Frank's cousin

Just a quick question... I thought and I am probably wrong here (not being wise in the admin/liquidation thing) that a company can continue trading under administration but that the administrators job is to get agreement from all creditors as to how they are paid etc - in some cases it is obviously in the creditors best interests that the company continues to trade as it maximizes their chance of a better return? Or they seek a potential buyer who will guarrantee an agreed % in the pound to all creditors - teh exception being HMRC who demand full repayment or liquidation? I thought it was only after all this was exhausted that a company would be liquidated eg cease to exist?

The last published account indicated that provision had been made to meet all HMRC liabilities... so not sure why we would suddenly be in the mire with them...

Fair enough, but the point I was trying to make is that we and other CCC clubs charge what they do because they have players whose expectational remuneration wise are base don Prem fall out wage structure...yet the clubs dont ahve the TV revenue to support it... its unsustainable long term... I was not really trying to justify the price, but make the comparison. If the prem did not ahve the TV revenue to sustain those wages they would be charging £200 a ticket! - its that business model that is the cause of the inflated prices we see in the CCC...

Its quite tragic really that its come to this.... After Cardiff, I bought loads nearly all the papers to read what the 'journo's had to say about us and the fans and it made you swell with pride, and the most telling from my part was Henry Winter in the Torygraph, praising saints for not only having fans that had embraced the true spirit of the FA Cup, showing true sportsmanship, but praising teh club, that in an era where others were increasing their debt to fund players in a risky strategy for success, we had achieved this on the back of sound financial principles the way all clubs should be run.... what he neglected to say was that, its all well and good when you ahve 35mil of income guarranteed from TV rights, but try sustaining that stability with out it...

LOL ;-) needed that chuckle this morning, busy work day ahead!

Aye, but some might argue that its the ingredients we cant afford at the monment or so we are led to speculate - the store cuboard is bare that's for sure ;-)

Nah... Ascot Ladies day or Cheltenham festival!

I dont know, would be good to get a full and clear picture of a finance review - altough not sure how much PLC rules dictate what can be said etc.... NOt sure we would need a football review, afterall I think we all know how thats going! ;-)

You say nothing wrong there, but do neglect to mention what those restrictions are, and why they exist in the first place, I dont know and nor do you, and yes there is the possibilty that these have been greater than necessary, equally, they may well have been required to stabalise us financially... we dont know. IMHO, its important information like that which you need to establsih an INFORMED opinion.

I know what you are saying Wes, but I can remember when we paid £52 for two (albeit reduced by ST rates) to watch dull and miserable 0-0s againts Bolton et al in the prem, but it was considered OK.... The problem is our expectations, we expect tobe entertained for that sort of cash level, yet how often have we been truely entertained on average per season, especially given we spent many season in the lower reaches of the prem? Football is generally over priced but supply and demand for premiership football means high prices, and that filters down given the players pay expectations... Where will it lead to? Sadly roll forward 20 years and I think we will have a top divison of 16 professional clubs (if not a Euro super league) and the rest will be amateur as its wont be sustainable....

TBH we actually if you look at the accounts broke even or made a very small loss or profit each year BEFORE player trading - and player purchases were usually offesst against player sales. Think we averaged about 8 mil a season in purchase against 6.5mil in sales etc. Also Sir Alex was on about 3 mil a year, Lowe when in teh prem had a salary of £265000, + pension and bonuses

Nah, as many have pointed out his ego is huge and that kind of ego can really only be massaged in the premierleague.

Agreed in some respect but a million is only 20k a week! which Bridge and Beatts were certainly close to... Its a tricky one for sure and the answer probably lies somehwere in between the free for all and the fully controlled spend - so yes it did lack a degree of flexibilty.

I would agree with that, but part of me, and ts difficult to admit on here as football fans generally do tend to be very traditional in their approach ;-) really likes the idea of somebody shaking teh game up,and rattling a few of these old school types, the secret envelopes - (now replaced by monies to agents that then find their way back to secret accounts) - etc, the system of contracts that make it so difficult to build something anymore, because the best are poached the moment there is any promise shown - and that includes managers - Maybe thats why I have been more receptive towards lOwe than others, He has made huge mistakes, and sure his rationale for what I described (if its anyway close to the mark) will have been driven in no small part by his ego, but its the idea that appealed to me. As a fan there is nothing more frustrating than just when you see a group of youngsters or older players enjoying a late devlopment spurt, starting to gain success and build something, for it to be wrecked by biger clubs poaching your players and managers - yes we know its part of the game, but its worse now that it used to be as its also fuelled by the cash the bigger clubs have to spend and playesr agents fuelling the greed. In effect if you could bring about a system at your club that was less relient on a single coach, but had a network of specialists all working together, and instill this new thinking in young players as they come up through the ranks so they are receptive to it, - local kids who stand a better chance of being loyal and part of something, coupled with a conveyor belt of youngsters that means ready made replacements when and if some of the better satrs inevitably go... I have to say that as a theory is one that appeals to me, and I can see why Lowe might have thought like that especially after losing strachen, Hoddel and bridge etc - we may say he let Bridge go for the cash, but i do think we would have struggled to hold on to him even if we had doubled his wages... + the idea of an Ajax style cash cow conveyorbelt supplementing the revenues etc would have had a big appeal to the bloke. This is all speculation, but i have to admit, if there was a way of changing the lack of continuity in both coaching and playing staff that is beyond ou control, i would be well up for it.... the problem seems to be that Lowe is picking the wrong people at the wrong time to give this any chance of success....

But how could we afford more than 26 mil a year on wages at teh time? Sure we could have increased the individual ceiling, but that wouldhave opened another can of worms with more playesr wanting a slice and cost go up... I think given it was runmoured that Beats basic was about 20k a week, but with bonuses etc this averaged over 30K a week in 2003, i hardly think that was 'stingy'...

I dont think puppet is the right word... but would certainly agree LOwe is not a fan of the old school approach where managers have control of the purse strings... I also believe his 'vision' was to move away from thw traditional approach, build a coaching TEAM under an SCW type thereby by making it less reliant on a single figure, - especially after seeing both Hoddle and Strachan leave.... Whatever we think about this - and most will probably say he was truely deluded to think it 'would work in the English game' - I can understand some aspects of it... there is a something daft about a situation that makes it so easy for good managers to leave the moment a bigger club come in AFTER they have spent money on players - only for the next one to come in and spend alover again, wanting his 'own' squad - TYhe impact that a manager leaving can have on a club that is not large enough to hold onto a good one if someone bigger comes along is huge and so I can see logic in wanting a system that places less importance on a single individual ... OK so everyone says it wont work... why though? Is it because the managers themselves dont want it that way? Is it that theplayers wont respond to if there is no dominating figure in charge? Yes and Yes to those two, which is why i think he went for unknowns and wanted to start it with the kids who are less set in the 'tradional ways'... just a theory naturally but I think it could be an alternative to the simple 'yes man' or 'puppet' whitout any rational reason why that would be good thing in Lowe's eyes...

TBF - this does not factor in that it was more possible for a club with a ground like the Dell to have a modicom of success in an era where gates were shareed and bigger clubs did not get the lion's share of TV revenue making the gap bwteen the haves and have nots so vast.... and the majority of any successes came BEFORE the premierleague came about. That may have given us greater revenues, but it also brought about the ever increasing gap in revenues between those clubs with greater commercial (TV) support globally and the others...Sure As I posted above, the Dell meant we attracted real football people who wanted to be at the club, not the mercenaries of today that feck off the moment a better offer comes along, or a chance of a short cut to success with another club...

..'a nice bit of inertplay, its with Bridger, lays it off neatly to Mazza on the overlap, a first time peach of a ball with that genius of a left peg as the ball floats tantalizingly into the Wtford box, keeper in two minds, stays on his line.... leaping like a Oncorhynchus gorbuscha (salmon (pink)) Saint's brett 'pretty boy' Ormarod rises to meet that the ball and like a bullet its past the hapless Watford keeper'.. nuff said. nostalgia...

When put like that - it makes scary reading...... I woudl add that Lowe's biggets mistake relegation year was hi belief that the squad was good enough to get us to survive regardles of who was in charge.... and I think he genuinely felt that the 'kids' playing the total football would be good enough in a division marked by the direct approach.... uhm...

There is some element of truth in the Dell thing - but its less to do with the stadium itself and more to do with IMHO what it means for players... and our own expectations. When at the Dell, we had crap facilities, and a modest image...thi meant we tended to attract and hold on to players who 'did' want to be there, a combination of home growns and older journeyment pros who had found a home, amongst fans who often valued graft, and dedication and loyalty above out and out ability (Le Tiss excluded). As a result we were a side greater than the sum of its parts and thus the strength of character to withstand the onslaughts of sides with far greater resources. When we moved, we were seen as a good/average premiership side with new modern facilities etc, exactly the type of club that was big enough to atrract maybe a classier player, but players who would have or could have gone to any number opf similar clubs, rather tha 'chosing' to be here - provided we paid enough of a wedge. That and the manager merry-go-round and we lost that spirit of 'heart on sleave' that Dell gave to players.

Rally , and thank you for your reasoned response. I do see what you saying and that is part of the problem ;-) I think if viewed fairly, there is evidence to support BOTH sides of the coin, but frequently that view of mine, that you can provide a pretty solid case for both sides, is viewed as 'pro Lowe', as you can probably see form some of the above posts. I also think in part its because in football, its very much about the here and now. The negatives get far more coverage and focus when things are going bad and thats fair enough, but its when there is a complete refusal to acknowledge possible alternative reasons for decsions that i get frustrated, afterall, surely thats the point of discussion? Lowe will NEVER be ANYONES idea of the perfect chairman, but I have just tried to concentrate on those traits that IMHO should be part of the makeup of ANY chairman, particularly the control of the purse strings -(equated by some as 'lacking ambition') which is always an unpopular position amongst fans. And I will say again (especially for Alpine) that this is NOT supporting the man, but the approach. Its true I dont go on and on about his failings or mistakes, because others do that in far greater number, so I just feel that its important to point out what positives there have been - IMHO it just helps put it all in perspective and hopefully more objective? I dont know where the answers lie to our predicament, the simple solution that most would advocate of getting rid of all three, is due to the circumstances of the shareholdings unlikely, so what is the best option under the circumstances? Some advocate CRouch, but he seemed too intent on the popular vote and took his eye of the financial ball, Wilde seems... er... no idea, possibly sees commercial opportunities, but the current economic climate has messed up those options for foreseeable...that leaves Lowe.... its easy to say 'be gone' but we know he wont simply walk away, and has the brass neck to ride out the fan protest and dislike, we know his mistakes, we know his effect on fans, but we also know he will fight to the last to stave off admin at whatever cost... some will say thats the problem, that he is more focussed on that than what is happening on the pitch...which is a fair enough POV, but it also depends on what you believe admin would do to us and thus the relative importance of making sure we dont go there whatever the cost. Admitedly this is complicated by none of us really knowing the TRUE extent of the financial mess/problems and therefore whether it has all been necessary or whether we could have been less concerned at the start of season + it will have played into Lowe's hands to put in place his long held desire to see the continental system at saints - and thats another debate - is that a good or bad system? I have no problem with those who want rid. But, if having a discussion on pros, cons, reasons, rationale, possibilities, strategies and why, how etc, it seems only fair to at least present them all, but when you do, its considered 'luvviedom'. Needless to say the strength of the defensiveness I come up against from some, suggests a classic 'me think the lady(ies) doth protest to much' ;-) Thanks for the response.

You really are a patronizing ...... and once again illustrating your ignorance of what was being said...go ahead read it again this time engaging brain first and you might see that nowhere does it say he was given the job because we were skint, but that that could be a fcator - after all we know Lowe sticks to his budgets - its called a subtle but important difference which I would have thought someone of your so obvious intelligence would have understood?

Good, because that way you wont trouble me with your mindless, infantile and quite frankly idiotic drivel and I in exasperation wont feel the need tio rpond, which should save a bit of time....

And you have become so blinkered that you see Lowe defence in anything that is not Lowe criticism... thats utter fantasy... if you cant even entertain a possibilty or accept that you know FECK all about the actual reason why wigley was chosen, but are quite happy to pretend that you do, it shows its you thats lost semblence of rationalilty....

NOthing in the above is wrong if they are judging him on your criteria, but I suspect they are judging purely on the how much progress is being made in avoiding admin... and on that score, I have no idea, I have no idea as to the state before he cmae back and no idea if he has made an improvement or not...