 £1m for both? The way Dyer has been playing he is worth that alone, and if Lallana learns to kick, and has a chance to mature rather than us pinning our hopes on him then he could be worth £3m in a year or so Surely the point is that the board should never have kept players for whom they had buyers if it meant this outcome. It's incompetent and sad. I for one do think the million we might have got would have been good business if it kept the company afloat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 Gotta love hindsight. why the need for hindsight? At the end of January Lowe knew the realistic income for the rest of the season. He certainly knew the costs. Having said that is the offers were peanuts then what was the point, it would only delay the inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 why the need for hindsight? At the end of January Lowe knew the realistic income for the rest of the season. He certainly knew the costs. Having said that is the offers were peanuts then what was the point, it would only delay the inevitable. Depends really what was the state of the overdraft with Barclay's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 Depends really what was the state of the overdraft with Barclay's We were £110,000 over a £4m overdraft. One quarter of a percent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 Depends really what was the state of the overdraft with Barclay's Lowe knew the state of the overdraft in January as he does today. He had all the figures in front of him. The only thing he didn't know for sure was crowds and it wasn't hard to see that they weren't rising quickly. With that information he knew pretty much when the cash would run out (when the overdraft would start going up again) and when the bank would call time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 We were £110,000 over a £4m overdraft. One quarter of a percent. The equivalent of me going 55 quid over my two grand overdraft... Mercifully Barclays haven't taken such a hardline on me yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 7 April, 2009 What a load of rubbish. I hate Lowe and Wilde with a passion, but selling those two players would merely have bought the club time as it is plain for all to see that Administration was inevitable. Only a fool would suggest otherwise. I think if there were any bids for those two players they would have been sold, but the scouts and 'real' football people would have seen those two players for what they are: barely average. Hence why they were not sold! I think you will find Administration will be the saviour of SFC. Did you read the quote from the Beeb article? Wotte himself said we had offers for Surman and Lallana but refused to even entertain them. "Refused to negotiate". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 7 April, 2009 Surely the point is that the board should never have kept players for whom they had buyers if it meant this outcome. It's incompetent and sad. I for one do think the million we might have got would have been good business if it kept the company afloat... why the need for hindsight? At the end of January Lowe knew the realistic income for the rest of the season. He certainly knew the costs. Having said that is the offers were peanuts then what was the point, it would only delay the inevitable. Lowe knew the state of the overdraft in January as he does today. He had all the figures in front of him. The only thing he didn't know for sure was crowds and it wasn't hard to see that they weren't rising quickly. With that information he knew pretty much when the cash would run out (when the overdraft would start going up again) and when the bank would call time. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 We were £110,000 over a £4m overdraft. One quarter of a percent. With no way of paying off that £110,000 - or one quarter of a percent - let alone the £4m overdraft itself. We also had an annual mortgage payment due, and with no season ticket sales no way of paying that either.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 Lowe knew the state of the overdraft in January as he does today. He had all the figures in front of him. The only thing he didn't know for sure was crowds and it wasn't hard to see that they weren't rising quickly. With that information he knew pretty much when the cash would run out (when the overdraft would start going up again) and when the bank would call time. You maywell be right but I am really interested what Lowe Wilde and Jones have to say about that. However without selling any Players bar Safri and Davies administration must have been obvious from September unless Barclays said that there was no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 IMO although a small injection of cash may have postponed Judgement day it would not have got rid of it completly. So had we sold a couple of players we would have just been in the same situation but with less assets. We didnt produce the half year accounts because we couldnt re-structure the remaining debt and therefore were not able to sustain the outgoings. Being a small amount over the OD sounds like a kick in the teeth but in the next few months that could have risen enormously in a very short space of time and with no way of managing it. So the bank just cashed in while the debt was as low as it could be. Wilde and Crouch gambled on spending our cash to get us promoted and Lowe gambled that our kids would compete enough to keep the gates high enough to sustain the debt. We mised out on promotion and the the kids option was managed wrong so both leave us up the creek without a paddle. Im feeling a little better in that there are so many interested parties and I hope that there is a gem amongst them. But previous attempts over the apst few years should show us that nothing is going to be an easy option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkiesaint Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 i can see where you are coming from Benji and it does seem to require an explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 7 April, 2009 Share Posted 7 April, 2009 I've been wondering about this as well , there were numerous routes Lowe could have explored to raise cash this year - player transfers during the 'window' , the normal March Madness season ticket offer .... etc but he did nothing despite Barclay's unilaterally cutting the overdraft as far back as last November we're told . I suspect SLH could have limped on until the summer at least had RL really tried , so why didn't he ? It's my opinion he realised SLH was beyond salvation and that the game was up some months ago , this story of Barclay's bouncing a piddling £6k cheque is just a Red Herring IMO . Another possibility is that he lost the support of the other major shareholders who were the real power behind Mr 6%'s throne - we may never know . 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