um pahars

I would have thought a different manager would have a massive bearing on how well the Club does. If not, then you might as well just employ manager from the Southampton Senior League if you're saying there is nothing they could do. A different manager could have the same set of players but decide to play them a different way (route one, 4-4-2, 3-5-2 He may have motivated (or demotivated) them a different way. He could buy different players to the 8 or so we brought in. He could have gone for four with the same amount of money on fees and wages. He could have elected to sell Surman, Lallana and any other youngster who would bring in some cash and in their place bring in some older pro's on a free, but pay them bigger wages with the transfer fees brought in. He could have elected to play all 11 players from the Youth Team/Ressies. Of course there are some finanical restraints that any manager would have abide by, and of course there would be a number of players that they would all have to use, but to suggest there is only one alternative that could work with the budet we have is one of the most ridiculous assertions I have read on here.

Without appearing too rude, just what the **** are you on about? Earlier in the thread I gave a whole list of alternatives routes we could have gone down. I have no idea whether any of those would be better, similar or worse, but they are alternatives. Are you really saying picking Poortvliet out of the Dutch League was our only choice. **** me, what about all those other teams out there (many in a similar pickle as us) who were unlucky not to get him? Should they just pack it all in and let us finish Champions? FS you're not equipping yourself well tonight are you?

So you finally concede there was an alternative and that this was Lowe's choice.](*,) That's all people have been saying, that there were alternatives, those alternatives may be somewhat influenced by finances but we could have done this differently. No one is saying their choice would have been better, (not least because as far as I am aware no one on here can see in to the future), but instead Lowe will be judged on how his choice performs. WTF have you been arguing about for the last few hours?

I wouldn't call it over reacting, just very concerned. Of your list two are out injured and one has never played before (nor has Davies who has been mooted as an alternative). Putting Wotton or Schneiderlin in there isn't really the answer either for me (only as an emergency halfway through a game). We have enough issues playing midfielders as full backs without having to make do with three out of the back four playing out of position. So we have Perry and Cork in the middle of defence, with some rookies as back up. Now of course they could come in and perform brilliantly, but I think it's reasonable to have some concerns as we stand here today.

Two thoughts from me: Firstly, I think this thread is as premature as NickG's thread cooing after winning at Derby and others slashing their wrists after losing to Brum and Cardiff. Mid season, if not the whole season is when we should be saying whether someone is doing a good job or not and ultimately this is a results driven business. As I write this we have 3 points from a possible 12 and are currently in the relegation zone (albeit with games still being played and having a game in hand), so I think its a little too early to be being overly joyful (and also for being too pessimistic). If Lowe keeps his arrogant and condescending rants out of the media then that will only be a minor plus point if overall we are failing and are scratching around the relegation zone come next May. Secondly, the route we have taken is one chosen by Lowe. Whilst finances certainly ruled out a number of avenues (i.e. appointing Keegan and giving him a massive transfer budget), there were an infinte number of strategies to employ, whilst still sticking to the bank's (and other creditors) wishes. A simple alternative would have been to keep Pearson, another could have been to give Wigley a second chance, promote Hockady & Henderson to the first team, sell Surman, Lallana, Dyer and any other youngster and invest in some old cloggers who know this division, etc etc etc. This is conscious decision to go with the "revolutionary new coaching structure" and one that Lowe will be judged on.

Well despite your moniker, I can only assume you're six years old. You conveniently forget that the stats are all for games played in the second where for most of that period we were one of the "stronger" teams benefitting from the parachute payments. He wasn't one of the best, nor was he one of the worst, but your insistence on holding him up as some uber manager is disturbing. And I think you'll find most people were fairly fair in their assessments of Burley. In his first six months he was given alot of slack as he was working through the debacle of Redknapp, Woodward, Clifford etc etc. This was his team building period. The next season he got much respect for taking us to the play offs. However, against that it has to be said he was extremely well backed and had a decent period to settle in and get his team right. However, last season undid any of his good work. Burley's work on the pitch was not up to standard and more worryingly his attitude off the pitch was even worse. He may have suffered from losing some players, but the financial results also show he was still well supported. He massively underperformed and in my opinion he was just wasn't bothered anymore. If he hadn't walked, then I think he would have been sacked. Don't be such a drama queen!!!! "Eveyone's always having a go at my George and my Rupert" :smt091:smt091:smt091:smt089:smt089 I think you'll find Branfoot and Redknapp are regularly ripped apart on here. I contributed to a Branfoot was a **** thread about a week ago. Hoddle & Dalek Burley & SOG Wigley & ????? (does Lowe post) Branfoot & ???? (does Askham post)

This year in Thailand, when I mentioned Southampton, the reply I got back from a local was "James Beattie, great player". Otherwise over there in SE Asia it's normally been Matt Le Tissier, although Anders Svennson popped up a few times in the past. I think Saints are/were quite big over there as a Singapore/KL based football programme over there (maybe Star Soccer Shorts) is hosted by a Saints fan (Andy ????) and he was always going on about us. He even used to have a regular slot on the show dedicated to Saints, but I think our recent demise has rendered that obsolete!!!!

Orcheston, Wilts Newcastle London So not sure we can claim we breed them, but we certainly do nurture some good ones. Wonder which town/city based on population has the best record of producing top flight footballers?????

I would have to agree as well (although there might be a small caveat coming later). Crouch never denied that the deal was done, but neither did he come out and tell us it was done. I didn't think hiding behind Seymour Peirce was a valid excuse for not coming clean as I'm sure other transfer fees were made public during the "takeover period (sic)" and I said as much back a few months back. My only caveat would be if he was holding back information if it was felt it would commercially prejudice the Club, (in much the same way as Lowe told a few white lies regarding not having to sell Peter Crouch, when in all honestly we were always going to shift him and Lowe was just strengthening our negotiating position). However, I think Crouch didn't want to tell the supporters how bad the Club's position was and instead wanted us all upbeat and positive, whereas my opinion is that supporters should be told as much as possible (without compromising the Club in any way) in an honest and open manner.

So to summarise, you haven't found a quote from Crouch denying he had cashed in on Theo.

Considering our predicament at the time and the fact that Arsenal knew we were up against it, I wouldn't be surprised if we waived all future rights in exchange for a couple of million that was needed to keep the wolves from the door.

I tried it and failed to see any quotes from Crouch denying that he had cashed in on the Walcott deal. There's Echo/reporter's supposition and references to the original story (the one in the Mail about a number of items) containing inaccuracies, but no denial from Crouch. You either need to do some more digging or accept that Crouch never denied it.

I have no idea what the early settlement deal was, but I could easily imagine that we may even have given up a sell on clause as well, due to Arsenal having us over a barrel and knowing our dodgy financial situation.

He would have been lying had he said that, but he never said a deal had not been done (of course feel free to show us the quote by Crouch). The closest he came was at Central Hall when he said something along the lines of "sorry but I can't answer that question under advice from the people from Seymour Pearce". The only line denying it was an intro on the OS by the editor of the time who was quite clearly out of the loop, as the deal had almost been done and dusted when Hone was the main man.

Typical woman, always knocking years off their age.

I think you'll find that dumb pahars has from day one said this was nothing to do with money. On the contrary, I have from day one said that this was solely a footballing decision. Maybe if you learnt to read you would find that Weston Saint was saying that the appointment of the revolutionary coaching set up was due to financial reasons, whereas I have been arguing that it was solely for footballing reasons. HTH.

I think you've been sold a dummy if you think either Pearson's wages or his requirements were the reason for letting him go. Pearson was acutely aware of the financial pressures at the Club and after speaking to him at length down at Central Hall he was more than aware that the summer would mean a mass exodus of the higher earners (and anyone who would command a fee), with not much money being spent on player purchases. After meeting with Lowe he was of the mind that he could work within the financial constraints and also felt that Lowe wanted him (hence when he went on holiday he thought everything was hunky dory). Lowe decided to go with the revolutionary coaching set up not as a financial necessity, but because he felt that was the best way forward. People may not agree with it, but at the end of the day Lowe is in the hot seat and he made that call. Of course we couldn't afford Keegan and his shopping list, but the neither was the revolutionary coaching set up the only option available. Lowe made that call and he will have to be judged on it. It may not be the answer, but I'm sure that for some people they have opted to do just that. When my uncle picked me up from Heathrow the other day I asked him what our performances had been like. HIs response was "I don't know, I haven't gone to any matches as I just can't stand the idea of giving Lowe my money". Irrational, stupid, naive, damaging or whatever you want to call it, you can't get away from the fact that some people (and it may be a minority) feel this way. Of course last seasons debacle and this seasons luke warm start (along with player sales) may also be a factor, but in these hard times, sadly Lowe is as divisive a figure as he was when we first went down during his tenure. Will my uncle come back when we are climbing the league? I don't know, but you can't ignore that in the absence of success on the pitch Lowe is not a unifying figure off of it.

I'm not sure anyone confirmed it, but it definitely happened. Lowe and Wilde mentioned it in their 9 points and the Echo reported on it (as well as some nationals). Hone started the negotiations before he left and Crouch concluded them. It definitely happened and I imagine this will be confirmed once and for all in the Annual Report.

I have to say that Edgar's summary is more in line with the financial turmoil we are currently in. Looking at the numbers mentioned in the Trading Statement, I would expect our P & L for last year to be something like this: Income---------14m Cost of Sales---(22m) of which £12m is wages Gross Loss------(8m) Admin costs-----(5m) Operating Loss--(13m) Interest---------(2m) Loss before player tading --(15m) So this was our normal trading loss last season, a loss of £15m which was only bailed out by player sales and pulling forward the payments on Walcott and Bale (can't remember if Bale's money came before 30 June). Then we consider player trading (which is not accounted for on a "cash" basis (in simple terms player sales effectively make it in to the P&L but purchases are spread over a number of years), which was : Profit on Diposal of players--- 12m Amort of players-------------(2m) Net profit from payer trading--10m Total Loss Before Tax---------(5m) What will be really interesting will be the cashflow as the P & L often doesn't give you the "real" position of the company's financial performance.

Sorry Ron, but I think you're being a bit naive here if you think the only people who can save us or run the show are Lowe & Wilde (what happens when they do eventually go, does the Club fold or do we appoint someone else? Maybe we have to make do with Wilde JR and Lowe the II in some sort of hereditary dynasty!!!!). The very fact that both of them failed whilst on the bridge would suggest to me that there might well be others out there who could do a competent job. One thing that was evident form those Runnymede meetings was that the larger shareholders never once considered going outside of their cosy cabal to get the best man for the job. Instead they were too busy carving up the jobs for themselves (Lowe as DOF and Wilde as Chairman, problem was neither would work with each other back then!!!!!! - how times change). And as for how it could be done differently, then once again there are many ways of skinning a cat. A fine example would be the sacking of Pearson and the appointment of JP and the coaching structure that surrounds him. I'm not saying one is better than the other (that's another debate for another day), just giving one example that different strategies can and are being employed and those who make those choices will be resopnsible for them (there should be no hiding behind the "we had no choice" excuse card). Money is tight and will almost definitely influence every decision, but there are a number of footballing things that could be done differently.

Considering there is a Branfoot thread on here, then maybe it is worth asking what you thought of the stayways at that time, who ultimately forced the board to sack Branfoot?? Whilst many just stayed away because the football was appalling, many also stayed away in protest, a protest which ultimately worked with Branfoot being removed?? Those idiots would claim that the pain and sacrifice was ultimately price worth paying.

Not correct. The FA never had the rights to negoitate and manage the commercial rights of the product. The rights for the Football League (in whatever guise dating back to the 1880's) were always the responsibility of the League itelf (and it's members) and nothing to do with the FA. I agree we can't blame SKY for how money is distributed throughout the game, although I would have thought that as the ultimate customer and paymaster they do have a view on the competitiveness of the league (and the pyramid system) and it's attraciveness to punters. It is totally up to the Clubs in the top flight to decide how the money is distributed throughout the game and with many of them (including ourselves when we were there) it is probably akin to xmas, voting and turkeys in trying to get them to pas on more to the teams below them. It's just that the FA get enough stick without being blamed for the ills of the Premiership gravy train.

The FA had no part in seeking the best comercial prospects for the Football League (in pre Premiership days). Just as the Premiership runs itself nowadays, so did the Footbal League before it. They could have refused to sanction the move, but it would have happened anyway. The clubs had all the power and if the FA had not agreed, then English football would probably have fallen apart. They would have still formed the Premier League and the repercussions for the FA and the rest of the game would have been massive. The simple fact is that although they need to work together at times, the FA needs the Premier League more than the other way round. But this is where you're confusing yourself again. The FA were never in the game of negotiating and managing the rights of the Football League. The Football League negotiated these rights. The top teams (including us at the time) thought they could get a better deal by going it alone from the Footbal League, hence the mass resignations. Maybe the Football League were hapless at managing the rights, but certainly not the FA!

The FA have nothing to do with this. They were powerless as the old First Division clubs simply resigned from the Football League in the early 90's and set up the Premiership. They had no choice but to sanction it, the Clubs have all the power. The power lies with the Premiership Clubs, and within that the big 4 or maybe 5 are the real power barons. The big clubs know they could earn more if they sold their rights individually, so therefore the lesser clubs often defer to their way of thinking just to ensure the collective agreement remains. In a way this acceptance of the collective bundle is the big 4's way of saying they are doing something for the game (i.e. accepting less than they may otherwise get - although there are rumblings that two or three of the big four are looking to go alone at some point).

The FA does not run the Premier League!!!!!!!!!! The Premier League is run by a board of Directors who are appointed by the 20 shareholders (i.e. the Premier League Clubs). Effectively the Clubs run the League themselves through appointed Directors and an Executive team. The FA are a special shareholder with a right of veto on issues such as promotion, relegation and other areas, but they have no influence on the commercial aspects of the Premier League.