um pahars

I dont want to get too lairy as had to go into the Grapes for a few pints after that rubish, but take it from me, the SaintsTV and stats don't tell you anywhere near the true story. Watford were quite frankly fciuking awful, but that says more about us than it does them. They took their foot off the pedal in the second half (thankfully). It was boys against men. We could have been their for 90 hours and not scored. Team selection, motivation, performances, all round was terrible. For most fo the second half, JP looked dazed with his hands in his pockets and my worry of him being out of his depth seems more prophetic with every match. We will only stay up if there are three teams worse than us.

I dont know what station you were listenig to, but your posts on this thread are a million miles away from reality. Even if we had scored both penalties, we still would have lost 3-2. We didn't have shed loads of chances, their keeper didnt mae loads of great saves. Once again we were awful at the back. We also played some pretty stuff in midfield (at times). We had nothing up front. That's not unlucky, today was plain sh7itye (again)

I thought us naughty fans had already scared away anyone of note.:rolleyes:

Don't know about the last couple of years, as the season before last we were in the play offs. That season was pretty good and I very much doubt we'll get 75 points or manage 21 wins this season!!!!!!

A very good point and something I have been saying for ages. In the absence of home wins, we need another way of engendering a "we're all in this together" spirit. Sadly, I can't think of anyone currently connected with the Club who has the ability to deliver that sort of message (if anything, some invlved are actually counter productive). Therefore, unless Jan and the players can work some magic, then we are lumbered with these attendances. We may not like it, it may mean some fans are deemed lower than others in some people's eye (not mine BTW), but I can see no other way of creating a "feelgood" spirit with the current incumbents at the helm.

A couple of days ago we had one poster blaming the fans for scaring away anyone of note from the Club, and now we have another blaming fans for other supporters not turning up.:rolleyes: It's not difficult to understand why fans have not been turning up this season, and he has got ficuk all to do with I say to my mates down the pub. It's down to rubbish served up last season (which had a big impact on season tickets) and poor performances this season. I very much doubt many are actually staying way directly because of Lowe (although I accept some are), instead they are indirectly staying away because of him, in that his revolutionary new coaching set up has yet to deliver the results boasted on the OS (and its sister mouthpiece, The Echo). Even if I went down the pub extolling the virtues of our team, I think most would think I was a talking blollox. They would point to one home win in the league, 8 goals conceded on the box, and a position two places above relegation. People aren't daft, they know what the score is even without turning up for matches. Results and the league table are the ultimate characterreference.

He's being very optimistic (almost too optimistic again, and I hope it's not putting pressure on the youngsters), but I can't see any reason why we shouldn't at least be able to turn Watford over on Saturday. The youngsters wll be fresh (and I hope they're smarting from the Coventry defeat) and I don't think Watford are any great shakes. Hopefully it will be 5 wins from 9 after Saturday, although as I said to start with, I do worry about the pressure and expectations we're putting on these youngsters. The OS and Echo stories pre season hype didn't help and the wonder start certainly didn't materialise. The hype eased off after the poor start, but it would appear that it's being cranked up again. I do hope Jan knows what he's doing.

I can certainly remember turning around and telling people that we really shouldn't be singing that song as this was Saints we were watching. Remember that day as being freezing, and yet despite surrendering a 2 nil lead being rather happy, mainly because of the £1 pints and strippers on that boat moored next to the ground. But not sure it was all downhill from that point onwards. From memory that game was early 2003, and we ceratainly had some ups after that point and finished that calendar year winning away at Anfield an dbeing well up the league.

Coffee over the monitor time. Us big, bad, naughty fans have scared anyone of note away from our Club. We are really naughty and must stop this. We have made people cry and they are sad. Glad you haven't forked out a fiver, because some of your drivel is worse than Scoobys!!!!!!!!!!

I would have to agree. Paying £5 less to watch us lose would probbly be viewed as a waste of £19, rather than a saving of £5. Therefore I'm not convinced a slight drop in prices would equate to a decent rise in attendances. Results on the pitch are the number one issue with regards attendances. Having said that, I would like to believe that we could do something to drive up attendances and get people to rally behind the Club in these dark days. We need to engender a Dunkirk spirit from somewhere.

Totally agree and it's perplexing why we gave someone like Euell a decent two year contract when we knew we would be short of cash with the parachute dropping away. It started with Rasiak being given 4 years and the biggest salary we have paid out since we were relegated. At some point it was definitley going to contribute to the problems we faced after falling out of the top flight.

Totally agree and what has also been said by others on here is that any old fool can cut costs and slash and burn overheads and infrrastructure, but what is difficult is growing a business, gaining customers and generating revenue. A sure fire way of getting people through the gate is success on the pitch, but in the absence of that we need to be doing something. Yes it will be difficult, yes there are different (and sometimes opposing) viewpoints, but in the absence of success on the pitch I really don't see that just doing nothing is an option we can run with. We need some imagination, some togetherness and some leadership that people can rally behind (some home wins wouldn't go amiss either).

In the first season under Wilde and co wages and other costs were reduced and our net debt was lowered to a position it hadn't been for years. The following seasons overspend by Hone & co was stupid, but if you think the reason we are in this financial crisis is because of that period, then you are seriously deluded. You're blaming all our problems on a one off overspend of a few million (which certainly didn't help matters), but conveniently ignoring the calamatous effects of relegation and failure to get repromoted that turned this Club upside down (as it has done to many other clubs around the country). The crisis comes about from having income of about £13m and a structure that can't run on that level of income. Despite making cuts, Lowe and Wilde are still running us at a very big loss. What do you think Lowe's Plan B was all about, and why would we have to implement it?

So they asked Lowe & Wilde whether they should implement Plan B that summer??? I presume you think that Lowe's cabal said yes and Wilde said no, and therefore they carried on as normal signing those contracts and salary cheques. Your grip on the reality of the situation last summer is about as tenuous as nickh's grip on the financial situation.

It either has to be the failure to support Strrock in his battles with the prima donnas and stirrers in the squad, or the crass appointment of Wigley. I don't buy into the idea that the Club suffered from the minute Lowe turned up. Although I have issues with the part played by some of those in the wings around the time of the reverse takeover, Lowe himself performed OK in his early to middle part of his reign. Like any Chairman he made mistakes, but he also made some good calls. His troubles began when his ego took over and when he failed to learn from his earlier errors. So on balance I would have to go for the ludicrous appointment of Wigley, as once we had sacked Sturrock there was no reason for us to appoint Wigley.

I certainly don't believe that I am the financial god on here, but what is patently clear is that you are out of your depth whenever you try to add to the debate in this sphere. The financial reports aren't difficult to read (see Weston Saints post above), but sadly you and a few others fail to believe anything that is written in them because they don't fit in with your biased perception of events. As for answering questions, then feel free to repeat any of your questions that I may have missed and I would be only too ready to answer them. I await your gripping questions:rolleyes: And as I have noted above, we may have lost players during the early part of Burley's tenure (feel free to list the 20, as that seems excessve), but we also brought in quite a few (I have listed at least 10 above). Look at the figures pre and post the January window and our wage costs are similar at around £1m a month. As for "some is held over to later accounts", what are you bumbling on about? Once again you display a noddy like approach to reading other peoples posts and a poor attempt at being consistent and rational in your arguments. You obviously fail to appreciate how the Club was run on a day to day basis fom the time when Wilde stepped down and where the power lay with regards the Executives and the Non Executives (depsite it being highlighted on many occasions on this forum - nd even this thread - and in the real world). Try and read some posts and try and do some of your own research before you spout off rubbish and embarrass yourself on here. Spending money on the loans of Lucketti, Wright and others was not ideal, particularly when Hone had already increased the wage bill in the summer of 2007, but when looked at in a rational and sensible manner, that money was money very well spent. Arguably some of those short term additions helped secure our status in the second division and staved off the footballing and financial disaster that would certainly have followed relegation to the third tier. Attacking Crouch for sanctioning these short term loans is an astonishing position to take nickh, a very weak argument indeed. You would have to look at the company the industry and the context of where it finds itself. In the case of Saints, like Lowe and others, I would have pursued a position of exploiting every conceivable advantage during the parachute payment, even if it meant a small increase in net debt or some player trading to cover the deficit. I would then have looked at retrenching after those two years.

The last seven months of the Lowe regime (Dec through to end June, the start of the Burley era) had a wage bill of £7.4m, whilst the proceeding 6 mths (the end of the Redknapp era) was £6.2m. This would suggest that despite your January cull, wages for the period after the January transfer window were similar to the period before i.e. the net outcome was that there was no real discernible reduction. These figures come from the Interim and Annual Reports are not up for debate. So although we may have lost players like Quashie and Niemi (and the many others you mentioned), we also replaced them with others that netted these savings out, and these included Rasiak, Madsen, Ostlund, Pele, Potter, Brennan, Bart, Chaplow, Wright, Miller. The first six months under Wilde (July to Dec) had a wage bill of £5m.

With this post, methinks you have surpassed yourself in highlighting your total lack of knowledge and understanding on this subject.:rolleyes: Just as it was impossible to try and explain our Operating Loss to you , so it would appear that it will be impossible to try and explain our cost structure and how it has impacted on the Club in recent years. Besides, this debate was to do with Leon Crouch and his part in increasing the wage bill (or not as is the case in fact), so it would probably be best if you took your bumblings to some other thread. Take my advice, go and do some research, look at the numbers put up here by myself and others relating to wages, put them in a timeline, understand how costs are treated in the books (inc terminated contracts) and then maybe, just maybe you might be able to add something tangible to this debate.

And you would do well to read that first part, which clearly demonstrates that the power at the Club, at that time, lay with the Executives under Hone. Crouch could moan, whinge and stir up trouble as much as he liked, but it was Jim Hone's signature on the contracts for the players that saw our wages rise in the summer of 2007. We have no idea of knowing just what Crouch would have done had he been in control. He might have increased wages further, he might have lowered them, but for some reason you continue to ignore tha plain fact that he had no day to day say in the Players Wages at the Club during the period that they went back up.

:rolleyes: Once again I can only presume that you fail to read posts and instead just post waffle, conveniently ignoring the salient points (not to mention ignoring clear evidence). The plain facts (as noted above, lifted from the Interims and Annual Report) clearly display the trend in wages over four season. You would do well to sit back and digest them, as opposed to keep coming back on here and revealing that you are poorly informed on this area. As for having great affection for Crouch and always defending his actions, well that's just the same, lame jibe you trot out when you have no other defence. It's up there with "you only hate Lowe cos he's posh" in terms of lameness. If you had cared to read some of my posts, then you would have seen that I judge him by the same standards Ijudge anyone in control of the Club (e.g. I was critical of is handling of the cashing in on Theo, dallying when Burley left, how Rasiak and Skacel being loaned out was dressed upand a number of other areas where his management was poor). However, what I won't do is try and hold him accountable for things that did not occur under his stewardship, which is where this debate was going before you bumbled in with your ill informed posts.

You must indeed be missing something, as pre and post the January window, our wages were constant at approx £1m per month: 6 months to Nov 2005 (under Redknapp) - £6.2m 7 months to June 2006 (effectively Burley) - £7.4m Rasiak came in on loan under Burley, and he cost a decent wedge, but those numbers are taken from the interims and Annual Report.

And players salaries only were: Players wages y/e 2005 £23.2m Players wages y/e 2006 £13.6m (13 months) Players wages y/e 2007 £10.5m Players wages y/e 2008 £12.1m (est)

The wages under Burley in his first six months were at a similar level to the six months under Redknapp, so after the first drop from Premiership wages, Lowe did not oversee a further step drop. The next drop in wages came about from that summer when Wilde, Crouch, Hone and the others rocked up. As well as reducing wages, they also reduced other costs as well (and also delivered a play off spot). And as I have proved above, not "All that came in oversaw an increase in wages". Indeed, the first regime (Wilde, Crouch & Hone) oversaw a reduction. The second regime (Hone & the Executives) oversaw the increase back up the Lowe levels of wages. Once again, you fail to discern between the two different eras post Lowe, and instead lump everyone in together. Similarly, you obviously don't know the make up of our salary base if you think that we had a bunch of PL salaried players in that first season down . Go and have a look at the step reduction that occurred when we fell out of the top flight (an effort that Lowe should get some recognition for). It is all relative. Allowing the wages to go up by a couple of million certainly is not good news. It's something I would never advocate and it's something I have always opposed. However, the use of the word disaster is somewhat over the top, particularly when put up against the loss of tens of millions from the top line. That was the disaster that has changed this Club.

I have no idea what you're getting at here, but then again, that shouldn't come as any surprise from someone who tried to claim that wages under Lowe were £6m a year (when they actually double that figure). But there's a world of difference between rhetoric, badmouthing the Executives & slagging off Hone on one hand, and actually signing players & increasing our wages on the other. Crouch was guilty of the first one and was doing & saying anything to have a go at Hone, but that doesn't translate into putting a signature on a contract, something which Hone and his cabal were guilty of. Hone made the decisions to increase the wages and not implement Plan B during that summer where he had full control of the day to day running. And as I have said before, on this point Crouch is as guilty as Lowe and Wilde, in that whilst they were all bickering amongst themselves and refusing to work together, it allowed Hone to keep singing the contracts that sent the wages ever higher. In time they eventually got together, and the Runnymede minutes show that they were not happy with the situation, with Crouch advocating removing the Executives, whilst Cowen was also questioning why the Executives had not implemented Plan B. However, even this opposition was fraught with difficulties with each group (Lowe, Wilde and Crouch) rejecting each others alternative plans. It even got so bad that neither Lowe or Wilde could agree to work together. So at this point, it could be argued that Crouch was the only one who was really up for burying the hatchet to get rid of the Executives (the other two were still fighting in the playground). However, the infighting between the shareholders and the free reign it gave Hone, should in no way exonerate him from not being responsible for overseeing the rise in wages. That was ultimately his, and his cabal's, decision and as an experienced football executive he should have been more than aware of where it was leading the Club (it would also be good to hear David Jones view on this sad little episode).

Haven't heard any boos of this type for our youngsters in the matches I have seen. If anything, I think the supporters are more understanding and supportive of the current team than for any recent team at the Club. At worst I have heard a few moans and groans at the end of a match (I think Barnsley), which was ineveitable after such a poor showing. As for booing Cole, whilst it might show the fickle nature of football fans, I also think it might be a reflection of how fans are starting to feel about the prima donnas and their attitude to them and the game in general.