paulwantsapint Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Sorry if been done! Will FL give more than -10 points because club or whoever entered admin after the cut off date? If so what the **** was that tw^t Lowe playing at? Also had we entered admin say feb 1st the team would have had chance to gain extra 10 points to stay up ( ok that is fairy tale ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 We missed the deadline by 1 week, Lowe either did it on purpose or made a schoolboy error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Told you I did; wreckless is he. Now, matters are worse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stthrobber Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Sorry if been done! Will FL give more than -10 points because club or whoever entered admin after the cut off date? If so what the **** was that tw^t Lowe playing at? Also had we entered admin say feb 1st the team would have had chance to gain extra 10 points to stay up ( ok that is fairy tale ) It was done because they genuinely believed that the loophole in the FL rules meant that they shouldn't be deducted 10 points, and also because they genuinely believed that the club had a great chance of staying up, only to find that the players couldn't have given a toss either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 We missed the deadline by 1 week, Lowe either did it on purpose or made a schoolboy error. Seems rather strange doesn't it. But is there any truth in the rumour that somebody was going to buy the club prior to administration - seems slightly far fetched to me but could be true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 It was done because they genuinely believed that the loophole in the FL rules meant that they shouldn't be deducted 10 points, and also because they genuinely believed that the club had a great chance of staying up, only to find that the players couldn't have given a toss either way. Cant blame the players. Two colossal miscalculations by Lowe that eclipse all those that preceeded it. Hopefully, we have now finally reached the end and he cant hurt us anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 It was done because they genuinely believed that the loophole in the FL rules meant that they shouldn't be deducted 10 points, and also because they genuinely believed that the club had a great chance of staying up, only to find that the players couldn't have given a toss either way. Wether they believed there was a loophole or not makes no difference at all, the same loophole would have applied before the deadline, only the potential outcome nowhere near as bad. Wether we were good enough to stay up or not makes no difference when you take 10 points off. The financial situation didn't change that much from the 26th March to the 2nd April so admin was going to happen even if we played like Brazil. there is no excuse for how Lowe has ****ed up the club, either he did it on purpose or he was criminally negligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Yawn, I thought everyone knew by now we were being bought as a going concern. There was a delay in proving funds because the US Navy turned up and shot some of the Somali syndicate before they could effect the wire transfer to Seymour Pierce. We know this as we all read about it and we know Rupert and we know Fry talked about a last minute bid trying to prove funds really Or of course Barclays screwed it up But probably just Rupes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stthrobber Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Wether they believed there was a loophole or not makes no difference at all, the same loophole would have applied before the deadline, only the potential outcome nowhere near as bad. Wether we were good enough to stay up or not makes no difference when you take 10 points off. The financial situation didn't change that much from the 26th March to the 2nd April so admin was going to happen even if we played like Brazil. there is no excuse for how Lowe has ****ed up the club, either he did it on purpose or he was criminally negligent. Of course it makes a difference though. If it didn't then Mark Fry wouldn't be considering appealing the league's decision. If you put yourself in their (Lowe/Wilde) position, and you believe your standpoint is cast iron, ie the club is not in admin, but the holding company is, then would you put the club into administration and suffer a 10 point penalty, guaranteeing relegation? If you believe the club could stay up, could avoid a 10 point penalty then would you not take that chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stthrobber Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Cant blame the players. Two colossal miscalculations by Lowe that eclipse all those that preceeded it. Hopefully, we have now finally reached the end and he cant hurt us anymore. Of course, the players have tried their hardest throughout the season and can remain blameless. Silly me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordonToo Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 According to the Times, SLH went into administration because the administrators and Barclays believed that it would be easier to find a buyer with the [old] board out of the picture. Nothing to do with Lowe then. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article6155153.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Sorry if been done! Will FL give more than -10 points because club or whoever entered admin after the cut off date? If so what the **** was that tw^t Lowe playing at? Also had we entered admin say feb 1st the team would have had chance to gain extra 10 points to stay up ( ok that is fairy tale ) Exactly what Fry asked a week ago. Its due to Lowe's arrogance and selfishness. No more no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Of course, the players have tried their hardest throughout the season and can remain blameless. Silly me. Whatever luvvie... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Of course it makes a difference though. If it didn't then Mark Fry wouldn't be considering appealing the league's decision. If you put yourself in their (Lowe/Wilde) position, and you believe your standpoint is cast iron, ie the club is not in admin, but the holding company is, then would you put the club into administration and suffer a 10 point penalty, guaranteeing relegation? If you believe the club could stay up, could avoid a 10 point penalty then would you not take that chance? If you are arrogant and believe that you can do no wrong then you don't even consider it chancy. Lowe=arrogant, no concept of him being wrong, so didn't think he needed to worry about it. If Lowe thought his case was cast iron as you suggest, then it would have made no difference, in his mind he could have put SLH into administration knowing (in his mind) that he had a cast iron case and that we would not be deducted points. However you dress it up, it seems clear to most that Lowe and Wilde have been negligent in the extreme. What really gets my back up in all of this is that we the supporters suffer, while Lowe and Wilde go about their merry lives with no sanctions whatsoever. The FA/FL should at least have the decency to ban them from all football related activity for life, assuming that hanging, drawing and quartering is no longer an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain Perrin Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 According to the Times, SLH went into administration because the administrators and Barclays believed that it would be easier to find a buyer with the [old] board out of the picture. Nothing to do with Lowe then. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article6155153.ece Get behind the Lowe Out campaign FFS. oh, he has... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 If Lowe thought his case was cast iron as you suggest, then it would have made no difference, in his mind he could have put SLH into administration knowing (in his mind) that he had a cast iron case and that we would not be deducted points. Yep. Very good point IMO. If 'the powers that be' were confident that putting the PLC into admin wouldn't attract a penalty then the date becomes largely irrelevant. In which case, they might as well have done it before the League's deadline as a "just in case it goes tits up" measure. Unless, of course, Lowe & co and no say whatsoever in which date Barclays pulled the rug..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supaimpy_returns Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 the point has to be if he RL was so sure of the loophole then he should of been sure of cashflow as well, well we know the cashflow mistake as SLH now in admin, but would,nt it of been prudent if sailing that close to the wind to make sure that any penalty would be applied this season, and not left as a ticking bomb and risking the club falling thru to L2 ? teams take time to gel, next season will see a new manager, new team and at this moment -10 points, so next season potentially Bournemouth could be passing us ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 According to the Times, SLH went into administration because the administrators and Barclays believed that it would be easier to find a buyer with the [old] board out of the picture. Nothing to do with Lowe then. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article6155153.ece So, does that mean that if the board had walked when faced with the ultimatum of the Bank putting the holding company into administration we (SLH or SFC) wouldn't be in administration now (and thus facing this 10 point penalty)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amesbury Saint Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 before going into admin did we ring up the league to check the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 We should of gone into admin last October all accounts. Rupert Lowe has made the claim that Barclays told him then that the overdraft would not be renewed. There was no way in hell that come March money would be around to keep things going until the end of the season. Lowe even brought in a new coach and contract players in January ! The whole thing sucks..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brmbrm Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 Heads it makes no difference, tails its a fuKcing disaster. Only an idiot would choose tails. Lowe chose tails. Idiocy or spite? For a man with a big ego having the stadium stand up and sing "stand up if you want lowe out" and "Swing Lowe" must have left some big scars. Revenge! Revenge, i tell ye! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 23 April, 2009 Share Posted 23 April, 2009 According to the Times, SLH went into administration because the administrators and Barclays believed that it would be easier to find a buyer with the [old] board out of the picture. Nothing to do with Lowe then. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article6155153.ece It certainly makes sense that it would be easier to find a buyer with the Lowe and co. out of the picture. But then why didn't Barclays pull the plug BEFORE the last Thursday in March? Surely they could figure that it would be easier to find a buyer if Saints end up in League 1 starting with 0 points, as opposed to starting with -10 points? ](*,) Here's one possibility: Lowe and co. knew that Barclays were waiting for the $4 million threshold to be passed to oust them, but they (Lowe and co.) held off just long enough to pass the last Thursday of March deadline. Barclays would get the blame, but in reality it was a little parting gift from Lowe to the Saints fans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 People seem to assume that Barclays understand Football regulations, I am not so convinced that the bankers involved actually did, of course they might be Pomp-y fans . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 People seem to assume that Barclays understand Football regulations, I am not so convinced that the bankers involved actually did, of course they might be Pomp-y fans . Are you saying Pompey fans are .ankers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 before going into admin did we ring up the league to check the rules? ASKING FOR ADVICE . why break the habit of the last 12 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Heads it makes no difference, tails its a fuKcing disaster. Only an idiot would choose tails. Lowe chose tails. Idiocy or spite? For a man with a big ego having the stadium stand up and sing "stand up if you want lowe out" and "Swing Lowe" must have left some big scars. Revenge! Revenge, i tell ye! A few of us have said this..........Haven't see or read anything that makes me change my mind. IMHO of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Stripe Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 None of the timing issues make any real sense, did they really think that the FL would let them get away with this? Now we have to worry about losing our 'golden share ticket' if the cash isn't sorted out quick, that means even bigger trouble! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Told you I did; So did many of us on this and other forums Rupert and Wilde should be sued imho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 It was done because they genuinely believed that the loophole in the FL rules meant that they shouldn't be deducted 10 points, and also because they genuinely believed that the club had a great chance of staying up, only to find that the players couldn't have given a toss either way. This typical Lowe behaviour, the guy thinks he is more intelligent then everyone around him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Of course it makes a difference though. If it didn't then Mark Fry wouldn't be considering appealing the league's decision. If you put yourself in their (Lowe/Wilde) position, and you believe your standpoint is cast iron, ie the club is not in admin, but the holding company is, then would you put the club into administration and suffer a 10 point penalty, guaranteeing relegation? If you believe the club could stay up, could avoid a 10 point penalty then would you not take that chance? Lowe and Wilde had absolutely no right to play Russian Roulette with our club. They could easily have gone to administration the week earlier. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 So did many of us on this and other forums Rupert and Wilde should be sued imho Sorry, I was dying to quote Yoda more than actually appear in smug-mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 24 April, 2009 Share Posted 24 April, 2009 Sorry, I was dying to quote Yoda more than actually appear in smug-mode. Yep. Rupert has copyright on smug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stthrobber Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 Whatever luvvie... What really disappoints me about you Alpine is that you don't know me from adam yet when you can't debate the issue, you just resort to petty insults. What a shame, I think it says a lot about you as a person and your intellect that you can sneer at people without having apparently read very much of what they have to say. For your info, I am not the only person condemning certain players for their lack of effort this season, I guess it would be so much better for you if Rupert Lowe played for Saints too. I am not your enemy, I'm just a fan with a slightly different viewpoint. Is that such a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 stthrobber how does the departure of Andrew Cowen affect the curry nights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 Alpine you are a complete **** Originally Posted by alpine_saint Whatever luvvie... I can vouch for STTrobber Hes a good lad . and no lowe luvvie that is for sure. just somebody that has a sensible and balanced approach to the sitution we find ourselves in Thats a pint you owe me Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 Sorry if been done! Will FL give more than -10 points because club or whoever entered admin after the cut off date? If so what the **** was that tw^t Lowe playing at? Also had we entered admin say feb 1st the team would have had chance to gain extra 10 points to stay up ( ok that is fairy tale ) Ask Rupert Lowe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stthrobber Posted 25 April, 2009 Share Posted 25 April, 2009 stthrobber how does the departure of Andrew Cowen affect the curry nights? It doesn't affect us in the least. In fact we had a curry after the Wolves game thanks very much for asking. 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