SaintBobby

bugger

seems to be about North East football teams....

Either (A) The rumour is totally false or (B) a serious criminal offence has been committed There are no circumstances in which © it is true and a criminal offence has not been committed. As I indicated, my strong belief is that (A) is true. If, however, (B) turns out to be true, you can expect the legal authorities to take it reasonably seriously - and rightly so.

I have offered the original poster a wager of anything up to £10,000 that his "absolutely reliable" information is wrong. But he has yet to get back to me. Wonder why...

what would it take to be our lowest league attendance for 10, 20, 30, 40 years?

The fact that there were no departures in the transfer window - despite apparently receiving offers for Surman, Lallana and Davis - leads me to believe we are no longer teetering on the brink of financial meltdown. If administration was looming large, we surely would have accepted offers for players, even "undervalued" offers. The bank woudl almost certainly have insisted that we do so. Although attendances have fallen badly this year, our wage bill has been slashed even more dramatically (Safri, Viafara, Rasiak, John, Davies, Lundekvam and numerous others are off the wage bill). Things are obviously precarious still - and relegation would be a massive financial blow. But I don't think we are any longer on the very edge of the financial precipice. As an aside, the poster who started the thread saying an absolutely reliable source has informed him we're going into administration this week, has so far failed to take me up on my £100 bet that we won't. I'm wondering whether the mods should positively encourage those posting rumours to "shout the odds" - although it may fall foul of gambling laws. But it would be a good way of splitting genuine info from fantasy. Someone who says "I've heard X from a very reliable source" should be able to add "so, I'm 90%+ sure it's true and will accept bets at 9-1 from those who think the opposite"

My guess is that the non-sale of players and addition to the playing staff of one (albeit relatively cheap) player, indicates that our financial position is "serious but stable". (isn't that what they usually say about badly injured people who look like they are going to pull through?).

I'm delighted with the lack of departures. I can only assume that the financial situation is nothing like as bad as some people think, or have been led to believe. If we were on the brink of financial meltdown, we'd surely be giving players away (as Leeds effectively did), just to get them off the payroll.

Don't be utterly ridiculous. Posting "I hear that XXX is signing for us from YYY" is clearly not a criminal matter. Releasing specific share-price sensitive information is. If the information turns out to be accurate, his source has committed a serious offence. For this reason, and several others, I take the story to be impausible. If people do really have rumours etc., post away. But most turn out to be worse than random guesses.

Davis James Saeijs Perry Surman Euell Wooton Schneiderlin Skacel McLaggon Saganowski Subs: Bialkowski, Liptak, Gillett, Holmes/Smith, McGoldrick

If a source within SLH has leaked share-sensitive information, this is a crime on the scale of tens or hudreds of thousands of pounds. Okay, not rape or murder, but pretty damned serious. I conclude that it is much more likely that it's just yet another fantasist making stuff up, in which case PC Plod - or the SFO - need not be detained. I assume most others agree - as no one (including the original poster) has taken me up on my bet yet.

This rumour is almost certainly untrue. And it may not just be the mods taking an interest in Forrester's IP. If his information is accurate (which it almost certainly isn't), my understanding is that the police will probably want to know the source. It would be insider trading. SLH will need to make an announcement to the stock exchange before it opens if the rumour is true, so we'll know by first thing in the morning. The financial situation is obviously dire, but I'm willing to bet anyone (who PMs me) £100 at evens that we don't go into admin this week.

These sort of hypotheticals are utterly bizarre. It's like saying to a voter who says "I'm going to vote Conservative, I've had enough of Gordon Brown and the Labour Party"...."Ok, but suppose Gordon Brown suddenly came up with £1000bn of free money to divide between the population and it also turned out that David Cameron was a serial rapist".....One imagines the response would be "Ah well, then I might change my mind and vote Labour". If Lowe is suddenly able to produce £35m to reduce the debt, acquire new players etc. then the number of people calling for his head will diminish enormously. No doubt wounds run so deep that a good number of people will continue to feel personal animus towards him, will be sceptical about if the money is real etc. But it would be a game-changing moment. The point is that a good number of people have reached the conclusion that Lowe is supremely unlikely to pull such a rabbit from a hat - or even that he isn't really trying to or capable of doing so. That is NOT a wholly unreasonable or hysterical conclusion based on the evidence presently available. Rupert Lowe's previous behaviour IS relevant. NOT because it can be magically undone, but because it provides an indication of what we might fairly expect him to do - or not do - in future. New facts might emerge at any time to change or alter this analysis. But until they do, the anti-Lowe protestors are wholly justified in sticking to their guns.

What have London Saints done wrong? They're quoting the number stated by the orgainsers and by the cops.....

Err...that was exactly my point..... An example of something else that people will (did) protest about....

Actually I agree. It is a totally redundant argument. The question to the protestors seems to be "Is there anything Saints-related, other than the Chairmanship of Rupert Lowe - perhaps even something totally hypothetical - that you might just possibly ever demonstrate against?" I'd be amazed if the answer isn't a 100% unanimous "yes".

I didn't go on the march as I'm not really sure what positive ideas the protestors have. I think Lowe is now such a divisive and unpopular figure that it is overwhelmingly in the interests of the club (and probably actually in his intersts too) that he should go. But, oddly, that's the easy bit. Without an injection of cash, I'm not sure what happens next. That said, I can conceive of a number of ways in which the protest might act as a constructive step to achieving its aims. It's probably impossible to know whether these have happened or will happen, but you don't need a particualrly agile mind to imagine them: 1. The publicity starts to gain the attention and interest of an alternative buyer. Or encourages an already potentially interested buyer to increase their level of interest. 2. The organisers of the demo now have some form of "supporter database" that can be deployed for future activities. This database probably grows as a consequence of publicity. 3. The financial muscle that is subsequently yielded by this supporters' database makes Lowe's position literally untenable - by e.g. the bank insisting of a change in the board because of the revenue being lost e.g. by a boycott. 4. Lowe and Wilde find the continuing build up of pressure so personally and/or professionally embarrassing that they throw in the towel. To be 100% clear, I'm not saying that any of these things have happened (or that they will). But I do understand the point of the protest and I believe it does help the "Lowe Out" cause. My problem with the "Lowe Out" cause is that I don't think it goes very far to addressing the bigger (more important) systemic problems. But that's probably where I have a difference with some of the demonstrators....Or perhaps where I'm being too "completist" or pedantic. But I do believe the chances of Lowe and Wilde being forced out are measurably increased by these sort of activities and the networks that they involve and create.

Presumably not. The protest was against Lowe - not specifically related to the performances of the team on the pitch. (Although many fans claim that Lowe's stewardship has had a direct and negative impact on the on-field results).

Very extensive match report here: http://www.southampton-mad.co.uk/news/loadnews.asp?cid=TMNW&id=430313 First game I've actually enjoyed for quite some time.

Yep. Fair point. Still say though...and gees...it sounds so consumer-ish - taht if you can get some folk to pay £100+ for a seat, then it's best to have the capacity to do it.

I think the "Lowe luvvies" are a dying breed. In fact, but for the whole infiltration thing a cpl of years back, I don't think the forums would have been affected/infected in this way. A handful of posters just love being hyper-controversial. And their firs available hand leaps straight to their zip upon accusations that they are in the employ of Rupert Lowe or part of some conspiracy. It's all just a bit sad. My own humble opinion is that whilst I don't think Lowe is Saints' salvation and whilst I don't think he has much chance of guiding us to the promised land, I have yet to hear a positive and credible alternative. I mighte even prefer taking the "Top Ten" anti-Lowe lobby and putting them in charge immediately. But I have no idea what their answer is to the question "Ok, sirs, you are in charge. What are you going to do now?" (other than it involving sacking a number of people for past "crimes") That troubles me.

Noble sentiments indeed. I don't share the views of some posters that this is in anyway a thuggish exercise. I didn't like the atmosphere in the 2nd half of the Donny game, but that's no fault of the demo organisers at all. They seem to be doing all they possibly can to ensure that everything is open and peaceable and straight forward. Much credit to them for this. But... The opening lines of this post indicate to me the frankly vacuous nature of the protest. I take it to mean that the purposes and aims of the demo are as follows: 1. To secure widespread media coverage of the antipathy of Saints fans to the present board. 2. To place Leon Crouch in charge of footballing decisions at the club. He is - we are told - "willing to step into the "limelight" as it were" 3. To remove Wilde and Lowe from the club entirely as/if/when alternative financial arrangements are in place. In my view, this doesn't amount to much of a "programme for government". I really do admire those who put so much work into bringing the fanbase together. I'm certain their motives are good. It's even possible that the demo might trigger a whole range of connections and networks that are good for the club and the fans. I'm semi-tempted to tag along just for these reasons. But, at present, (and apologies for my lack of rhythmn and poetry), the sort of chants we would expect to hear tomorrow (if they sum up the ideas and aims of the demo) would be along the following lines: Chant 1 "WHAT DO WE WANT?" "The media to take notice of our discontent with the present board of Southampton Leisure Holdings" "WHEN DO WE WANT IT?" "Now" Chant 2 "WHAT DO WE WANT?" "Leon Crouch back in the limelight as it were" "WHEN DO WE WANT IT?" "Now" Chant 3 "WHAT DO WE WANT?" "Lowe and Wilde out" "WHEN DO WE WANT IT?" "As financial circumstances permit" Okay, I know that all sounds a bit p*ss taking. And I do know that the fans demonstrating want the best for the club and care passionately about it. I'm just shrugging my shoulders a bit about the actual things the demo wants. I love the idea of fans getting together to build a real network and community. But, to me, this just feels a bit like an ill thought-out "group hug" and that isn't really my thing.

Thanks for your reply, hypo. Confrontation is part and parcel of these sort of forums, but they are still v valubale in finding peopel who want to talk about stuff. Don't think you need to worry about clogging up the board - it's already VERY clogged. Just a thought...."After all what's the alternative? Get drunk and depressed? Punch other fans in the stands? " I always think you should start any venture by being clear about what "success looks like". Ok, that sounds all ****y and PR-ish. But it's also true. E.g the demo should NOT be measured by (a) how many people go on it or (b) how quickly Lowe resigns © how good the people go on it feel about themselves and the "cause" afterwards or (d) how much coverage is given to it in the Daily Echo. All of these things are marker posts in what should be a clearer battle, with clear objectives. I think the "alternative" is pretty clear. But is a grimmer thing to swallow than the relatively easy proposition of demonstrating at 1.15pm tommorrow. In my honest view, the "alternative" is trying to organise a buy-out of the club. Either by fans or by a serious (and preferably legal!) investor. Yep. It's several million quid. Yep. It potentially means hard-pressed (and p*ssed off) season ticket holders dipping even further into their increasingly empty pockets. Nope. It's not an easy "sell". But I think that's where we need to get to.

Wasn't trying to sugegst that those organising or going on the demo are brainless. In the case of the former it takes a lot of smartness to organise and in the case of the latter, it takes a lot of thought - and a lot of time on both parts. I just hope there are leaflets, or a press release, or a banner, or something...that sets out what is wanted. What is being demanded. If it's just - basically - "LOWE OUT", I don't think that's enough.

Well, okay £6m? £12M? My point is that a controlling stake is somewhere around £3m - £6m. Obviously, the share price rises is/when a serious bid hits the radar (look at the share price when that toal bullsh8t about Paul Allen become common currency). Even at an inflated price of £12m, this is £6.1m to buy a controlling stake. At the lowest level, that's about £6.09m more than I could hope to afford presonally. But, with 5,000 or 10,0000 others? This is like buying an expensive house. Okay, a VERYexpensive house. But, for chrissake (literally), parish churches - with congreagtions measured in dozens - regularly raise £250,000 - £500,000 or more to repair the roof. We are a major football club in the homeland of football. We are the tenth largest city in England. And in a relatively affluent area. If we care this much, the figure should be achievable. Easily. I wouldn't say it's "chump change". But there is a certain "p*ss or get off the pot" level. It's a few million quid to bring about a controlling stake on behalf of the fans. How much do the fans care? A tenner each? A hundred quid each? A grand each? More? And how many fans are there? In the new football world, tragically, it comes down to cash. £6m or so should not be a big ask for a fanbase like ours.