stevegrant

He's admitted himself that he doesn't know what he's done to change their fortunes. Spurs have one of the best squads in the Premier League (and one of the most expensive). They bloody well should be collecting 10 points from 12 on regular occasions during the season. There really must have been something seriously wrong in that dressing room under Juande Ramos for them to be as utterly hopeless as they were. That said, they do seem to be getting the rub of the green a little bit more. Against Hull, they lost to a 25-yard free-kick that found the top corner, having played well and done everything but score at the other end. They were the better side for most of the game against Stoke, even with 10 men. Against Arsenal they were decent for half an hour, utterly rubbish for the next hour and then took advantage of Arsenal's bizarre loss of composure and concentration in injury time to get a draw, and Liverpool should have been out of sight before they turned it round. The one thing I've really noticed in the media whenever anyone's asked to comment on "what Harry's done", they've all said that he talks the players up all the time which gives them confidence, etc. They've had comments along those lines from former Bournemouth players, former West Ham players, former Pompey players and people close to the current Spurs players. Strangely, they've not had any similar comments from former Saints players...

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=10884

No idea - would have thought I'd have hosted it on my domain if I did though!

Looks like some sort of prediction league for a cricket test series.

From memory, he said no such thing. I don't know. Nor do I know the reason(s) why every single one of those 3000 people didn't renew, and nor does anybody, probably not even the ticket office. I merely highlighted what "could" have been a key factor in their decision given what was going on on the pitch at the time (which, for most people at least, is the most important part...). Until someone polls every single one of them, these arguments will just go round and round in circles. You want to believe that Lowe is the single reason why every single Saints fan who is no longer attending has made that decision, fine. Just don't be surprised when attendances fail to recover when he leaves, just like two years ago.

Nor did I attempt to... :confused:

I think you'll find "March Madness" will have ended, er, at the end of March.

But this "feelgood factor" is such an intangible "asset" that you cannot rely on it as the basis for making a decision (i.e. Lowe in/out). There may well be an influx of "missing" fans, but to say I'm unconvinced is an understatement. In 2006, countless people on SaintsForever were claiming there were "thousands" of Saints fans staying away from St Mary's solely because of Lowe's presence. That summer, he left. The next season, despite making the play-off semi-final, our average attendance FELL by 1000 or so. I don't think the "credit crunch" has accounted for 10000 fans either. I also don't think Rupert Lowe has accounted for 10000 fans. People have to start accepting that there is no single reason why every supporter who is no longer attending games has chosen to stay away. Lowe is undoubtedly a factor in a number of peoples' decisions, but so is a lack of money for some, so is not wanting to watch Championship football anymore, so is being disillusioned with football as a whole, so is having other things to do on Saturday afternoons/Tuesday evenings, etc.

We are about 3,000 season ticket holders down on last season. It's a fact that the majority (70-80%, I believe) of STHs renew in March/April as it's the cheapest time to do so. At that point, there was very little indication that Lowe was returning. The decision by those 3000 would have been more based on the current team's performance (up until the end of March, we had gone on a run of one win in 14 games) and the perceived lack of value in a season ticket to watch that sort of crap for another full season than anything to do with Lowe, IMO. That seems the most logical explanation...

As have those who are not attending for the countless other possible reasons.

Slight correction, Pompey don't have planning permission for the new stadium. They've not even submitted any plans to the council yet, as far as I'm aware. They've just found a site that is, in principle, acceptable, after their hilarious idea of building it in the sea and moving HMS Warrior 100 yards up the harbour was eventually shelved. Put simply, the difference is exposure and revenue likelihood. In the Championship, pretty much the only revenue available is through gate receipts. You might get the occasional bit of TV money, but in this division games on TV tend to result in lower attendances anyway, so it seems to even out somewhat. Revenue will probably be somewhere in the region of £15m in a good year. In the Premier League, as long as you stay in the division, you can expect to pull in somewhere in the region of £45m from tickets and the various sums of money payable from the broadcasting rights. Finishing higher up the table also = increasing sums of money which, to the untrained eyes of the likes of Gaydamak, equals more profit, but in actual fact ends up costing more due to bonus payments, salary increases when the players think they deserve better than just £35k a week, etc.

Well that's the $64,000 question... I'd love us to be getting gates of 140,000 Er... on one hand you say that it's results on the pitch that matter to bring back the faith, and then on the other you say just having people in the ground would automatically bring results... There's not a cat in hell's chance 10,000 people will instantly rush through the turnstiles if/when Lowe leaves. We are 4th from bottom in the Championship. These days, too many people just simply don't want to watch football at that level, particularly not for the going rate of £24, regardless of who's sat in the boardroom.

About a mile. http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=romsey+rapids&sll=50.987612,-1.490235&sspn=0.018532,0.040684&ie=UTF8&ll=50.989246,-1.49075&spn=0.009266,0.020342&t=h&z=16

You're right that the debt scenario can't be sustained indefinitely. However, as far as I'm concerned, it's only the overdraft facility that is the real "problem" as the repayment of the loan notes on the stadium are fixed for 25 years (I guess nearer 20 now). That can be budgeted for (£2m per year or something to that effect), and unless we start to default on payments - which I'm pretty sure we haven't - Norwich Union would be in no real position to call in the loan. The overdraft is the main problem because it is reviewed annually and can be withdrawn by Barclays in May if they see fit, which would render it repayable immediately. Clear the £8m overdraft and the situation WILL be perfectly sustainable.

Yep, although I'm led to believe that the target average attendance was 17k. I think players would be leaving in January regardless of whether the position had weakened, stagnated or even strengthened slightly. Even an improvement on last year's projected figures (£13m operating loss) would most likely still see the club report another annual loss, which obviously still weakens the debt position. If the recent reports about £5m interest from Arsenal (and others) for Schneiderlin are true then that could be the one bit of business that saves our skin, IMO. From calculations I did a while back, I reckon the wage bill has been cut by £5m. Add that to a potential £5m transfer windfall just from that one sale (personally, I doubt we'd get that much, but would bite their hand off if it was actually offered!) and that has clawed back the vast majority of last year's operating loss. The problem in the bank's eyes, though, is almost certainly the "regular" income, i.e. gate receipts. There's only so long that they will accept a "firefighting" approach by the club while the regular and dependable income is slowly reducing match by match.

They also have a much bigger guaranteed revenue stream than us at the moment. The only way that will change is if this proposed takeover doesn't happen (and I've no reason to think that it will go through - they've had more supposed "talks" with investors than we have in the last few years!) and they end up having to flog anyone of any value in January/next summer. Then they'll be in real danger of joining us back in the Football League.

If the club were in administration, I would put serious money on Lowe and his City/WH Ireland chums coming up with the readies to buy 100% of the club for a pittance leaving him in total control. I'm sure you'd probably spontaneously combust just thinking about that possibility... A club with "regular" outgoings (i.e. not transfer fees) that are nearly double its "regular" income isn't going to be remotely attractive to any self-respecting businessman not already connected with the club. You seem to be under the impression that there are hundreds of multi-millionaires waiting in the wings to buy a substantial loss-making company just for a bit of an ego-trip. The prime opportunity for any such person to take over would have been two to three years ago when our income streams were still being supplemented by the Premier League's parachute payments as that allowed us to continue paying near-Premier League wages to the playing staff. Nobody with the right interests or the amount of money required would take a second look now.

About 3000, I think. Most season ticket holders renew under the March Madness/Early Bird/whatever you want to call it scheme as it's the cheapest way of doing it. Therefore, I am in slight agreement with NickG that last season's "performances" (and I use that word lightly) have had a pretty significant impact on this season's attendances. In March, we were probably at our lowest ebb, having been dumped out of the cup by Bristol Rovers and then that bloody awful Plymouth home game a few days later, which could easily have persuaded many that they might as well save themselves the best part of £400 and not bother renewing their season ticket. It would, of course, be wrong to use that as the sole reason though - there are simply so many possible reasons that, added together, have contributed to the decline.

As far as I'm aware, the bank were happy with the way things were being operated in terms of the cost-cutting, etc. However, the attendances are below what is required for those reduced costs to actually make a difference, so I suspect they'll be getting a bit twitchy again. I'd expect them to wait until after the end of January before deciding whether to actually do anything or not though.

No issue with giving the lad an extended trial, which this effectively is, but signing on the pitch before the Wolves game?? No thanks...

Not quite right. Also, some of the games in the quoted stats are cup games. Take out cup games and it looks a bit like this: P-W-D-L Gray 17-4-2-11 (two cup games against lower-league opposition) Sturrock 13-5-2-6 (no cup games) Wigley 16-1-8-7 (three cup games against lower-league opposition - also counted the two games of caretaker charge before Sturrock) Pearson 14-3-7-4 (no cup games) Poortvliet 16-4-4-8 (three cup games, two against lower-league opposition) In terms of points-per-game: Gray 0.82 Sturrock 1.31 Wigley 0.69 Pearson 1.14 Poortvliet 1.00 But as has been stated already, the circumstances at the time of each manager are so wildly different that none of those stats can used definitively to state whether any of them has the "best" record.

Of those quoted stats, only Sturrock has a better win percentage. Stats can generally be manipulated to prove any point

It could conceivably just be that they forgot to mention whatever ailment he may or may not have picked up before Saturday's game. I like a conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but I'll hold fire on this one, methinks...

Rasiak's contract expires in 2010. He signed a 4-year deal when his move from Spurs became permanent in the summer of 2006. FWIW, I agree with ART... we have an experienced player on our books who has played significant parts of his career as a striker in Jason Euell. He's not particularly prolific, but he certainly works hard and has the pace, strength and stamina to be a real asset in this division. It seems it's just a case of keeping him fit at the moment... For me, Euell was the main reason for McGoldrick's massive improvement in the Coventry game in terms of his workrate and running off the ball. He was providing DMG with an outlet when the ball was played up to him by getting forward very quickly to support him and often made runs beyond him which is always very difficult to defend against.

I would imagine it's not gone unnoticed at the club either, which would certainly explain why MS was rushed back to "fitness" in order to play at Swansea, where he clearly looked unfit. Unfortunately, an unfit MS is about as useful to us as a chocolate teapot, judging by his performance in that game, so I'm not surprised he's been left out of games where he's been rated as "doubtful". He does seem to pick up a lot of little niggles, which is something that's a bit concerning, particularly as they appear to affect his performances so much.