stevegrant

It's official... we're in freefall again. 5 down now. Time for the regular Dimi/Pothas rescue act

We're looking reasonable so far, then. Even Ervine has hit some runs! Elsewhere, there's a ****ing weird game going on at Durham... Durham 146 & 108 v Kent 78 & 1-2 :shock: Could be some deductions there for Durham for a poor pitch given that 15 wickets went down on day 1 and 17 already on day 2!!

Just checked on Soccerbase, they are right with 1999. I was guessing

Would be fine by me

West Ham in 1988, 4-0 Coventry in 1998(?), 1-0

There would also be nothing to stop Lowe and/or Wilde and/or Crouch from buying the club off the administrators either, and that wouldn't leave them with their small percentages, it would most likely leave them with 100% control.

I'm not in the know, any information I've been given is third or fourth-hand at best. When the Fulthorpe/Merrington rumours were doing the rounds a few months ago, I'd heard that they had agreed a deal in principle but were being held up by having to tie up a deal with whoever was providing the bulk of the money. Whether it would be a fair assumption to make that that person or persons withdrew for whatever reason, I couldn't say. It's what I assumed at the time, rightly or wrongly. I haven't a clue as to the level of funding they have behind them, but I would suggest it would have to be pretty substantial in order for it to make a difference to SFC. At the end of the day, we're still haemorrhaging about £150-200k a week, so a simple cash injection isn't what's going to solve the problem. It's going to need a plan for funding for at least the next 3-4 years, which could mean capital investment into the business of around £40m, and that's just to break even on what we're currently spending. If the money they have is enough to buy the shares and then put in a couple of million quid to finance a half-decent transfer or somebody's high salary for a year or two, and then investigate methods of refinancing the loans, I would expect Lowe and Wilde to reject any approach as, to be honest, they could refinance the loans themselves. Yes, that's fair enough, although alarm bells would be ringing if they were holding out for a really cheap deal rather than getting in as quickly as possible to sort things out. It is jeopardising the present and the future because there is NO GUARANTEE that investment will be forthcoming. Just because this consortium are supposedly hovering, it doesn't mean that it will happen, just like the same consortium were hovering a few months ago. It is a highly dangerous, even negligent, stance to take to say "it's alright, we can mess things up as much as we like in the short-term because someone will come along and rescue us later". There may not be any sort of investment or takeover, and that is the only assumption that those in charge of the finances at the moment (and indeed anyone who holds the club's interests at heart) should be making.

Which merely suggests to me that that particular consortium doesn't actually have that much money at its disposal. Oh, and not really worth thinking about the future if people are just going to disregard and jeopardise the present, is it?

236 all out. Rudolph didn't add many from his overnight total. Once again, full bowling points (we've dropped one bowling point all season!). Now let's see if we can repeat the Kent batting performance and get a few batting points.

It depends on how the question is posed as to the answer you get. For example, if you were given the option of Lowe or, say, Keith Wiseman, at this moment in time, many (I suspect) would say Lowe. However, if you were given the option of Lowe or someone who was prepared to **** their own money down the drain to ensure the club was successful, Lowe wouldn't ever be the option chosen. I would suspect (and I have absolutely no evidence to back this up, it's merely a guess/assumption) a majority of Saints fans wouldn't have Lowe as chairman by choice, but - in the interests of sorting the mess we've found ourselves in - are willing to see how this season pans out. There's also the fact that there is sod all we can really do about it given the share distribution.

To be fair, what could he have said along those lines that you wouldn't label as platitudes, etc?

Exactly. Regardless of what the less rational among us might think, the lineup of the board makes absolutely bugger all difference to the attendance. A very small number (perhaps a couple of hundred) might decide not to go if they didn't like who was in charge, and a similar sort of number might decide that they are going to return because they now DO like who's in charge. It pretty much cancels itself out, in my opinion. The real factors that determine the average attendance over the course of the season are almost entirely dependent on the performances on the pitch and the appearance of the league table. Of course, you get one-off games like the Sheffield United game where there's a lot riding on the outcome, but generally if the team is struggling, attendances are poorer than if the team is playing well and getting results. Since when has principles ever had anything to do with football anyway? 99% of the fanbase was quite happily singing "Harry and Jim" in 04-05 (and even continued to sing Redknapp's name despite relegation!) despite what they'd done at Pompey. 99% of the fanbase was quite happily singing "Glenn Hoddle's red and white army" back in 1999/2000 despite having been sacked by England for gross misconduct. Football fans are the most hypocritical section of society, since when do principles matter in football?

Which is fine as long as your total no-claims bonus after doing that isn't then longer than the period that you've either had a licence or been entitled to one. I'll have 8 years' no-claims in November when my current policy expires, but if I did an accelerator that took two months off to increase the NCD by a year within 10 months, none of the online insurance quotes would work for me as they'd all say "your NCD is longer than the period for which you've been entitled to a driving licence".

I think the award for the most contradictory post of the year has already been sealed. Oh, and here's a statistic to throw a spanner in the works... Average attendance figures: 2005-6 (Lowe here) - 23,614 2006-7 (Lowe gone) - 23,556 2007-8 (Lowe gone) - 21,254

The prediction league will be resurrected in the next day or so.

I would liken Pearson's management style to that of Martin Allen, and we all know how long his relationship with Mad Mandaric lasted. Given that they are overwhelming favourites to absolutely **** that league next season, he's probably under even more pressure than Allen was.

I can think of one immediately who is infinitely worse...

I agree with that (although it was 3 wins in 14 games, not 17 ). While Pearson's demeanour was what we were all looking for after the worryingly lax attitude of the tail-end of the Burley era, and he certainly said the right things, it's another thing putting it into practice (which I guess makes it fit quite nicely into this thread!). While he made us harder to beat in his brief spell here, of that there's no doubt, that was at the expense of being able to score goals. One goal per game isn't enough in this division, particularly when the defence was (by force, not by design) being changed all over the place every week. That said, in the interests of a bit of stability, I wouldn't have been against him being offered a contract extension. Lowe and Wilde have said they're going to be cutting costs and making unpopular decisions. The fruits of those pledges have already started to bear, whether you or I like it or not, and while we're in the situation of basically being run by Barclays and Norwich Union, there will be more around the corner, I'm sure, including player sales. That said, judging by the reports of the contrasts in first half and second half from last night, if some of the more experienced players did leave, it wouldn't be that much of a loss.

Pretty sure Panesar was born in England.

That is a very good point...

Nope, I'd have been 5 years old at the time...

I think there's also doubts as to whether Sidebottom is actually any good against the top Test sides. It's all well and good getting excellent figures against the likes of the West Indies and New Zealand, but it's the likes of South Africa and Australia that are the real test.

To be honest, anyone who tries to get out of a credit agreement on something as ridiculous as that is a **** and should have the interest rate instantly doubled, IMO. When you take out a loan, you are provided with the interest rate and an illustration of what the total payments over the course of the loan will be assuming you keep up with the repayments. The contract will also state penalty fees for late payments or defaults and also whether interest will be applied to those payments as well (and the rate, if different). When you sign the contract, you sign it to state that you have read the contract and agree to every single clause that is written in it.

Well worth calling Bopara up as a "straight replacement" for Vaughan then...

I take it you've got proof that it was a lie then?