aintforever Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Putting us into administration just 1 week after the deadline which meant we would have any points deduction this season? If we had filed for admin on the 19th March we would still be relegated but be in a much better position knowing we had a chance of going straight back up, now we will face another relegation battle next year and any prospective buyers will lose interest knowing we have at least 2 years in div 3. I can't think of any other reason why Lowe would wait a few days when the consequences are SO serious - League 2 and doing a Luton is a very real possibility now. IMO he had to do it just to spite us, other shareholders like Crouch and Corbett, and probably the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 And Mark Fry can't believe we didn't go into administration earlier? I have also thought this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Been saying this since he came back, we'll never know, but I wouldn't be shocked to find that this was the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Forever Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Putting us into administration just 1 week after the deadline which meant we would have any points deduction this season? If we had filed for admin on the 19th March we would still be relegated but be in a much better position knowing we had a chance of going straight back up, now we will face another relegation battle next year and any prospective buyers will lose interest knowing we have at least 2 years in div 3. I can't think of any other reason why Lowe would wait a few days when the consequences are SO serious - League 2 and doing a Luton is a very real possibility now. IMO he had to do it just to spite us, other shareholders like Crouch and Corbett, and probably the bank. A 10 point deduction may be enough to stop automatic promotion but shouldn't be enough to stop qualifying through the playoffs if we are good enough It is not the end of the world. We have to be bought and then find a manager who can both manage and provide us with a team to cheer. We will not be doing a Luton as the worst scenario will be minus 10 points. Even if Lowe tried to screw us yet again we will prevail. KEEP THE FAITH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
washsaint Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Bloody idiots!!!! Barclays are the reason we are in administration - they refused to continue with the overdraft. Or was that down to Lowe as well? A company does not go into administration out of spite..........Osman is either telling lies or extending the truth. A company cannot continue trading whilst insolvent (basically not enough money to pay bills, employees, etc): this is against the law and especially bad for a listed company. So that piece is absolute ******. Some of you need to grow up, stop seeing the boogey man and worry more about whether we have a club to support next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toomer Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 The list of questions that we need answers to is endless, but the only answer we will get from him is not my fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stepgar Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Bloody idiots!!!! Barclays are the reason we are in administration - they refused to continue with the overdraft. Or was that down to Lowe as well? I see your point seriously there comes a point where a bank can not allow things to continue. It is as simple as that. It would have been a very hard decision from Barclays to actually pull the od or say that it can not be exended any further beacuse of the publicity that it would cause. I know this as I work in a Bank and deal with lending every day. If a bank says prove to me where the finances are coming from to support your lending request and they can't how can somebody be expected to lend against no income? They can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanthemanfairoak Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 The list of questions that we need answers to is endless, but the only answer we will get from him is not my fault.can any body tell me one time that LOWE has admitted being wrong?:smt086 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKATE_HATE Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 We are not going to be deducted points! If the F.A were going to do it then they would have done after their little meeting. They know they can't and this 'forensic investigation' is just to shut the other teams up. If they were to deduct us points then they would be opening themselves up to be sued! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wopper Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Did he think Crouchie would come to his rescue? Looks like you have been dumped by the big boys Rupert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Bloody idiots!!!! Barclays are the reason we are in administration - they refused to continue with the overdraft. Or was that down to Lowe as well? A company does not go into administration out of spite..........Osman is either telling lies or extending the truth. A company cannot continue trading whilst insolvent (basically not enough money to pay bills, employees, etc): this is against the law and especially bad for a listed company. . The Club had an overdraft limit and we went over it. That is down to Lowe, nobody else. He turned down offers for players in Jan despite the bank pushing for player sales. The bank just didn't withdraw the Overdraft for no reason, Lowe went over it and the Bank pulled the plug. He didn't go into admin after the deadline out of spite, it was incompetance. He thought he could bluff the bank, he didn't believe the bank would pull the carpet from under him.He made a stunning misjudgement and totally misjudged Barclay's position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 The Club had an overdraft limit and we went over it. That is down to Lowe, nobody else. He turned down offers for players in Jan despite the bank pushing for player sales. The bank just didn't withdraw the Overdraft for no reason, Lowe went over it and the Bank pulled the plug. He didn't go into admin after the deadline out of spite, it was incompetance. He thought he could bluff the bank, he didn't believe the bank would pull the carpet from under him.He made a stunning misjudgement and totally misjudged Barclay's position. Duckhunter all this is fact is it because you don't seem to be addressing it as your opinion? Therefore, can you please confirm how you know this as it will put my own personal thoughts into a different perspective. I would like to know what players we could have sold and for how much and how any sales may have been received by an already reduced attendance. How were you privvy to the conversations between Barclays and the club at that time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/7865139.stm Southampton head coach Mark Wotte has said he has rejected several offers for some of his players. http://www.thisishampshire.net/sport/4254557.Ex_chairman_blames_bank_for_Saints_position/ The Daily Echo understands that Saints had breached the overdraft limit agreed with Barclays of £4m – but by not much more than £110,000. Barclays said it had made “ongoing efforts to find a suitable solution” at Southampton, which required “substantial further investment”. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23670913-details/Southampton+FC+fury+over+Barclays+'death+sentence'/article.do?expand=true It is believed Barclays had wanted Southampton to find a new owner or raise money through a rights issue or player sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 The Club had an overdraft limit and we went over it. That is down to Lowe, nobody else. He turned down offers for players in Jan despite the bank pushing for player sales. The bank just didn't withdraw the Overdraft for no reason, Lowe went over it and the Bank pulled the plug. He didn't go into admin after the deadline out of spite, it was incompetance. He thought he could bluff the bank, he didn't believe the bank would pull the carpet from under him.He made a stunning misjudgement and totally misjudged Barclay's position. FWIW I've seen this scenario happen many times before. Normally with arrogant Directors who consider themselves to be in charge of the situation and in a position to demand things from the Bank. The point when the fact that they are not the ones calling the shots dawns on them can be quite spectacular. Although I'm sure all "sides" could probably point to things that the other did which caused problems the overriding problem is likely to have been Lowe being convinced that he could control the bank. This very rarely works. Arrogant tw*t. That said it would have been helpful if Barclays had set their deadlines/forced his hand a few days earlier... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowestoft-Saint Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 (edited) The thing that really annoys me is this blinkered vision from so many fans that everything is Lowe's fault. So many of you try and find a way of pointing the finger at Lowe for things that have happened to the club. IMO, I hate where we find ourselves and the near certain division 3 status we are about to have. However This club is where it is and deserves to be because of a lot of people, I blame all of these All the Major Share holders Directors Players Past and present That have been involved in this club over the last 6 years at least. Stop all the mud slinging and finger pointing, Its time to move on.... Hope we get New Owners soon.. With no involvement from anyone thats been involved over the last 6 years. Maybe then we can move forward and the unity of the club & fans will return. Edited 19 April, 2009 by Lowestoft-Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Duckhunter all this is fact is it because you don't seem to be addressing it as your opinion? Therefore, can you please confirm how you know this as it will put my own personal thoughts into a different perspective. I would like to know what players we could have sold and for how much and how any sales may have been received by an already reduced attendance. How were you privvy to the conversations between Barclays and the club at that time? 19C, you really are a complete numpty at times Duckhunter has already responded regarding the breach of overdraft. This is the £500k that Lowe should have taken from Swansea in Jan that would have seen us safe until the end of the season http://www.thisishampshire.net/sport/hampshiresport/4094249.Swansea_refuse_to_increase_Dyer_bid/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SP Saint Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 FWIW I've seen this scenario happen many times before. Normally with arrogant Directors who consider themselves to be in charge of the situation and in a position to demand things from the Bank. The point when the fact that they are not the ones calling the shots dawns on them can be quite spectacular. Although I'm sure all "sides" could probably point to things that the other did which caused problems the overriding problem is likely to have been Lowe being convinced that he could control the bank. This very rarely works. Arrogant tw*t. That said it would have been helpful if Barclays had set their deadlines/forced his hand a few days earlier... That sounds just like Rupert. He probably thought he was calling their bluff. Something like *They wouldn't dare pull the plug, they'll lose too much money*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brmbrm Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 I have been saying this for some time too. It is clearly certian that we MIGHT get points deduction, so why ot do it a week earlier? Because Barclays wanted their £4,000? Get real - that's amost petty cash: the writing would be on the wall for months beofre that, so to say the decision to go into admin could not have been expected a week before is preposterous. No sensible alternative exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 19 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Bloody idiots!!!! Barclays are the reason we are in administration - they refused to continue with the overdraft. Or was that down to Lowe as well? A company does not go into administration out of spite..........Osman is either telling lies or extending the truth. A company cannot continue trading whilst insolvent (basically not enough money to pay bills, employees, etc): this is against the law and especially bad for a listed company. So that piece is absolute ******. Some of you need to grow up, stop seeing the boogey man and worry more about whether we have a club to support next season. It is the timing I was on about, there is no logical reason why Lowe should wait a few days when he knew the state of the accounts, he knew the situation with Barclays, he knew what cheques were due to go out. Other clubs have managed to time their admin at half time of a specific game of the season, they had overdrafts and debts like us. What exactly was stopping Lowe filing on the 26th of March and not the 2nd April? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Paul Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 The fact that Barclay's pulled the plug over £110,000 is damning towards Lowe. Very soon the transfer window open's, season ticket monies come in and some players are out of contract. To pull the plug at this time shows they had no faith in Lowe's abillity to run the Club and get their money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 FWIW I've seen this scenario happen many times before. Normally with arrogant Directors who consider themselves to be in charge of the situation and in a position to demand things from the Bank. The point when the fact that they are not the ones calling the shots dawns on them can be quite spectacular. Although I'm sure all "sides" could probably point to things that the other did which caused problems the overriding problem is likely to have been Lowe being convinced that he could control the bank. This very rarely works. Arrogant tw*t. That said it would have been helpful if Barclays had set their deadlines/forced his hand a few days earlier... The problem is that Barclays don't decide when we breach our overdraft. To be fair to Lowe, it could be one of two options: either he is incompetent in managing his cash flow and predictions, or as you say he is an arrogant tw*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostBoys Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 I think there has been sheer incompetence at many levels from the top down. From a bank perspective (and I am definately not a banker) it is impossible to extend facilities with a non performing team, supporters staying away because they hate the chairman and marches on a match day to protest about the situation. It seems to me all you can do is cut and run. We have to move on now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 19 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 April, 2009 I think there has been sheer incompetence at many levels from the top down. From a bank perspective (and I am definately not a banker) it is impossible to extend facilities with a non performing team, supporters staying away because they hate the chairman and marches on a match day to protest about the situation. It seems to me all you can do is cut and run. We have to move on now. But the banks are going to lose out because the club they are trying to flog is going to be worth alot less than one that could potentially get promoted straight away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 The problem is that Barclays don't decide when we breach our overdraft. To be fair to Lowe, it could be one of two options: either he is incompetent in managing his cash flow and predictions, or as you say he is an arrogant tw*t. But they do decide where they draw the line. There are thousands of companies operating in breach of their agreed overdraft facilities every day. The day that we went into admin wasn't the day that we went over the limit. In my experience, Barclays are generally supportive when businesses find themselves in difficulty however the main stumbling blocks occur when they lose confidence either in the business model or more imporantly in Management. Like 99% on here I have no knowledge of the actual discussions which have no doubt been going on regularly for months (possibly years) however, although a director shouldn't just roll over my GUESS is that Lowe's brinkmanship led to a loss of confidence in the ability for the overdraft to be reduced overtime whilst he remained in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Putting us into administration just 1 week after the deadline which meant we would have any points deduction this season? If we had filed for admin on the 19th March we would still be relegated but be in a much better position knowing we had a chance of going straight back up, now we will face another relegation battle next year and any prospective buyers will lose interest knowing we have at least 2 years in div 3. I can't think of any other reason why Lowe would wait a few days when the consequences are SO serious - League 2 and doing a Luton is a very real possibility now. IMO he had to do it just to spite us, other shareholders like Crouch and Corbett, and probably the bank. No would be my simple answer. Sorry, but I just don't buy it. My opinion would be that he misjudged just how serious barclays were about the £4m cap on the overdraft and he didn't believe that would not honour cheques if we slightly north of that. IMHO a misjudgement by Lowe and not done out of spite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Therefore, can you please confirm I can indeed confirm that you are a troll. HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 But the banks are going to lose out because the club they are trying to flog is going to be worth alot less than one that could potentially get promoted straight away. Except that at some point you have to draw the line. Barclays could have just given us a £20m overdraft and told Lowe to spend it on a promotion push however the decision is at what point does being supportive change to throwing money away. This will always be subjective and Lowe's oppinion will differ from Barclays. Obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 The list of questions that we need answers to is endless, but the only answer we will get from him is not my fault. Toomer, there are a lot of answers out there. The problem is that too many of them may damage the work being done now to try and save the club, which IMHO in many ways is why we seem to only get snippets and sniping. With regards to timing, the only piece of the jigsaw that I heard tales about that could relate to it was that the deadline as we saw was a Thursday, but there was a meeting at the bank on the following Monday. IF I remember all the press releases on the rest it seems the board met Tuesday after that meeting and Fry was running around doing press conferences a day or two later. No idea how true that is, or even why the timelines and deadlines did not synchronise, but until our situation is resolved I get the very strong feeling as I've said previously that a lot of dirty laundry is out there and it won't be a pretty sight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 But the banks are going to lose out because the club they are trying to flog is going to be worth alot less than one that could potentially get promoted straight away. and which club would have had the potential to be promoted straightaway? Not a Lowe-led SFC in L1 - you're forgetting reduced income (coupled with lower salary costs) but a steady cost of maintaining the stadium debt, even less people through the turnstiles, etc, etc The overdraft would only be going one way hence Barclays decision to cut their losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Bloody idiots!!!! Barclays are the reason we are in administration - they refused to continue with the overdraft. Or was that down to Lowe as well? I'm sorry but I really do think you're reading this all backwards. Back in September Barclay's told Lowe that their exposure/risk/willingness to lend was to be curtailed at £4m. That was one of the rules of the game. Everyone who needed to know, knew it, and we had to live within those rules (however unjust, unfair or hard they seemed). We breached the £4m limit, not Barclay's, and they quite rightly (within the parameters they set) refused to honour cheques that would increased their exposure. They were happy to continue with a £4m overdraft, we just failed to live within it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 But they do decide where they draw the line. There are thousands of companies operating in breach of their agreed overdraft facilities every day. The day that we went into admin wasn't the day that we went over the limit. In my experience, Barclays are generally supportive when businesses find themselves in difficulty however Like 99% on here I have no knowledge of the actual discussions which the main stumbling blocks occur when they lose confidence either in the business model or more imporantly in Management. have no doubt been going on regularly for months (possibly years) however, although a director shouldn't just roll over my GUESS is that Lowe's brinkmanship led to a loss of confidence in the ability for the overdraft to be reduced overtime whilst he remained in charge. Maybe I'm bigging the fans up more than necessary but I do wonder if Barclays also sensed the mood on the ground? They must have seen the protests and the dwindling gates and realised that all the time RL was in charge, the chances of increasing the income were very small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 19 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 April, 2009 No would be my simple answer. Sorry, but I just don't buy it. My opinion would be that he misjudged just how serious barclays were about the £4m cap on the overdraft and he didn't believe that would not honour cheques if we slightly north of that. IMHO a misjudgement by Lowe and not done out of spite. I can't believe he couldn't have set up a meeting with the bank a week or so before the deadline, showed them the figures and come to the obvious conclusion that admin before the deadline is the only option. Barclays had nothing to gain by putting the club in even further ****e, we have basically written of next season before it's even started. Barclays would have been fully aware of the deadline and what it meant. It's either spite or Lowe's game of "hardball" went horribly wrong. The thing is if he was calling the banks bluff he had nothing to lose but the club had everything to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 I can't believe he couldn't have set up a meeting with the bank a week or so before the deadline, showed them the figures and come to the obvious conclusion that admin before the deadline is the only option. Barclays had nothing to gain by putting the club in even further ****e, we have basically written of next season before it's even started. Barclays would have been fully aware of the deadline and what it meant. It's either spite or Lowe's game of "hardball" went horribly wrong. The thing is if he was calling the banks bluff he had nothing to lose but the club had everything to lose. But you also have to remember that we were still in with a chance before tha Charlton game. Had we won and Forest had managed an extra goal, then we would be out of the bottom 3 today!!!!! Going into Administration whilst we still had a decent chance ostaying up wpuld have been a very difficult decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabrone Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 I'm sorry but I really do think you're reading this all backwards. Back in September Barclay's told Lowe that their exposure/risk/willingness to lend was to be curtailed at £4m. That was one of the rules of the game. Everyone who needed to know, knew it, and we had to live within those rules (however unjust, unfair or hard they seemed). We breached the £4m limit, not Barclay's, and they quite rightly (within the parameters they set) refused to honour cheques that would increased their exposure. They were happy to continue with a £4m overdraft, we just failed to live within it. Lowe thought he could 'skirt around it' and SFC got what was always promised. I don't for a moment believe it was malicious, incompetent and arrogant yes - but then tell me something new about the man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 19C, you really are a complete numpty at times Duckhunter has already responded regarding the breach of overdraft. This is the £500k that Lowe should have taken from Swansea in Jan that would have seen us safe until the end of the season http://www.thisishampshire.net/sport/hampshiresport/4094249.Swansea_refuse_to_increase_Dyer_bid/ Care to comment on how sales of players would have gone down with the rabid unsupportive fans that were doing more damage to the club's reveune than a few one off sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Care to comment on how sales of players would have gone down with the rabid unsupportive fans that were doing more damage to the club's reveune than a few one off sales. Are you blaming the customers for not buying the product? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 doing more damage to the club's reveune than a few one off sales. Not one of your best trolling attempts, last bit doesn't make sense;) Keep on trolling TOOT TOOT:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/7865139.stm Southampton head coach Mark Wotte has said he has rejected several offers for some of his players. http://www.thisishampshire.net/sport/4254557.Ex_chairman_blames_bank_for_Saints_position/ The Daily Echo understands that Saints had breached the overdraft limit agreed with Barclays of £4m – but by not much more than £110,000. Barclays said it had made “ongoing efforts to find a suitable solution” at Southampton, which required “substantial further investment”. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23670913-details/Southampton+FC+fury+over+Barclays+'death+sentence'/article.do?expand=true It is believed Barclays had wanted Southampton to find a new owner or raise money through a rights issue or player sales. Doesn't correlate with Lowe being incompetent. Just deserted by alledged supporters who believed they could walk away until Lowe found significant investement where plenty of others had failed previously. Oh and you didn't answer my question about how player sales would have gone done with those fans who enjoy a protest? Selling a player for a one off fee of £500k is one thing getting gates back to last years average of c21k would have generated around £130k per game. What action generates investment? Lowes fault was coming back because IMHO I don't see Crouch having managed much better. An average of 5,000 off the gate this season killed the club and its simple as that. No demand to support the club and supply and demand issues are endemic throughout the football league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain saint Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Care to comment on how sales of players would have gone down with the rabid unsupportive fans that were doing more damage to the club's reveune than a few one off sales. The 15000 "rabid unsupportive" hardcore fans that have been going to every home game this season have had their fair share of crap, and most I suspect were resigned to losing a player or two anyway! We all thought that Dyer, lalana and Surman were off anyway! Do you really think it would have made that much difference at all? You have had your questions answered, now how about commenting on some of those answers above instead of deflecting the attention away on to the fans!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Not one of your best trolling attempts, last bit doesn't make sense;) Keep on trolling TOOT TOOT:D Y'know, it's sort of like a looped Monty Python sketch isn't it.... no matter what is posted on what subject it always comes back to 19C and the same thing. Personally I'm starting to agree - Burn The Witch, Burn The Witch... 19C - The customers did not wish to purchase an inferior product. If you cannot understand that basic tenet of business acumen may I suggest that you google the name Gerald Ratner. Gerald Ratner Wikipedia said We also do cut-glass sherry decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray that your butler can serve you drinks on, all for £4.95. People say, "How can you sell this for such a low price?", I say, "because it's total crap. The club did not make enough income in this season. You are correct The stay away fans are to blame because they are the primary source of income. You are correct However, as Ratner discovered, once your customer base realises they are being sold a crock of sh*t the outcome is guaranteed. Whether it was because the Ratner product kept falling apart or because the customers were told the truth and boycotted being ripped off is irrelevant. The effect was the same. Whether the stay aways were not going for politics or for the product, it matters not, they were not at the stadium because SLH/SFC and everything to do with it these past 5 years has been total crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toomer Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Care to comment on how sales of players would have gone down with the rabid unsupportive fans that were doing more damage to the club's reveune than a few one off sales. If you take your wife/partner out for a meal and the food is not up to standard you don't go back again. I like a good many others bought my ST before the end of last season, did not know what league we would be in. Others decided to wait but after the man you champion came back saw that the product was not fit for purpose, as above decided not to go but that is something you will never understand or grasp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 If you take your wife/partner out for a meal and the food is not up to standard you don't go back again. I like a good many others bought my ST before the end of last season, did not know what league we would be in. Others decided to wait but after the man you champion came back saw that the product was not fit for purpose, as above decided not to go but that is something you will never understand or grasp. A good friend of mine once said Life is a sh1t sandwich. How good it is depends on the thickness of the bread. The years of attrition simply replaced the bread with a very thin stale Jacobs Cracker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Not one of your best trolling attempts, last bit doesn't make sense;) Keep on trolling TOOT TOOT:D Um If you think I am a troll please do yourself a favour and report me to Steve Grant who will no doubt assess my posts and take action accordingly. For your sake I hope in a way he bans me because you are making a bit of a sad and childish spectacle of yourself and I am beginning to wonder why you can't answer some of the reasonable issues I have raised. Remember you are not in school now and your audience won't simply accept what you say as being right. Are you still involved with the Saints Trust in a senior capacity? In any event its a bit sad given your conduct to a fellow fan and unable to debate some reasonable and important points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 The 15000 "rabid unsupportive" hardcore fans that have been going to every home game this season have had their fair share of crap, and most I suspect were resigned to losing a player or two anyway! We all thought that Dyer, lalana and Surman were off anyway! Do you really think it would have made that much difference at all? You have had your questions answered, now how about commenting on some of those answers above instead of deflecting the attention away on to the fans!! Rabid unsupportive fans don't attend footballl matches. Sorry if I didn't make that clear but don't worry I have religiously been on of those 15,000 for many years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 No would be my simple answer. Sorry, but I just don't buy it. My opinion would be that he misjudged just how serious barclays were about the £4m cap on the overdraft and he didn't believe that would not honour cheques if we slightly north of that. IMHO a misjudgement by Lowe and not done out of spite. A good 6 weeks before it actually happened Lowe was - informally - telling "people" that it was likely the club would "cease trading". He also told the same people that "when it happened he would would shout from the rooftops naming all those to blame". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Care to comment on how sales of players would have gone down with the rabid unsupportive fans that were doing more damage to the club's reveune than a few one off sales. You really are stuck up Stewperts dark place, aren't you. To call us 'rabid unsupportive fans', is in itself a Loweism. Many of these fans you have just insulted, have been supporting the club for 20/30/40/ and in some cases 50 odd years. Yet here you are, the mouthpiece of the most hated man in Hampshire, and you've still got your head stuck well and truly up his rear end. The only person who has done any damage to the club's revenue, is your headgear..........he alone has put us where we are, what part of that don't you understand. Troll:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toomer Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Rabid unsupportive fans don't attend footballl matches. Sorry if I didn't make that clear but don't worry I have religiously been on of those 15,000 for many years.[/QUOTE] Would that just be the 12 or so. Just for the record my first game was 9th October 1959 we beat Swindon and Derek Reeves scored 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain saint Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Nineteen Canteen seriously, please stop blaming all this on the fans, it is getting very tiresome. You must see that the missing 5000 as you say. were never going to spend their money while Lowe was still here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Y'know, it's sort of like a looped Monty Python sketch isn't it.... no matter what is posted on what subject it always comes back to 19C and the same thing. Personally I'm starting to agree - Burn The Witch, Burn The Witch... 19C - The customers did not wish to purchase an inferior product. If you cannot understand that basic tenet of business acumen may I suggest that you google the name Gerald Ratner. The club did not make enough income in this season. You are correct The stay away fans are to blame because they are the primary source of income. You are correct However, as Ratner discovered, once your customer base realises they are being sold a crock of sh*t the outcome is guaranteed. Whether it was because the Ratner product kept falling apart or because the customers were told the truth and boycotted being ripped off is irrelevant. The effect was the same. Whether the stay aways were not going for politics or for the product, it matters not, they were not at the stadium because SLH/SFC and everything to do with it these past 5 years has been total crap. You forgot his better quote about a prawn sandwich Phil. I have been told you cannot draw comparison with the world of retail as football is governed by different laws of economics. What is interesting is that many deemed the product to be crap and stayed away and are now donating their hard earned in addition to buying tickets to save said crap. Ergo perhaps being crap isn't such an issue or are we simply blessed with an extraordinary reactionary fan base? 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