benjii

:smt026 I was wondering what to ask for for Chrimbo. Great news.

Do you reckon? I can't imagine Man U fans being too happy if Glazer decided it was his role to motivate the lads. Wouldn't that be a massive slap in the face to Sir Alex? Isn't it tantamount to admitting the manager's not up to it or an admission that you think you could do better? I agree that if this was, for example, a cup final or a relegation decider/play-off match there's nothing wrong with the board members stepping in and saying good luck lads and uttering a sentence of encouragement or two....but giving a "pep-talk" - WTF? As an aside, if I was a young lad who'd grown up with one ambition, one burning ambition, to be a top-class professional football player, I don't think I'd be too impressed by a blustering, floppy haired gimp in a tweed blazer trying to do my manager's job. Classist, prejudiced? Most definitely. Justified? Almost certainly.

Well, according to Radio Solent he gave a team-talk in the dressing room tonight so it's not too far fetched.

According to Solent pre-match, Lowe was in the dressing room giving a "pep-talk". Good idea?

Andrew Cowen's family are in the film business.

The simple answer is that, if it is not the PLC which owes the debt, then you can bet your bottom dollar there will be a parent company guarantee in place in any case. You can also bet your bottom dollar that the loan agreements in place allow the lender to take certain actions should th PLC divest itself of significant assets. If neither of the above propositions are the case then the lenders have made monumental Steve McLaren Dutch interview-style ball bouncingly enormous ****-ups. In other words, splitting the debt from the PLC will be of no benefit to the current shareholders unless the new owner of the football club can satisfy the lenders of their ability to service the debt. (There are also various rules about transactions at an undervalue, wrongufl trading, etc.... which apply on insolvency, but there is no need to go there really). I don't really think there is any way for the board or shareholders to weasel out of this in our situation. The way people have tried to ameliorate things like this in the past is by making themselves the major creditors (a la Ken Bates) and therefore being in a stronger position when the poop hits the air circulation unit. I think it's a pretty safe bet that neither Wilde or Lowe are about to take on that mantle any time soon.

Nah, can't be bothered. Waste of 24 quid.

Lowe and Cowan's termination payments would virtually finance Stern John for a season. Wilde's £2m would have kept Andrew Davies and a couple of others (some chap called Nigel Pearson perhaps?)

I've always wanted to know what people think Crouch should have done differently? Dodd and Gorman didn't work but in the end we got a good manager and we didn't go down. We had a sell out crowd on the final day of the season and everyone was pulling in the right direction. Crouch loaned out Rasiak and Skacel. We signed experience because we would have gone down otherwise. And, he wasn't chairman. Crouch could have put himself forward as chairman, director of sporting affairs, lord chief to the privy council, rear admiral, financier extraordinaire blah, blah, blah, but he actually stepped aside to allow Wiseman to take up the pLC chairmanship. Do people really think that we would be worse off if Crouch was in charge now? If so, name one thing that Lowe and Wilde have improved. They certainly haven't improved the finances.

I beg to differ - it is the only possible means we have of increasing revenue. Clearly cost cutting on its own is never going to achieve anything (other than to damage the core business of the company).

I liked that "Manchester United of the south" one.

A team that improves rather than gets worse with every game. A team with more than half a striker on the pitch. A team with two full backs. A team with an explicable choice of manager.

Wesley Snipes.

Good post.

Barclays can't insist on anything. They are not a shareholder and they have no board presence. I agree that there are ways of making Lowe's position untenable though. A mass show of disapproval by a large amount of individual shareholders would be a good one.... Saints Trust to lead this? Oh.

Long Shot, great summary of the situation.

The "change of control" point is a complete red herring. Lenders insist on these clauses to protect themselves in the event that a parent company divests itself of the borrower or in the event that people assume control who the lender would have not wished to lend to in the first place. The clause would typically allow the lender to accelerate the loan, make a demand under a guarantee... etc There is no way in the world that Norwich Union would invoke such a clause if we were being taken over by anyone with a pot to **** in. They would welcome such a takeover as the current lot are clearly incapable, unwiling or both, to do anything to help the company financially.

On reflection you have to give even more credit to Crouch and Pearson for pulling out all the stops to keep us up last year, knowing full well that they would be getting the Royal Shaft from these two ungrateful cretins.

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=3869 It's an interesting question isn't it?

If only.

Seriously though... "excellent" job? We seem to be getting worse as each game passes.

Boll-ox. I'm not watching Eastenders.... what shall I do?

Agree completely. Leeds had mismanagement coupled with short-term success. We had mismanagement coupled with an upper mid-table league position and a lost cup final.

Is there any Champions League this week?

It seems quite obvious, doesn't it?