Frank's cousin

As mental as an obsession might be, we can ask a general question: Had Hoddle returned after the departue of Strachan in 2004, would we have been better off than with Sturrock/Wigley/Redknapp = relegation.... so come on be honest, Hoddle or Wigley? I think the problem many have with Hoddle is less to do with his attruibutes as a coach, even less to do with his departure for Spurs (although a convenient excuse) and more to do with his link to Lowe.

This does not make sense though - at the time, although not official, all the wilde supporters were biting their nails to see which side of the fence Crouch would come down on after successive meetings with Lowe - fans on S4E and the Echo all were questioning what deal would go down.... so this seems a bit of revisionism. It was a classic case of muscle flexing - Crouch determined to demonstrate his power by showing how his 10% could be a controlling share - believeing the Wilde/Lowe deal never likely - tactically his biggest mistake....apart from and falling out with wilde, the biggest shareholder.... naive at the very least. He must have known that - afterall its pretty much guessed the day Wilde showed up, that he would want to maintain some influence in the boardroom to detemine his own destiny, especially when it came to potentially selleing SLH/SFC - so would want a way back in, so its not rocket science to see Wilde would go in with Lowe - afterall we were told that the main reason Wildes 'evolution' not revolution did not work was because Lowe refused to split the SLH CEO role from the Chairman role and stay on as CEO but not chairman - which kind of happened second time around - Lowe playing hardball at the time and Wilde calling his bluff.... and Crouch ousted by his own naivety

I would disagree... Lowe 'revolutionary set up' proved ultimately too fragile to provide the winning formula that HOPEFULLY would have kept the crowd levels up - but even so that would have been only about 20K a game - However that same action also reduced costs that saw a reduction in overhead, - something that would have seen the OD increase alot sooner and maybe have driven us to Admin earlier had it not been done... The trick was missed in comunication - if you want support for something, especially when you know your target audience is going to be unreceptive because a) it goes against the considered better judgement and b) they dont like you anyway, what have you got to lose in being open about the finances and WHY these decisons have been made, at least you only then get accused of mistakes based on facts, not speculation.

SShs! thats herasy in these parts ;-)

This may be ignorant, but are all games kicking off at 13.15? I thought they all kicked off at teh same time for the last game to avoid giving other clubs an advnatage in knowing what they needed either for relegation or promotion? Also do we really wnat to be on TV with our record....

Agree, certainly for those with serious long term plans.

For the biggest problems and the reasons you se those clubs that have been in the prem for a long time struggle MOST when relegated out of it is two fold: 1) we have have prem players - or players who have no real loyalty to teh club, apart from prem wages who all bugger off, or are unaffordable so have to be shipped out - means developing a new squad - the bounce up and downers still in most cases have those players who came through teh ranks and got them promotion - on wages they can afford and who are generally more committed and passionate about the club - we have very few such players left now - it was for me perhaps the only reason why success has been more difficult at SMS than the Dell - SMS facilities meant we could finally attract prem players who might not have looked twice at us when seeing the dell - which meant we attracted players who actually wanted to wear the shirt - (NB this is prem times being talked about here) As to ex players being managers - passion alone is never enough, and those names mentioned have either little or no experience - those calling for them should ask themselves what they woudl say if Lowe had appointed those names with NO experience?.... most can guess teh answer, but now hes gone and its not him making teh decisons, would it suddenly be OK to do as he did and appoint inexperience that had shown loyalty to the club? The best managers are true professionals, able to instil passiona ndt committment wherever they work because its about creating a sence of unity and collective responsibilty, a desire to teh very best possible not just out of personal pride and professionlism, but acknowledging how privilaged they are to be able to do this for a living - especially difficult in this modern era where players struggle to keep their feet on teh ground with such excess. Add to that the ability to work with what you have - improve performance and communicate the tactics and you get a decent manager - ex playesr with 'hero status' baggae but little else are unlikely to get passed the first hurdle - it was no surprise that Cloughie faded badly, when the prem began, modern players not responding to old school backside kicking. 'Get in 'X' , he'd fire them up' or 'sort them out' is not going to get the response in these times that many believe...

I think the points penalties are teh only real way a club can be punished for wrong doing. Afterall, this is sport and you need to play by the rule. If you are attempting to gain a competitive advantage by gambling on success through unsustainakle borrowings to buy better playesr and pay to keep them, then if the result of the failed gamble is administration then you should pay the consequences as we sawe at Leeds... and there were plenty on here calling for spending what we did not have after the cup final.... In the case of pure financial irregularities eg illegal agent payents (although the FA, Football league and Premiership seem happiest to ignore the problem _See Tom Bower's Broken Dreams) its again pretty clear cut. Where I have sympathy and perhaps part of our problem can be covered by this, is for clubs relegated from the prem with player contracts that they cant get out of, and even with the parachute paymen (designed to cover this - altough it provides a seriously unfair competitive advantage), suddenly find revenues well in excess of their contractual obligations, - players are sold as much as possible or loaned out, but this leaves the squad in many cases uncompetitive and its no surprise that this effects relegated clubs who have been in the top flight for a long time far more, than those who bounce up and down, and dont over stretch to stay in the top flight. So should a club be penalised when its is simply forced to honor contracts that were established when in the prem and the club was operating WITHIN its means - not gambling money it did not have, and running the finances properly? In addition in our case, we did not gamble recklessly on success through over expensive signings and wages , but the lions shre of Debt is simply a 'mortgage' for infrastructure - having to pay for a new stadium - whereas some clubs such as Man City were 'gifted' theirs or at least will be... and in other countries such facilities are buit by local tax payers... yet in this one we run the risk of potentially being punished for improving the the safety and facilities for fans... done at a time when again it was well within our means? Whilst the rules have to be easy to enforce, surely this sort of thing needs to be taken into consideration when looking at punishments for administration. Indeed the last two season fighting relegation, surely indicates we have not exactly had any competitive advantage these last two seasons! - the only trouble is that it could be argueed we attempted to get one when we spent that 7.5 mil under Wilde, which Crouch should have vetoed, the risky approach to get promotion when we really could not afford it. That was the rainy day money.

BUt Lowe would argue that in 2007-2008 we should have alreay cut back in preparation or the loss of parachute money, not brought in 7 mil of players + additional high ages in that all or nothing attempt to get promoted?

Surely though GM say SFC is sold lock stock by the administrator to9 individual A. Now as I understand it if SFC Ltd still owes someone aftrer such a deal, but fails to agree CVAs with all its own creditors, the FL can still impoose a points deduction. However if after SFC is old the club is debt free or has agreed CVAs with any remaining SFC creditors (naturally none at the moment ;-)) then if the FL imposed a points reduction we could then sue? not sure, but confused ;-)

Looks that way from Steve's rather elegent comment.

We met wilde in April - but Crouich should have been smarter - and recognised Wilde for what he was - looking after his own interests first and foremost - the 180 turn designed to ensure HE had control of the destiny of potentially lucrative assets, the moment it became obvious that JF etc was being used as a carrot to potential investors - and that some of these may have cut him out the loop... I dont think Lowe gave much thought at all to JF, realising that without planning it was a field - the option on it that expires this year raised a few quid for the club which was smart, but not really on LOwe's radar - For Lowe the idea of the return was two fold IMHO. 1) because he believed he was better than Crouch at preventing admin - which teh evidence at that time suggested - Crouch afterall had not called time on that 7.5 mil purchases - and 2) because his ego demanded at least an attempt to put things right. Its interesting to think what might have happened had Crouch initially sided with Lowe rather than wilde - and been able to provide a convincing argument for Lowe to step down as football club chairman - the tighter financial control that we would probably have had countered by CRouchs more fan approachable style may have made fans mor receptive to the limitations of reduced spending and revenues....

Look he is bitter now, and lets be honest we gave him in many case stick for quite some time so hes unlikely to be in the best of moods. I think if he was actually to stop and think for a moment and When I heard some of the interviews he seems to have adapted his style from really sh1te to just sh1te so maybe someone is trying to hlp his PR, he probably feels misnderstood - I know you dont like him, I probably would not either, but in his view he WAS trying to do teh best for the club, believing this was the right thing to do, so hes bound to be smarting from that to... and to be fair, I think what he is trying to address, is that if fans 'did' stay away because of him, and he believes it might have been partly due to the toofiness -afterall teh likes of Chorley and SISA were fighting a bit of a class war for quite some time after the reverse takeover, then he believes that its that which has caused fans stayed away...hes abit miffed - misguided but miffed. Think he needs to get over himself - fans stayed awy for a number of reasons, yes including him, but because many are skint, many are simply not bothering with teh CCC or the dont see value in £24-28 a ticket for this level of football - I susupect that if an ST oprice had worked out at £15 a game and the average ticket prioce wa sunder £18 we would have seen 20-24k this season...

NO before that, when Wilde and CRouch were still pals ;-) and then when CRouch was on his own.

LOL ;-) I sure love the Gallows humour for football fans ...

Nah just get one of thiose no win no fee shysters! ;-)

Thats most likely,and who buys Jacksons farm is frankly irrelevent - its who buys the stadium and who buys teh club that is important - because I cant see any of teh consortia offering 5p a share for the whole shebang taking on teh debts - and then delisting. This is the worry, because we may have 34 parties - but these are ALL groups who were waiting for administration before stepping forward - had any of them truely had the clubs interests first and foremost in tehir hearts why not step forward and help BEFORE it got to this stage? If they did not like Lowe, why not do it when CRouch or Wilde was incharge which would most likely have meant LOwe not returning in teh first place? This is now all about money.

Also, look at teh artiocal by Martin Samual the other day - the most telling is this - from teh Football leagues perspective - they want to deduct us points, and if they understood tehir own rules correctly and they were applicable it would have happened on Tuesady evening - the fact they have this thing going on is a desperate attemopt to try and circumvent their own rules loop hole - they may decide to do it, but watch the club take it to court - which could take some time and thats teh last thing the FL want - these things dragging over from season to season....

Well Brighton might have an axe to grind with certain owners more interested in profit than the life of the club....

This is probably over dramatic and drama queenish.... but i hope we dont end up nostalgically viewing the 'Quality catering' as a glorious past - becareful what you wish for indeed.

Of course it is... but why get so worked by it? Hes been doing that and playing that card for years and to be fair he has had some treatment that justifies these claims - all the duckhunter sh1te, 'hang him from the iTchen bridge' etc. UP, it would be very naive of you to believe its just a tiny few that disliked him because of his 'toffness' - there have been manyquite vocal over teh years who felt he had 'no place' in football. But thats not the point really, my response would be 'so what?' What he is like as a person, his character was never a real concern of mine - just wanted him to run a club financially within its means. The fact we are so bothered by these claims as silly as they are, seems disproportionate to me... You do seem rather sensitive and easily 'insulted' UP ;-) And its sentiments such as these emotive words as 'insulted' etc that have been used so oftten publically on sites such as these almost deliberately to try and 'spin' a story - and it does not escape the eye that this can be advantageous to certain pOVs.... but are you really so 'hurt' by it? Does it really bother you and 'thousands' of saints fans? I cant believe you are so sensitive to such irrelevence really.

No but if you can do a deal and buy the club for 3mil debt free and sell of playing assets and close it down you van make a few quid. You could do a deal with Aviva and buy SMS ltd for 6 mil clearing the debt, sit on it and then apply fro rezoning and make significant profits if planning is garnted for other residential or commercail properties in future - maybe getting a return from a lease back in teh short term during teh credit crunch impact on property - remember these bastards think longtern and property is now cheap - the best time to invest....

BUt it does seem not to mention player assets which we presume remain the property of the club, if it can avoid liquidation when all contracts become null and void. I am assuminmg that if SFC ltd can therefore only be sold 'with its players' as without them its worth next to nothing - is JF property of the PLC or SFC Ltd?, Is the land and properties mentioned SMS ltd and/or staplewood? its diificult to understand what is likely because I dont know how an administrator deals with a parent comapny that has sole ownership of subsidaries in this way... I guess what we have is: SLH in administration owing 27mil to Barclays and Aviva Assets however include: SFC Ltd with the value based on its revenue stream and players SMS Ltd - Its value based on the land + earning percentage of any gate? JF - owned by PLC or SFC? Staplewood - owned by PLC or SFC? Anything else? Can anyone shed light on this and the impact

Not really ... a sad and worrying aspect of administration. I can understand the desire of fans to have the club in the hands of those that really care, have ambition and the resources to drive the club forward - and I would be being dishonest if I did not believe someone like Crouch (with the exception of the resources) did not hold those ideals - but in his own way so did Lowe - what was is debated is the abilty to deliver it and the level of misjudgement v risk.... and for me Crouch did not seem to want to do the nasty or unpopular aspects of the job. Administration leaves us open to all manner of possibilties, some we will view with suspicion and cynicism, others will be welcomed, yet we will only know the REAL consequences after any sale and when the true plans are put into action. beore hand we will just get the typical assurances and fan friendly bull**** to win over the PR battle - although it will have little sway with teh administrators who as many have already pointed out will only be considering the creditor returns There is an argument that supports the administrator looking to put the club in 'good' hands especially finding a solution for a going concern that wil provide continued repayment of the debts rather than just writing it off - but they are also likely to want this wrapped up sooner rather than later, so it will also be a case of who comes up with proof of funds first at alevel that satisfies the creditors even at the detriment of the club - they will ahve done their job and thats it. They will not wait for the 'right' deal for the club, but jump in with the first that satisfies Barclays and Aviva - that is the worrying aspect to all this. Its also why I supported Lowe (and would have supported Crouch) in any decisions designed to avoid administration at all costs. I simply cant believe those that stated on here they preferred administration to continuing with Lowe....

Seems there are several arguments here.... What gets me as is why we seem so polarised about teh 'attendence thing' as if you cant ahve an opinion on the impact of the falling gate without it labelling you as a follower of one side or another... the two are NOT linked you can be gald Lowe has gone and still acknowledge that our support has let us down this season. We complain constantly that Lowe had a huge ego, but do not football fans both individually and collectively suffer the same thing? We are always going on about sh!te like how big the club is, how good the support is at the same time as saying its all superiour to our rivals- this odd needs to justify our relative position.... so the very moment someone dares to criticise these aspects of the club and some of you cant handle it - its brusining egos, thats all. It is a fact which is unarguable that at some other clubs who have had worse chairman, worse results and multiple relegations with ridiculous ticket prices, have still maintained a far higher percentage of their top flight fan base when relegated and in the sh1te, than we did. As a direct result of this, IT has impacted on the revenue - and outside teh Prem the gate is the BIGGEST SINGLE CONTRIBUTER to the very revenues that fund the team - so without doubt the falling attendence DID play a major part in the administration - we may not like being accused of our part in it but its true none the less. As to reasons for this, yes there were probably a few hundred that genuinely felt that staying away was thier only way to protest, BUt its not rocket science to see that the vast majority, simply dont want to pay money to watch poor football - thats by itself is fair enough, its logical that we want to be entertained when spending good money, but I thought being a supporter was about more than that? I thought a suporter base showed its TRUE colours when things were at their worst - not when its gouing well... it is easy afterall to get 30,000 to a cup final. All that this has highlighted is that we have a smaller supporterbase than we liked to believe when in the prem when we were lauding it over the skates.... That does not bother me, but we cant ahve it both ways - make bold statements about the 'size' of our club when things are going well, and then blame someone else for the shrinking numbers when things are dire. Finally, on the issue of the last relegation in 74 - you simply cant equate the two - all we really suffered then was brusied egos, not a loss of 30mil, the majority of which was funding prem player contracts... also in those days it should have been alot easier for a smaller club like us to stay up - as the gates were still shared and clubs attracted players by relationships not by what you could afford to pay them as there was not much difference between what the players got payed either at a club or between clubs - the premiership may have provided untold riches ...to players and agents.... but its made it 100x more difficult for the smaller clubs to survive, especially as we had previously already lost out as the shared gate was abandoned. Had Lawrie and Ted got us relegated in todays terms, the backlash would have been alot worse and their reputations would have been considerably diminished - For Lowe, his own attitude made our feelings towards him even worse despite many probably acknowledgeing ..begrdgingly in most cases, that its was not all entirly down to one or two decisions.