SaintDonkey

What are you doing on a Saints fans forum then?

The only thing I'd change would be the substitutions. Rather than bringing Thomson on for John if we're chasing the game bring Thomson on for Lallana or Gillet (who ever looks the most tired) and go to a 4-4-2. If we're hanging on to a lead - or a draw - then Wotton on instead. I'd have Euell on the bench for Lancashire (Wotton can go to centreback if Killer's knee looks dodgy) as he neatly covers midfield and big man up front. I'd give Fish a run down left midfield for the last ten minutes - I think he could work well in conjunction with Surman.

If we can play like we did against Brum I reckon we can be on the right side of a 2-1 victory. Of course that means not selling Surman and John before then!

Basically we tried to sell the players we didn't want (Rasiak, Saga, Skacel and possibly Wright-Phillips and Thomas) but nobody wanted to pay good money for them so we're reduced to selling the players we would rather hang on to. It's ****ing annoying but better than the alternative - administration, which would mean selling the players anyway and a points deduction.

I don't suppose either of the Reading fullbacks looked any cop? If the rumours about 'Drew are true we could do with one in part exchange maybe?

I suspect you underestimate the whinging capabilities of our fans So let's say 8 quid off a ticket - we have about 10000 season ticket holders don't we? http://www.channel4.com/news/article.jsp?id=2357467 So that was about 9000 walk up and away fans last saturday - so that's a match day income loss of 72,000 quid. At 16 quid a ticket that's 4500 extra fans we'd need to turn up to break even on the plan. But the plan isn't to break even - it's to raise enough money over a season so that we don't have to sell players. I know Davies is gone but let's just take him as an example - could your idea of stopped us having to sell him? That's about 1.5 million (inc wages) over 23 games or about 65k a game - or another 4 thousand fans per match. So if lowered ticket prices could lure in another 8500 or so fans every match we might have just saved enough money to keep Andrew Davies. So that demands an attendance of around 27.5k per match throughout the season. Even with reduced prices I have difficulty in seeing that happen. Certainly if I were Mr. Bank Manager I'd be saying "nice try Mr. Weston Super Saint, but you're still going to have to sell players".

Is Byrne a centreback or a fullback? (let me guess - centreback!)

Reduce the prices and you instantly get thousands of season ticket holders up in arms demanding a refund. Cue loads of indignant posts on here complaining and suggesting that all the season ticket holders should demand full refunds. Some bolshy bugger takes it to the small claims court and wins the right to a refund opening the floodgates. The club is obviously in no position to service these refunds and is forced into administration... The simple idea are often the best, but if this one was to work it needed to have been carried out before the season tickets went on sale. It's certainly an option for next year but it's not viable for now. For the moment the only possible plan is "try and get more bums on seats through playing exciting football that's a pleasure to watch - even if the results don't all go our way". And I would say on the basis of Saturday's performance that's what they're doing.

We're still in the cup - surely that's better? (even though I don't expect to be able to say the same thing next week admittedly!)

THis time last year we had lost our first 2 league games with a - 4 goal difference and been knocked out of the Carling cup. This year we're still in the cup and our goal difference is -2. I think that qualifies as being better.

A great shame - he was one of the few high points of last season. I understand why he left, but now I'm really worried about Killer's knee. Killer and Perry together should keep us up. Perry and a.n.other I'm not so sure about, hopefully Lancashire and Racine will prove me wrong.

We don't have a points penalty - which would mean certain relegation. Relegation would make us less attractive to investment, cut our income, mean we had to cut costs... Administration can be a downwards spiral from which it can be difficult to escape. Just look at Luton, Bournmouth and Rotherham. They've all been in the Championship in recent years and are now, thanks to successive administrations, fighting for their league survival. You could argue that for Saints the downwards spiral would be faster because our our higher match day costs. With an average attendance of just 3000 odd in league 2 it would be more than just the corners at Saint Mary's they would be closing.

Leeds started from 'scratch' in the third tier of British football with a huge amount of investment plus a matchday income that dwarfs ours. Bournemouth are starting from scratch for the second time (or is it the third?) in the basement division with a points penalty that makes it likely that they will be playing non-league football next season. If all the stay away fans were to start coming to games, and we're taken over with substantuial investment after administration then perhaps we could follow the Leeds. However it is far more likely that we would follow the Bournemouth model. If you want Southampton to be be ground sharing with Eastleigh in the conference south then by all means advocate the administration route. Personally I'd rather avoid it at all costs - even if that cost is selling our best players and being in a relegation scrap we might not escape.

The seller would walk away with the same money since the 1.3 million would stay with the company (or rather as you saty it would service the company's debt). The buyer might be a bit peeved if they valued the 'asset' that was sold at greater than 1.3 million, and you could argue that if the buyer knew the asset would be sold the buyer might have offered less, but that would require a significant differnce in the valuation of the asset.

To be fair to him "On track for a more stable and successful future" doesn't mean the same thing as actually having a stable and successful future

Can't say I expected anything from the first three games of the season. I expected Birmingham to muller us and was pleasantly surprised when they didn't - and downright pleased at the manner in which we played. A win at Derby will be a much needed morale boost, but I don't think it will define our season if we don't get a result. Blackpool at home however is another matter. If we don't get a result from that I may even take alpine_troll off the ignore list because we really will be in a bit of trouble.

Administration means a 10 point penalty, probably having to sell players anyway followed by almost certain relegation and further points penalties next season. Selling players means it'll be tougher to avoid relegation - but a great deal less tough than dealing with a penalty. Personally I'd be for selling the players and avoiding administration. Anyone who thinks otherwise seriously needs their heads examining.

I was sat in front of some bugger who spent the entire game moaning that Holmes (who I suspect is the new Jermaine Wright) wasn't good enough to wear the shirt. Every time a Saints move broke down it was Holmes's fault even if he hadn't been involved. After one particularly loud and vicious rant I was relieved when his mate pointed out to him that the player who'd give the ball away was Lallana rather than Holmes. Sadly it didn't stop him ranting.

Season before that we didn't have John so not really that good a comparason.

that's a bit of an exageration. We've lost: Saga 3 goals last season Rasiak 8 goals last season. We've still got: John 20 goals last season BWP 8 goals last season McGoldrick 3 goals in 2 games this season Not to mention Lallana, Paterson and White.

I think without substantial investment the absolute best we can hope for is to be a consistant top 6 Championship side - with the odd money making season long foray into the Premiership. Of course we've got to survive the current storm and avoid relegation and administration this season first before we look to build towards that.

No surprise he's gone, a great shame that it's to one of our rivals.

True - which is pretty much why they're going on loan rather than being sold. Still it's better we at least try to do what the bank says rather than go into administration.

How exactly are a rejuvenated Rasiak and Saga going to get us 10 points when in all likelihood they'll be playing for different clubs? The first thing the adminstrators would do is say 'sell the high earners'.

But surely you'd recognise it's better to accede to the banks demands BEFORE administration than to wait until administration both forces the club to do as the bank wills and deducts points?