Beckster Von Doodle

And you know that for a fact or have you gained that expert knowledge from watching her TV programme?! Its funny how you get a distorted view from the media. For example, my best friend was running next to her at the marathon. Said that all the time the camera light was on, the six bodyguards that were surrounding her the rest of the time faded away into the background so that it looked like she was normal and running with everyone, the minute the light went off, the bodyguards came back and you were shoved away and couldn't get anywhere near them. I'm sure she's a good mum, in her own sort of way.

Was that before the photo of her trotting off on holiday with her new bloke on Sunday? That women makes my skin crawl and she gives women a bad name.

Try The Glassworks in Swaythling ... know them personally and will do you a good job at a decent price.

She was also kicking off at us saying that if we loved the club we should be down on the pitch doing something about it. A strange comment and obviously fuelled by drink.

Must be a different woman having a go then cos I was one of the women in one of the exec boxes where the woman came up and was having a go at us - probably the result of too much alchol She swung for me after I disagreed with her about the job the stewards were doing.

You are right, there are more important things in life but sometimes, you have to fight for something you think is right and if you think your neighbour is stealing your land then it got to be done!

Its company money so not mine personally. The other party is land grabbing. Its shocking regarding the money but to my boss its the principle of the matter. We have offered to negotiate but he's being pigheaded. All in the hands of the judge now.

The only ones who win are the lawyers. As the hedge is noted on the neighbours deeds, I think it will be hard to prove anything. One thing to check is whether there is a covenant on the deeds that says that the hedge must be retained and to a specified height. The only way I think he could stop the hedge being removed is by playing dirty with the bats, birds or newt plan ....

I think what you are talking about is called the Hedge and Ditch presumption. Very difficult to prove and very expensive.

Agree with Amesbury Saint. We have just had a site held up by 4 months because of "bats". Something else to throw in is that birds nest in there ... they are funny about hedges being taken down in nesting seasons. Finally, if you do get a solicitor involved, get a fee proposal up front, don't just let him do it by the clock. We are involved in a boundary dispute at the moment that has cost us £10,000 already and by the time we get to court (with barristers) will be over £20,000. Good luck.

Agreed - I have always thought the best way to unite people going forward is for all three of the main players to issue a strategy which they are all signed up to. Is David Jones or whatever the FD's name is/was still there? Cowen is not the best communicator and can come across as flippant if you don't know the guy, but I think he waould be a more acceptable face than Lowe. Perhaps the three monkeys could all be non-execs with and independant CEO If we are talking about a considered way forward then I totally agree, we will argue for ever about the reasons, but this is what I have been trying to advocate as an alternative to the knee jerk 'Lowe out' stance. If the three monkeys were non-execs they would have the input in the relevant meetings for the main footballing decisions - the gripe would still be that none of them were qualified to make such decisions and Lowe would probably have the most experience. Whatever the strategy people have got to realise that cash is king at the moment and regardless of the ins and outs I bet the wage bill is significantly lower than at the end of last season. I am not sure the football side can be balanced right now as we are walking on eggshells with the bank I expect. But critically I really think that this sort of debate is what we should all be having, on here, in relevant forums, and then a representative body like the trust should take this forward to the board with proposals and reasons. It would take a huge campaign from the trust to reengage itself with the normal supporter and maybe a very narrow objective to achieve that - what we do not want to do is turn it into a Lowe out campaign as I think he does have something positive to offer, not as a figurehead but from a business perspective and maybe even a footballing perspective if others are able to question the reasons for the decision. If we can engage people with this sort of positive campaign, then maybe we as supporters can beging to heal the rifts withing the fan base and in the process regain some pride in our club by making it a truly family club with the board and supporters working towards an acceptable position through understanding.

Unfortunately they may not have the mandate from the major shareholders the first time they made a difficult or unpopular decision. The board cannot act independently of the shareholders, especially where a significant minority is owned by three people of differing views. Please see my ealrier post regarding what Rasiak, John and Saganowski may cost and what those that have arrived cost. You are right it would seem obviuos to me to, but if we only have one striker in Rasiak and he gets injured what happens then? So I can see the flip side too. However one proven goal scorer is better than none I suppose.

So what wages do you think were saved by removing Stern John, Rasiak, Saganowski, Inigo Idiakez, Ostlund, Powell and so on, conservatively on this list alone I would guess at £2-3m a year from the cost base. What do you think we are paying the likes of Schneiderlin, Perry, Wotton, and a couple of other loanees? My conservative gues again would £500k-£1m. There are other ways of cutting the costs and they shut parts of the ground and discontinued the bus travel. Which has saved a tiny proportion of the above. This was the way to cut costs in a big way, which is what we had to do. I am not being contrary when I say that actually in this climate Barclays probably couldn't give two hoots where we are in the league or what league we are in as long as they get their money. They ar not in the football business they are in the finance business and Saints would not be the first or last viable business shut down even though some investment would (might) see things improve - they will probably see it as minimising their risk. I am sure we will never see eye to eye as to the way forward, but from your post you are a Lowe out at any cost person. I will ask the question directly - who do we replace Lowe with and what do you expect them to do different? The plans Lowe is referring to are long terms plans to financially stabilise the club, football is secondary in some respects as much as you can separate the actual business from what happens in the balance sheet, the only short term answer is investment, to bring the loan players back and pay their wages, to pay off the overdraft and to continue to operate within our means which unless the investment is significant will mean selling our players and of course that will mean our better players because they are only ones people will want. Yes, Lowe needs to get out, yes we need investment, yes we need to have our senior players back, yes I would like things to be different. They're not, there is little we can do about it without money so staying away is only hurting those that will not have a club left to watch, will not show a decent return for potential investors, will not pay the wages of those you identify we need and so. It IS a vicious circle and trying to break it by removing Lowe with no replacement is not the answer, neither is replacing him with one of the other recent incumbents. Until someone steps out of the shadows with a real plan, and some money shuffling the deck in these financially difficult times will only bring us under closer scrutiny and tighter deadlines from the bank.

But I am not sure what could have been different, we had to redeuce our costs and got rid of 7 or 8 senior players over the summer, plus two or three out on loan. I am not sure Pearson was sacked, you might have said that it isn't clear, there was obviously a diffierence of opinion somewhere. I think we end up back at the OK who should have been in charge? What I do concede is that it is the results that are causing the falling gates, it is the lack of know how from JP downwards that is causing this and we need a goal scorer, that final thing alone wouldd have probably increased our points tally by some 50% this season. I think who ever was in charge woud have had to make the same decisions regarding cost cutting but may have employed a different manager - throbber makes a good point though this has been sold as a long term plan and 6 months is not long term, perhaps we are being over eager in expecting visable results in 15 games or so.I am not sure that relagation from the CCC means quite as much financially as it did from the PL and in some respects if we can ahve a good season in the lower league it may mean a return of some of the crowd. I suspect though it will be just another excuse to batter Lowe. We need cash, and until we have it there is little anyone can do.

But nobody is offering to buy Lowe out, and there are no other options other than Lowe. As for searching for investors you may be right the announcement may have a short term effect, but what happens when none come along - some on here will be accusing him of not doing enough, scuppering bids etc. If only he was Doug Ellis who I think you will find has a bit more dosh than you think.