david in sweden Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 ........can't think of too many more....... 1) Building SMS . I'd spent most of my supporting days at The Dell - and loved every moment of it.....but St.Mary's is a WONDERFUL stadium . Can't get away from that. In the previous 40 years - not once did the previous Boards get antwhere near even breaking the ground. I know people said we were " given " the site cheap etc, etc, but at least it got built and we can be proud of that - even in League 1. It seems Crouch / Beattie and a few more contracts had sell -on clauses. 2) RL inserted " sell-on " clauses in many deals when we sold players. No-one else seemed to have thought of it - and we got some extra for that. (Just read MW on the Dyer/Swansea story.Seems like RL foresaw possibililties. 3) RL also inserted clauses in players contracts about reduced salaries if relegated - and many will argue that he was responsible for the relegations...but at least we won'r have to retain players on enormously high slaries. That would have made the situation EVEN WORSE! Difficult to find too much more to enthuse about RL....except his departure, but even so....how much worsd eoff would we be WITHOUT the thrre items above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 4. Left the club and never came back. *prays* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 I think he did many things right, but for me it is all eclipsed by the managerial appointment catastrophes that he oversaw. Many people believe he is to blame for everything but I don't share that view. However, I do believe the fact that he is no longer involved is a good thing, mainly because his presence causes so much angst and division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsdinho Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 1) We could have been at stoneham; better site with room to expand if need be. Instead we have a "flat pack" stadium that is restricted in its expansion (not that we will be ready to expand any time soon) 2) Ideally we wouldnt want to sell our best players, even if we do get 10% of the fee. 3) Forseeing our demise is not that great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpb Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Resurrected the academy? Shades of 'What did the Romans ever do for us?' here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 ........can't think of too many more....... 1) Building SMS . I'd spent most of my supporting days at The Dell - and loved every moment of it.....but St.Mary's is a WONDERFUL stadium . Can't get away from that. In the previous 40 years - not once did the previous Boards get antwhere near even breaking the ground. I know people said we were " given " the site cheap etc, etc, but at least it got built and we can be proud of that - even in League 1. It seems Crouch / Beattie and a few more contracts had sell -on clauses. 2) RL inserted " sell-on " clauses in many deals when we sold players. No-one else seemed to have thought of it - and we got some extra for that. (Just read MW on the Dyer/Swansea story.Seems like RL foresaw possibililties. 3) RL also inserted clauses in players contracts about reduced salaries if relegated - and many will argue that he was responsible for the relegations...but at least we won'r have to retain players on enormously high slaries. That would have made the situation EVEN WORSE! Difficult to find too much more to enthuse about RL....except his departure, but even so....how much worsd eoff would we be WITHOUT the thrre items above? I'd agree on the stadium certainly and also the sell-on clauses although some deals oddly - Crouch for example - didn't have them. A number of clubs have had wage drops for relegation built in, notably Bolton. Lowe has to be credited with appointing Hoddle and Strachan and actually Jones did quite well although I agreed with Rupert's decision to put him on "leave". The academy initially was a Rupert success after Askham's appalling incompetence let it rot but increasing the overhead in 05/06 wasn't smart post-relegation. SCW should have been put on ice pending a proper promotion push. Not a Redknapp fan but that couldn't have been an easy job with that circus going on the background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 1) We could have been at stoneham; better site with room to expand if need be. Instead we have a "flat pack" stadium that is restricted in its expansion (not that we will be ready to expand any time soon) 2) Ideally we wouldnt want to sell our best players, even if we do get 10% of the fee. 3) Forseeing our demise is not that great 1) Why was it his fault we didn't get Stoneham? That was to do with planning wasn't it? 3) What do you mean? Foreseeing as in "predicting the future" or overseeing as in "being in charge when it happened"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Many things right, many things wrong - mostly on the footballing side, hense the impacton performance and relegation. Same as some of the Right things will have been down to luck, some of the wrong will have been down to bad luck or poor timing rather than wholsesale bad ideas - thats the problem because its never IMHO been so black and white as so many seem to be willing to accept... which is oddly translated as support ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsdinho Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 1) Why was it his fault we didn't get Stoneham? That was to do with planning wasn't it? 3) What do you mean? Foreseeing as in "predicting the future" or overseeing as in "being in charge when it happened"? Oh god, not you again.... 1) I heard that RL attitude towards Eastleigh CC didnt help the matter. 3) Foreseeing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 1) Why was it his fault we didn't get Stoneham? That was to do with planning wasn't it? Yes, it was definitely Lowe's fault that we didn't get Stoneham. He was too greedy about wanting other things to go with it as an additional revenue souce. The two things that he wanted were the two things that Eastleigh Borough Council could never grant. They were a shopping complex the size of Asda at Chandlers Ford and a Cinema complex. It would have been lunacy allowing an out of town shopping development 1 mile from the town centre and the cinema complex was already planned for the Swan Centre as an attraction to bring people into the town of an evening. EBC would have allowed many other things to have been built to aid investment, but Lowe stuck to those two things like the stubborn sod he is and the whole scheme floundered on the back of his obstinacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Lowe always drove a hard bargain. I remember at the time being amazed how much Spurs paid for Dean Richards, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Oh god, not you again.... 1) I heard that RL attitude towards Eastleigh CC didnt help the matter. 3) ForeseeingYes, 'fraid so Dad. So "Foreseeing our demise not that great" ?? I don't understand. Are you saying that he predicted our demise and that is a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Yes, it was definitely Lowe's fault that we didn't get Stoneham. He was too greedy about wanting other things to go with it as an additional revenue souce. The two things that he wanted were the two things that Eastleigh Borough Council could never grant. They were a shopping complex the size of Asda at Chandlers Ford and a Cinema complex. It would have been lunacy allowing an out of town shopping development 1 mile from the town centre and the cinema complex was already planned for the Swan Centre as an attraction to bring people into the town of an evening. EBC would have allowed many other things to have been built to aid investment, but Lowe stuck to those two things like the stubborn sod he is and the whole scheme floundered on the back of his obstinacy. Of course RL will fail to mention any of that, even though, or probably because its true, when he gives his next "none of this is my fault interview/letter" !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Yes, it was definitely Lowe's fault that we didn't get Stoneham. He was too greedy about wanting other things to go with it as an additional revenue souce. The two things that he wanted were the two things that Eastleigh Borough Council could never grant. They were a shopping complex the size of Asda at Chandlers Ford and a Cinema complex. It would have been lunacy allowing an out of town shopping development 1 mile from the town centre and the cinema complex was already planned for the Swan Centre as an attraction to bring people into the town of an evening. EBC would have allowed many other things to have been built to aid investment, but Lowe stuck to those two things like the stubborn sod he is and the whole scheme floundered on the back of his obstinacy.Yes I remember now - thanks for reminder. I stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 I foresee this thread is about to degenerate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 I don't agree about the stadium. It is a very bad design. Very pleasant to be in, true, but the raking of the stands are not steep enough and so St Mary's lacks the intimidating atmosphere that The Dell did have, and even Poopey's stadium has. At Reading, for example, the steep tiers of the Madjeski have been of great benefit to their team, but at St Mary's our stadium has not been beneficial to us. Results prove this. Consequently we have never really had the same home advantage that we had at The Dell, which imo cost us valuable points, and that cost us two relegations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 I foresee this thread is about to degenerate.Overseen by whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambosa75 Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Yes, it was definitely Lowe's fault that we didn't get Stoneham. He was too greedy about wanting other things to go with it as an additional revenue souce. The two things that he wanted were the two things that Eastleigh Borough Council could never grant. They were a shopping complex the size of Asda at Chandlers Ford and a Cinema complex. It would have been lunacy allowing an out of town shopping development 1 mile from the town centre and the cinema complex was already planned for the Swan Centre as an attraction to bring people into the town of an evening. EBC would have allowed many other things to have been built to aid investment, but Lowe stuck to those two things like the stubborn sod he is and the whole scheme floundered on the back of his obstinacy. I usually agree with a lot of your posts Wes, but a lot of the things Rupert Lowe wanted in this "complex" was facilities for fans to drink at. At the moment, I can think of one pub in Stoneham, which wouldnt be anywhere near enough to accomodate all the fans, plus travel to Stoneham would have had to be massively revised. As it is, we have a stadium that was very much 2nd choice but only 2nd choice if we could have got Stoneham with all the trimmings, which we didnt get. We now have a stadium within close proximity to our city centre which made a lot more sense logistically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintroyt Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 just a deluded view even robert maxwell did some things right but goballly shafted everyone stupid thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 There was no chance that the stadium would ever have been built at Stoneham. It would have filled in the 'strategic gap' between Southampton and Eastleigh. Perversely, the proximity to the M27 also counted against it. The car park was originally mooted at 6,000 spaces, later reduced to 3,000, but even that figure would have led to queues of nearly two hours to get out of the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambosa75 Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 I don't agree about the stadium. It is a very bad design. Very pleasant to be in, true, but the raking of the stands are not steep enough and so St Mary's lacks the intimidating atmosphere that The Dell did have, and even Poopey's stadium has. At Reading, for example, the steep tiers of the Madjeski have been of great benefit to their team, but at St Mary's our stadium has not been beneficial to us. Results prove this. Consequently we have never really had the same home advantage that we had at The Dell, which imo cost us valuable points, and that cost us two relegations. Reading have done no better in their years at the Madjeski than we have. 2 seasons in the Premier League followed by 2 seasons in the Championship, with a play-off appearance. We managed 2 or 3 seasons in the Premier League at SMS, with European football and an FA Cup final appearance plus 3 seasons in the Championship with 1 play-off appearance. Dont get me wrong, I'd rather be in Reading's boots now but they havent exactly achieved anything more than us. I've been to the Madjeski a few times, decent enough stadium it is but give me SMS any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 just a deluded view even robert maxwell did some things right but goballly shafted everyone stupid threadNever let spelling or punctuation get in the way of a useful post. IMHO it is quite an interesting thread.....and sorry about the sarcasm - I cannot help myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Reading have done no better in their years at the Madjeski than we have. 2 seasons in the Premier League followed by 2 seasons in the Championship, with a play-off appearance. We managed 2 or 3 seasons in the Premier League at SMS, with European football and an FA Cup final appearance plus 3 seasons in the Championship with 1 play-off appearance. Dont get me wrong, I'd rather be in Reading's boots now but they havent exactly achieved anything more than us. I've been to the Madjeski a few times, decent enough stadium it is but give me SMS any time. The figures prove otherwise. But St Mary's is a very pleasant stadium. That is not my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 ........can't think of too many more....... 1) Building SMS . I'd spent most of my supporting days at The Dell - and loved every moment of it.....but St.Mary's is a WONDERFUL stadium . Can't get away from that. In the previous 40 years - not once did the previous Boards get antwhere near even breaking the ground. I know people said we were " given " the site cheap etc, etc, but at least it got built and we can be proud of that - even in League 1. There was never a need for a new ground as the dell had empty seats up until the Murdoch gravy train rolled into town. That coupled with the change to having all seater stadia meant the dell was too small by the mid 90s We are like dozens of other clubs having new grounds or refurbed. Its not even 'ours' at this moment in time either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docker-p Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 1) Why was it his fault we didn't get Stoneham? That was to do with planning wasn't it? 3) What do you mean? Foreseeing as in "predicting the future" or overseeing as in "being in charge when it happened"? Planning failed because Rupert went back after outline planning permission had been granted anf tried to include Cinemas and shopping centre and other non football businesses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 (edited) I don't agree about the stadium. It is a very bad design. Very pleasant to be in, true, but the raking of the stands are not steep enough and so St Mary's lacks the intimidating atmosphere that The Dell did have, and even Poopey's stadium has. At Reading, for example, the steep tiers of the Madjeski have been of great benefit to their team, but at St Mary's our stadium has not been beneficial to us. Results prove this. Consequently we have never really had the same home advantage that we had at The Dell, which imo cost us valuable points, and that cost us two relegations.Can't agree with you there. I think the raking is fine. Have you been to Ajax (Amsterdam Arena) - so steep its bloody frightening - you feel like you are sitting on the edge of a precipice. The atmosphere is great when St Mary's is full (Wolves in the Cup quarter final for instance). I don't think we can blame our demise on the stadium. Edited 13 May, 2009 by kpturner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 The amount of blame football fans give to stadia for either bad results or bad atmospher is actually commical if they were not so serious - its the traditional excuse... At SMS, if we are up for it and alot of that depends on what is happening on the pitch, and the crowd mix is by chance up for it It will be electric - witness Saints v Norwich in the 4-3 relegation battle thriller and the the pompey games ... no for me a stadium design can help with atmospher but teh fans need to to create it first and foremost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docker-p Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 ........can't think of too many more....... 1) Building SMS . I'd spent most of my supporting days at The Dell - and loved every moment of it.....but St.Mary's is a WONDERFUL stadium . Can't get away from that. In the previous 40 years - not once did the previous Boards get antwhere near even breaking the ground. I know people said we were " given " the site cheap etc, etc, but at least it got built and we can be proud of that - even in League 1. It seems Crouch / Beattie and a few more contracts had sell -on clauses. 2) RL inserted " sell-on " clauses in many deals when we sold players. No-one else seemed to have thought of it - and we got some extra for that. (Just read MW on the Dyer/Swansea story.Seems like RL foresaw possibililties. 3) RL also inserted clauses in players contracts about reduced salaries if relegated - and many will argue that he was responsible for the relegations...but at least we won'r have to retain players on enormously high slaries. That would have made the situation EVEN WORSE! Difficult to find too much more to enthuse about RL....except his departure, but even so....how much worsd eoff would we be WITHOUT the thrre items above? All the above and more can be off set against very bad calls made about any number of crap signings Lowe encouraged, Delgado, Anothony Pulis, Morgan Schniderlin (£1m !!) to name but three. What about sacking Pearson for a Dutch unknown? What about not backing WGS with more funds? What about spending hundreds of thousands on SCW? But don't let that put you off, Hilter did some good things. Apparently he could knock out the occasion watercolour quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Docker , dont think for a moment davin was suggesting Lowe had NOT done bad as well... calm down ;-) ...but dont get me started on the 'backing strachan' thing - as no one to date has provided anywhere near a decent answr as to wher the £15mil + was going to come from .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 I usually agree with a lot of your posts Wes, but a lot of the things Rupert Lowe wanted in this "complex" was facilities for fans to drink at. At the moment, I can think of one pub in Stoneham, which wouldnt be anywhere near enough to accomodate all the fans, plus travel to Stoneham would have had to be massively revised. As it is, we have a stadium that was very much 2nd choice but only 2nd choice if we could have got Stoneham with all the trimmings, which we didnt get. We now have a stadium within close proximity to our city centre which made a lot more sense logistically. The two things that I mentioned had nothing much to do with facilities for the fans to drink at. There were other facilities that would have been allowed that would have catered for that admirably. For example, there could have been a Planet Hollywood / Hard Rock Cafe type eatery, together with a nightclub. Also mentioned were a bowling alley, ice rink, a 4 star hotel, a Sports megastore, etc. The idea was that the family would make more of a day out of it, eating there before the match, some of the family bowling or ice skating while Dad watched the match and perhaps some of the family going to the night club in the evening after having their dinner at one of those restaurants. Of course, those same facilites would have been available to another set of sports fans attending international sporting events at the accompanying running and athletics stadium next door to the football stadium and the other tennis courts, practice pitches etc that were to be part of the complex and also for big concerts. It was hoped that the complex would rival Crystal Palace and Gateshead as a Southern version. That was the vision that EBC had for Stoneham, with the football stadium as the centrepiece. I disagree that the infrastucture there would be inferior to one close to the city centre. Apart from the railway station close by, there was the M27 motorway and an international airport on its doorstep. IMO it really couldn't have been much better. Under our current circumstances, I supect that we would also be a much better prospect for investment as part of that complex than the one we currently have with just a stadium and nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 1) We could have been at stoneham; better site with room to expand if need be. Instead we have a "flat pack" stadium that is restricted in its expansion (not that we will be ready to expand any time soon) 2) Ideally we wouldnt want to sell our best players, even if we do get 10% of the fee. 3) Forseeing our demise is not that great Yep. I'd also add to #1 that it was actually Southampton City Council that bailed Lowe out by offering Brtiannia Rd up as an alternative when Lowe screwed up at Stoneham. I wonder what the purpose of this thread is, really. Will the apologists for Lowe shut the f**k up when we have new owners ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 There was no chance that the stadium would ever have been built at Stoneham. It would have filled in the 'strategic gap' between Southampton and Eastleigh. Perversely, the proximity to the M27 also counted against it. The car park was originally mooted at 6,000 spaces, later reduced to 3,000, but even that figure would have led to queues of nearly two hours to get out of the ground. The strategic gap is a total red herring and was never an issue that reared its head when the Stoneham project was being considered apart from some local objections from NIMBYs. Funny that the Rose Bowl was allowed to be built in the strategic gap between West End and Hedge End, eh? I strongly suspect that many of the very same NIMBYs at Stoneham enjoy going to watch bloody Cricket in my back yard. What killed it stone dead was Lowe's intransigence over what he wanted to go with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 (edited) What about not backing WGS with more funds? (Not having a go at you directly so I apologise, but) is it just me or does anyone else get baffled by this perpetuated story about not backing WGS with appropriate funds after the cup final? Where was all this money supposed to come from? Here we are on the brink of liquidation because the board took a £6-7m punt on promotion that we could not afford, and yet people still think the root cause of our demise was not taking a punt (that we equally could could not afford) on taking the team up a level after the cup final. WGS did make signings at that time (Phillips?) but he didn't have mega bucks to spend - but perhaps that is because we didn't have mega bucks available. I don't know the details of the finances but that is how I perceive things were at the time. Edited 13 May, 2009 by kpturner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Can't agree with you there. I think the raking is fine. Have you been to Ajax (Amsterdam Arena) - so steep its bloody frightening - you feel like you are sitting on the edge of a precipice. The atmosphere is great when St Mary's is full (Wolves in the Cup quarter final for instance). I don't think we can blame our demise on the stadium. Just a coincidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Just a coincidence?Sorry - not with you there. Is what just a coincidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpb Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Sorry - not with you there. Is what just a coincidence? I think he means that we had a new stadium and several years later we were relegated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 I think he means that we had a new stadium and several years later we were relegated.Oh well yes I think that is a coincidence - or to put it another way I do not believe it makes sense to blame two consecutive relegations on us being in a new stadium. Poor managerial appointments maybe, but atmosphere at the stadium - naah. I think we forget that we actually had some very good times at SMS under WGS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Resurrected the academy? Shades of 'What did the Romans ever do for us?' here... Cup final, European football, highest premier league finish, in Svennson and Niemi possibly signed the best defensive pairing in the Prem...we have had SOME good things to cheer about during his time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brmbrm Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 1) We could have been at stoneham; better site with room to expand if need be. Instead we have a "flat pack" stadium that is restricted in its expansion (not that we will be ready to expand any time soon) 100%. If you think its a "WONDERFUL" stadium, David-in-Sweden, then you should go to some more new/fairly new stadiums. Its nice, sure, but nothing out of the ordinary. Not complaining, but its new, thats all, not "WONDERFUL". (the location is crap; the concourses are very poor: the US know how to do concourses; the architecture is just bog standard; the acoustics and atmosphere are poor, just like most stadiums (why dont they think of the acoustics when the put the lid on???).) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insertfunnyname Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 makes you wonder if Saga's contact (and others signed in that period) has a relegation clause in it. If that board didn't bother it shows their stupidity cos as you say its one of RL's few good ideas. Also shows why we have to get him off the wage bill for L1. Also think we did get 500K for the Crouch sale - something like 20% of the profit if I remember right. He could negotiate on transfers you've got to give him that - mind you theres alot on the negative column as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOTONS EAST SIDE Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 1. He's f**ked off! 2. He took his mates with him! 3.He and his mates lost the money they were sucking out of saints! Thank f**k for that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 100%. If you think its a "WONDERFUL" stadium, David-in-Sweden, then you should go to some more new/fairly new stadiums. Its nice, sure, but nothing out of the ordinary. Not complaining, but its new, thats all, not "WONDERFUL". (the location is crap; the concourses are very poor: the US know how to do concourses; the architecture is just bog standard; the acoustics and atmosphere are poor, just like most stadiums (why dont they think of the acoustics when the put the lid on???).)...and who said football fans are fickle?? Come on, we spent years at the Dell dreaming of a decent stadium and now that we have one we want to pick holes in it. Sure, there are some negatives but I still think its a great facility compared to what we were used to. Of course it is similar to all the others built by Barrs (Walkers, Pride Park?) but compared to the Dell (and many other grounds we will see this season if we stay afloat) it is wonderful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 and why didn't Lowe and Co have the same vision about the St Mary's site as Stoneham! Stoneham would have ended up like Pride Park or the Madjeski Stadium - a traffic nightmare on the edge of the town/city with nothing but a light industrial park or a supermarket near it at least St Mary's is in the city of Southampton, in the club's home ward and close to the town centre bringing people and money into the City every other Saturday I like being able to meet friends in town for a drink first, do some shopping and stuff with the rest of the gas works site, the gravel place and the industrial park around it St Mary's could be turned into soemthing special - a waterside St Marys Hotel, bars, restaurants, a Allsaints cafe Lowe just never had this visiob - or maybe the money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 and why didn't Lowe and Co have the same vision about the St Mary's site as Stoneham! Stoneham would have ended up like Pride Park or the Madjeski Stadium - a traffic nightmare on the edge of the town/city with nothing but a light industrial park or a supermarket near it at least St Mary's is in the city of Southampton, in the club's home ward and close to the town centre bringing people and money into the City every other Saturday I like being able to meet friends in town for a drink first, do some shopping and stuff with the rest of the gas works site, the gravel place and the industrial park around it St Mary's could be turned into soemthing special - a waterside St Marys Hotel, bars, restaurants, a Allsaints cafe Lowe just never had this visiob - or maybe the money I do agree it is in a good location in the centre of town and is a very nice stadium (but as has been said before nothing outstanding). But i do feel that having no extra revenue stream does not help matters in the slightest. Apart from a couple of concerts thats all there is, through the summer months we have no cash flow and no alternative other than football. Unfortunately i don't think that there was the space to expand any further, they couldn't even put in the train station for christ sake. If they could have it would probably have been a much better choice than Stoneham in the first place. Also, as for EBC, i seriously believe it would have helped Eastliegh City Centre, a centre which at the moment is dying i might add. Transport wouldn't have been that terrible, no worse then over populating Southampton City with everything from the cruiseliners to IKEA. What was it the bloke from SCC said about how they would sort out travel ?? "well everyone would have to just leave earlier" or something along those lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 13 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 13 May, 2009 All the above and more can be off set against very bad calls made about any number of crap signings Lowe encouraged, Delgado, Anothony Pulis, Morgan Schniderlin (£1m !!) to name but three. What about sacking Pearson for a Dutch unknown? What about not backing WGS with more funds? What about spending hundreds of thousands on SCW? But don't let that put you off, Hilter did some good things. Apparently he could knock out the occasion watercolour quite well. well Docker, I did actually say that I couldn't think of more than 3 things we could be grateful to RL for. YES-Delgado was a bad deal - wasn't it ? Strachan said that he had no control over the situation as it was already "a done deal " before he (Strachan) came to the club. Schneiderlin probably does have potential but you can't expect so much from an 18 year old coming into a struggling side. Thats a bit unfair. Tony Pulis was recovering from an injury when he came, as has never got match fit. It's better to judge him when he plays regularly. He (RL) definitely did the wrong thing in not retaining Pearson...! (as we see) (but I don't think MW is as bad as some people paint him.) and SORRY .. but according to an interview I saw (and read elsewhere) Hitler was a lousy painter - and was TWICE refused entry to Vienna's Art Academy. Pity really, it would have made the 20th century a lot more peaceful time. I wonder if ...Rupert Lowe likes to paint ..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Stoneham would have been ****ing awful. Souless dealthless stadium in the middle of absolutely nowhere and you'd have to drive or get the bus. Great. The people moaning about it like Stoneham would have been the Bernabeu and The Old Den rolled into one would be moaning a hell of a lot more if Lowe had secured Stoneham with his Hotel/Cinema/Shopping complex bolted on the side of it. Or do you 'tards really think the true spirit of Southampton football club would be best captured by commercial leisure facilities a retail park and a branch of Subway? Just what Ted Bates would have wanted Stop moaning you dinlows. St Mary's is a very good city centre stadium built at the heart of our city and you can stroll to it from the city centre. Boo hoo, what a ****ing outrage We want a hotel, we want a hotel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Yes, it was definitely Lowe's fault that we didn't get Stoneham. He was too greedy about wanting other things to go with it as an additional revenue souce. The two things that he wanted were the two things that Eastleigh Borough Council could never grant. They were a shopping complex the size of Asda at Chandlers Ford and a Cinema complex. It would have been lunacy allowing an out of town shopping development 1 mile from the town centre and the cinema complex was already planned for the Swan Centre as an attraction to bring people into the town of an evening. EBC would have allowed many other things to have been built to aid investment, but Lowe stuck to those two things like the stubborn sod he is and the whole scheme floundered on the back of his obstinacy. I can't believe Rupert, what an arsehole - trying to source 'additional revenue streams' into the club. :S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 The amount of blame football fans give to stadia for either bad results or bad atmospher is actually commical if they were not so serious - its the traditional excuse... At SMS, if we are up for it and alot of that depends on what is happening on the pitch, and the crowd mix is by chance up for it It will be electric - witness Saints v Norwich in the 4-3 relegation battle thriller and the the pompey games ... no for me a stadium design can help with atmospher but teh fans need to to create it first and foremost. Saints fans now blaming the stadium for poor results shocker... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Delgado, a world class stricker for £3m quid. What a mistake!!! LOL The mistake was not checking him out thoroughly fitness wise. Decent player, would have been a steal if fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Saints fans now blaming the stadium for poor results shocker... The compact Dell atmosphere was a major factor in Saints sucesses over the years. 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