jonah

Why do people think the club will go into administration? The biggest creditor by a country mile is Norwich Union - whilst they are getting their repayments in full and on time every year, it is unlikely they would want to call in their loan... whilst they probably have a clause which gives them the right to do so (like most mortgages/loans), if they were to do that we would immediately enter administration and they would never recoup the debt anyway - how much is a stadium worth on eBay? So it's in their interests for us to continue trading. So that only leaves Barclays as being the ones able to pull the rug - and with a £6m overdraft (or whatever it is now) that is a possibility as banks start clawing back their cash. But as the accounts state, if Barclays withdraw their support the club will seek alternative financing whether internal or external so it probably wouldn't mean administration either... but it's clearly a risk. My own personal guess is that Barclays have advised the club that they will be withdrawing the overdraft facility year ending 2009. Of course the sensible thing to do is to take the club out of such a precarious position - ie. pay back the Barclays debt asap and return the club to financial stability. And that's what we're doing. Common sense really isn't it? Come the interims I expect us to have taken a huge step towards reverting to 50-60% wages/turnover, although we may have to dip even lower in order to repay the debt if we don't sell off KD, Surman or Lallana. I'm sure the usual elements of the fanbase will shriek in horror and say Bad Things about RL, but back on planet earth the rest of the fanbase will no doubt see it as a step to recovery. Anyway, by then Yellowstone will have erupted, the IMF will be taking over UK PLC and the imminent bankruptcy of California will kick-start the demise of the US as a civil war leads to a complete seceding of the union. Happy days.

If only you could read English, you would understand that is what I just said. So you have just summed up perfectly the level of ignorance shown throughout SFC by complaining about something you actually agree with... thanks for showing everyone what I meant! :-)

Indeed, whether they like it or not, they are still the minority - if fans were that bothered, they'd only have to buy about £100 of shares each to take overall control. I think also when the dust has settled (again), people might start to realise that their anger is actually somewhat misplaced - Lowe is always the easy target. The questions that *should* have been asked were: * Who got the club into this financial mess? If Crouch says he voted against the big purchases, that's easy for DJ to prove with board minutes. Then you have to question who approved those purchases initially in the SFC board (LM, MC?), and who put in place the execs who outvoted LC - well I'm afraid that again comes back to MW, who was supported into that position of power by LC amongst others. He can't have it both ways, he was massively negligent with the club's future in supporting MW, his proposed board and the "manifesto", and it's a bit rich posturing and complaining about the results now. * We know the finances are from the actions of previous boards, so then if the complaints are about the football side that's an issue for MW to address - only of course he had an urgent appointment on Sentosa Island. Everyone wanted RL to stick to the finance, that's great, but then you have to go after MW about the footballing side. What a coward he is. * We know the club is in a mess in terms of the board changeovers over the last couple of years, so again who is responsible for failing to meet their promises? MW (big time), Trant (big time). Fans still seem unable to treat each "misdemeanour" objectively - everything gets lumped in against Lowe, and whilst he deserved his share of the blame in the past it is counter-productive to ignore the problems all around the club... even if Lowe left for good, the club would have all the same problems - you'd have LC shooting his mouth off, MW spending money we don't have, MC failing to take her responsibilities seriously, LM looking for one last pay day, etc etc. In fact, the only thing I've seen addressed objectively is that Chorley is a complete tw*t - it's nice to have at least one thing everyone agrees on ;-)

Fortunately I doubt a senior bank manager will be swayed by a few nutcases ranting and raving at an AGM. It really is very sad (and childish) that people walked out of the AGM after having their own say, it is a classic sign of arrogance and insecurity in what you are saying - it is also really dumb when the votes had yet to be taken. It just shows that the club is not what's important to them, it's all about Lowe. We all know Lowe will probably come across as a prat at these things, but the guy has to sit there and take all the abuse - was the abuse about the relegation 4 seasons ago, or simply because he's had to reduce the squad to the bare bones because of the financial situation left to him by the last board(s)? Where were these people at the last 2 AGMs when all the money was being squandered? Oh I forgot, they were sat at the front! I can't believe the nonsense about Lawrie's picture either, come on people get a grip! A photo of the *Team* raising the cup, yes, but a picture of Lawrie in the boardroom is hardly sacrosanct. Perhaps after being the first Director to sell his "free" shares and pocket the cash, or demanding £75k pa to be ambassador, he could offer to "rent" that part of the wall if it's that important? Is there a picture of George Thomas anywhere I wonder? Or a shirt of red and white quarters? The club is inhabited by dinosaurs, everyone is trying to live in the past. If Wilde had been there (fat chance) it wouldn't have been a bad thing to blow up the entire Itchen Suite today and start again.

Oh dear, the lights are on but nobody is home - you are failing to distinguish between the financial consequences of results on the football pitch compared to deliberate actions off the pitch. That is not hypocrisy, it's understanding that relegation is a fixed risk for any football club - the costs of that are absolute and cannot really be altered, but Lowe didn't *choose* to get the team relegated. Increasing the size of the board is something which can be controlled - Wilde *chose* to do that. Paying money out of the club to fund his expenses was something Wilde *chose* to do. Bringing in Dulieu despite the obvious issues with CapCon was something Wilde *chose* to do. Can you really not see the difference? Yes, just as now when you are trying to claim the entire club was doomed to administration the second we got relegated, I will still maintain that is an hysterical overreaction (not in the ha ha sense either) - it is manageable. Chortle, still trotting out that line? I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the stadium naming yet? :-) Exactly, so you're agreeing it was manageable and not the end of Saints because we happened to get relegated 4 seasons ago? I suggest you re-read what I wrote, I didn't say it was one-sided - I was referring to how it was obvious what we were getting with Wilde and it's no good complaining about it now. Again, you are concentrating on the minutae whilst missing the rather bigger picture, but that's always been the case I guess. Unfortunately, given your position as Trust Chairman at the time, you are one of the biggest pawns in the whole episode - the lack of questioning, the lack of integrity over the share proxies, that set the path of a trouble-free path for Wilde to do what he pleased. Even with a printed manifesto there was absolutely no questioning from the Trust when the payment was made to Vantis, the back-tracking on board size, the lack of due diligence on Wilde's claims, Trant's lies about investment, his non-attendance at the AGM... the list goes on and on.

I love the way you continue to place complete 100% blame on the club's current position on the chairman of the PLC board from 4 seasons ago - even the relegation itself, no blame to be attached to Redknapp for failing to keep us up, Davenport for single-handedly leaking about 20 goals, Crouch for his sending off and Everton ****-up, Killer's injury, etc etc. We had most of the same players that got us to the Cup Final and 4th in the league. I'm sure most people aren't naive enough to think a prudently managed club couldn't survive relegation from the Premiership - of course it's a Bad Thing and it left us with a real problem, but that was nothing compared with the events that kicked off thanks to Wilde and his merry band of muppets. Who the hell increases the wage bill to 80% of turnover without expecting the worst? Who increases the size of the board when we are trying to cut costs? Who uses people like Anderson and Dulieu, who uses underhand tactics to gain control of the website and trust? They had 2 years to sort out the finances and only succeeded in making things worse...

Come on, some of us were onto him straight away, the problem was that there were a number of vocal people - some in positions of influence with fans - who deliberately ignored those points and joined in the conspiracy for the sake of their own egos. How do you think we ended up with the Saints Trust in bed with Wilde and wilfully lying about share proxies? How do you think we ended up with posters (like me) having their IP addresses traced and having their personal details and places of work plastered across S4E? Never mind people like Crouch and Corbett who were in positions to make the relevant checks on Wilde's promises - completely and utterly negligent (at best). As for not attending the AGM, well why is that a surprise? Why attend the company AGM when you can have Xmas in Singapore instead... like you can't afford to change your 1st class flights eh Mike? The irony is that fans have always had the hump about Lowe and his "ego" - yet the club's demise was kick-started by Wilde's ego and the chance to be chairman, backed by the egos of certain fans who swallowed everything Wilde gave them and helped to perpetuate his lies, aided by McMenemy's ego in trying to prove he knows best (still), and finally cemented by the egos of the likes of Trant, Crouch and Corbett who ensured they would take their chance of personal glory ahead of what was good for the club. Where were all these people when Dulieu came in and took £100k plus 1st class flights for nothing, where were they when Vantis back-charged the club for £90k to pay for Wilde's campaign? Anyone else remember Trant not bothering to turn up for the AGM? Didn't think so, funny how nobody cared back then as it was all "Anyone-But-Lowe"...

Does anyone think it's more than a coincidence Sheff Utd decide to unlist just as it looks like they'll get £25m compensation from West Ham? Their fans have seen their shares halve in value once the delisting was announced (I'm sure many don't care, I'm sure lots of others do though). It would be worth hearing the club's views on how much it would cost and how much it might save - I suspect it would cost quite a bit to do. Another alternative is moving to PLUS which is again cheaper still (but gaining a lot more traction in the market and hardly any different to AIM). Following the Sheff Utd idea of matched trading, that also has a cost overhead. I imagine delisting would also affect SLH's credit rating - that could affect the stadium loan and/or Barclays overdraft. One reason I'm not so keen is that having the listing does enable the club to raise funds through placings or rights issues - that might seem pretty unlikely just now (though I've always maintained there's nothing to stop Wilde/Crouch stumping up the "£2m or so" they promised 2 years ago by doing this), but in a couple of years' time who knows? 2 years from now we will possibly have hyper-inflation and the value of the club could increase significantly relative to the debts... a great time to raise money. De-list now and that option is taken away - you end up with the same people holding shares but no viable way for anyone to acquire a stake or change control at the club.

If anyone is going to ask that question, the very least they could do is get their facts straight so they don't look a complete numpty - David Jones came from Secure Retirement, so was only part of SFC since the reverse takeover in 1997. I think it's great that fans suddenly want all these questions answered about board members after the completely reckless acceptance of the likes of Wilde, Dulieu, Hone, Hoos, Corbett and Trant over the previous 2 years - those Directors couldn't even spell the name of the club correctly on their manifesto FFS. Nothing like shutting the door after the horse has bolted eh!

So I'm back to my original point that I can't believe people don't understand the financial position we're in. We are financially up sh!t creek - we need to generate cash. To spell it out without the PR, we have to make x millions to repay the bank overdraft as well as cutting back to spend within our means. How do we, as a CCC club, make millions? Well, we can try to maximise the crowd. How do you do that? By winning games primarily, also by playing more attractive football. But we have no money to buy top players to guarantee those wins - facing facts, we aint going to win the league. So that leaves either playing journeymen and trying to achieve above our current level, or it means playing kids and trying to achieve above our level. Can we afford to pay journeymen like Stern John and Rasiak? No. Even if you think they would help us win more games, and personally I don't, we simply cannot afford it as we have to repay the overdraft immediately. Secondly, we can repay millions by selling players. Shock horror, yes that's the most efficient way to pay off a lump sum. Now do you do that by selling a once-in-a-lifetime player like MLT and never have the opportunity to build again, or do you build an academy to provide a stream of income for the club? Errr, you build an academy. The fact is that we'll have to sell 2 or 3 of them over the next year or two unless we get lucky financially, but once we have re-balanced the books we won't *need* to sell them. The academy is a HUGE asset, and the PR regarding it is also important - we are known for the talent we produce, and the style we play already - both important aspects given we want to sell to Premiership teams, not CCC rivals. We are not going to get crowds of 25,000-30,000 in the CCC. And it's nothing to do with Lowe - the crowds dropped under both Wilde and Crouch... it's not that simple. For the idealists who don't want to sell the academy players we bring through, I am sure RL doesn't *want* to sell them except that he knows we need to sell some *now* to provide a future. And before anyone accuses RL they need to look at how many academy players MW and LC sold whilst massively overspending on journeymen. Sorry, are you upset at how RL has "engaged" you, or do you want what is best for the club's future? It sounds to me like it's not the latter at all. If we don't beat Forest we'll still be clear of the relegation zone and the youngsters (that NP wouldn't play under the wonderful journeymen regime of last season's narrow escape) will have one more game under their belts. To be clear of relegation at Xmas is a good achievement for a team of youngsters hit by injuries to important players like Killer, Thomas and Holmes. They will get better. The point is with this that it's a long term plan, the academy is an investment in appreciating assets. The idea of buying a bunch of journeymen and taking a punt on doing well is a perfect example of short-termism - purchasing a load of depreciating assets will only ever lead to losing money and owing more money... unless you get lucky. And that is (fortunately in a way) not an option for us anyway in our current financial state.

And the magic money fairies will be visiting the club when exactly? Does this qualify, against some pretty stiff competition I admit, as being the most stupid comment made on this forum? We have no money, we currently need to "make a profit" to pay back the overdraft, so how exactly do you think we can speculate? And where have you been for the last 2 years during Wilde and Crouch's "speculate to accumulate" roadtest? As others have said on other threads, it is just mind-boggling what the average person left on this forum is like - it's a damning indictment of our fans, not to mention the care in the community program.

You either completely miss the point about what options are and how they can benefit the club (sometimes at the expense of other shareholders), or you have phrased this really badly to imply the Directors are the ones "printing money". Firstly, when options are issued to Directors this is NOT a bad thing for the club - if or when they are exercised, those Directors have to stump up the cash to buy those shares. So for example, RL, AC and DJ have in total 600,000 options @ 46p which expire in 2011. Now if the share price reaches say 50p by that time (yeah right, likely I know), they don't just get given those shares, they have to pay 600,000 x 46p = £276,000 to the club. They then have a nominal 50p-46p=4p/share "profit". So for stumping up £276,000 they make a £24,000 paper profit, the club gains £276,000 and the only slight losers are existing shareholder who see they own holdings diluted by about 1% (though the club has gained cash so in theory is worth more). And I hate to burst your bubble of hatred, but as far as I'm aware those shares were not actually from an option exercised by a Director, but in fact were the chosen form of renumeration by one of the firms involved in the stadium funding - ie. we paid them their £150,000 in shares rather than cash. Rather a good move wouldn't you say? You're having a laugh surely? They issue some options which last 7 years but couldn't even be exercised for THREE years, and you think that's the cause of our relegation less than 12 months later?! Priceless. Options are used as incentives in all forms of business from shop cleaners at John Lewis to CEOs of hedge funds - it doesn't make those companies focus unduly on share price because even if they temporarily spiked the share price you couldn't possibly sell all the shares from the exercised options at that price for a profit anyway. They will only gain by building up the company. Not to mention the rather important fact that the SLH options couldn't even have been exercised until well after our relegation!! Talk about a desperate attempt to pick fault in the board, you're blaming them for getting us relegated 2 years before some options could even be exercised! Make sure you boycott John Lewis for also running scandalous schemes to incentivise their employees. Shame on them, I bet they are all duck-hunters too. I would also recommened closing your bank accounts, emptying your pension fund, not catching the bus, refusing to buy beer, no food from supermarkets, no petrol, no cars either in fact... in fact, you could go and live in a cave to escape it (provided you don't have any water or electricity there either). Of course the more balanced view of those people who at least reside on this planet, is that should the share price place those options in-the-money (ie. above 46p), the club will benefit to the tune of £276,000 which would be extremely welcome in our current predicament. But then this is just like Crouch, Wilde or Trant fulfilling their promises of putting in new money, which they could do at any time through a placing. Back to the original point, these AGM resolutions are pretty standard and they cover not only new options, but placings as well - basically any new share issue without pre-emptive rights, ie. not a rights issue or open offer which enable existing shareholders to maintain their relative holdings.

Go take a look at all the other small caps on AIM and you will see the vast majority of closely held companies are run by the largest shareholders. There is obviously a good reason why it works this way in the real world... with small caps individuals really can own sizeable/controlling interests in entire companies, and when they have that much control in one company they want a big say in how it's run. For most it is their only major investment and so that is done in a hands-on manner - if you had most of your wealth tied up in a single company would you delegate? There are very few people with sizeable/controlling holdings in a number of companies which is where they would delegate that control to other paid execs. It's just common sense. Of course this in turn can lead to appallingly bad behaviour, for example CapCon and Ken Dulieu where he and the other members of the board offered themselves massively discounted convertibles in order to try to gain control as a concert party. When this was blocked by other shareholders they tried to sell themselves part of the business at another hugely discounted price - when other shareholders then offered a much higher price they decided not to sell at all. For both of these reasons, once the club is financially secure (2-3 years time I guess), I would like to see Lowe, Wilde and Crouch all sell down their holdings to under 5% each. This leaves them each with a "voice" but far less control, enabling them to retain non-exec representation at board level but *potentially* allowing a different CEO (or 2) to run the club. And there is no reason why they couldn't all sign up to this idea now to help placate the fans and show a way forward for the club. Although no doubt some would still be unhappy with that!

Well you know full well they cannot divulge that information to me or anyone else - and that comment could mean anything at all couldn't it... I could offer to put in £500k for 29.99% of the club, but they wouldn't accept it would they. Without any details I'm afraid your comment is a bit pointless - feel free to let me know details off board, and if there is any mileage in the offer I for one would be right behind it, but somehow I doubt they would turn down any genuine offer... how could that possibly be in their or the shareholders interests? It wouldn't make any sense.

I have nothing in particular in favour of Askham or Richards, but Windsor-Clive, Lowe and Withers (and Cowen) all bought their Secure shares at full-price. These are not people who "inadvertently" benefitted from the reverse-takeover, they took the gamble with their own cash and that should be recognised. That puts them on a par with Wilde and Crouch in so far as putting their own money where their mouths are. However the additional point about Lowe and Withers (a life-long Saints fan who grew up next door to the Dell) is that they were 2 of the 5 who underwrote the open offer (usually referred to as the rights issue) for the stadium funding - I believe both underwrote about £250k each and ended up buying about £130k of the new shares (plus their entitlements for existing holdings). That money went straight into the club and towards the stadium. Where was the cash from Wilde & Crouch back then when there was no prospect of becoming chairman eh? Let's not forget, for all their bluster Wilde and Crouch have never put a penny into the club - they have hidden behind (false) Takeover Panel claims and press bravado about "I'll put money in if they do". There is nothing to stop them having a placing to raise funds for the club, and if Crouch really believes he would happily give away his £2m in shares then why not keep them and simply put new cash into the club instead? Wilde and Crouch (not to mention the dreadful Trant) promised to put new money into the club and failed to do so - they're like the gobby kids in the school playground (or on this forum) who don't have a clue but just want to be popular. One final point about Lowe's comments in the annual report - since obviously most people on here haven't actually read them - he doesn't mention Crouch anywhere in the entire report. He doesn't even refer to "previous chairman". And I'm sure the Echo, as usual, have helped to stoke the fire in their own reporting... do they still have that P*mpey fan as Sports Editor? PS. Matt, can't you just use your own name, we all know who you are anyway?

Rupert isn't the one who chose to expand the squad, that was WGS who thought "strength in depth" was more important than overpaying for 1 or 2 players. If you haven't figured it out by now, Rupert's long-term plan has always been to bring through players from the academy - if you don't have a sugar daddy, you have to have a way to generate more money than your peers... the academy provides an excellent way to do that. As for spending the money, again that's pretty much up to the managers too - Redknapp only finding one player in the whole summer is well documented even if Crouch (and formerly Wilde) like to twist it around whilst somehow saying Rupert still spent all the money (bright guy that Leon). For all the bullsh!t on here about wage caps, let's not forget that Redknapp paid HUGE salaries to get Bernard & Co in on loan and we saw how motivated those players were for a relegation fight - Redknapps decisions, Redknapp's failure... along with blame to be shared from everyone at the club from RL to Peter Crouch. Sh!t happens (unless you're a plastic Saints fan to whom relegation can never happen of course). Derry, you completely miss the point about the Ted Bates comment, but nothing new there. With regards to the comments in the financial report, well that's exactly where they belong and they were wholly appropriate. The average person reading that report is probably capable of doing a bit more than holding a crayon and can understand the points being made without having a hissy-fit and beating their chests. If Crouch wasn't happy with the comments, then the correct and appropriate form of reply is at the club's AGM - not squealing to the local rag. But that would involve thinking before acting... like checking Wilde's preposterous claims before siding with him.

Crouch is such a muppet: Just like Ted Bates' reign resulted in our relegation in 1974 no doubt. And presumably he'll be first to acknowledge that his own reign took us to the brink of relegation to the 3rd tier? Crikey, that sounds even worse doesn't it Leon? In other words, Rupert spent every penny we had on the team, Leon is making the point that Rupert wasn't squirreling it away and refusing to spend it... Oh no, wait, that doesn't fit in with what I want to say, I'd better try to claim Rupert was squirreling it away and refusing to spend this fictional money after all! Could Captain ****up possibly have considered the idea - I know it's outrageous to even suggest this - that he actually checked this triffling matter *before* supporting Wilde? He's a loose cannon, no doubt with the best intentions, but with very little clue. You'd almost think he was on a different planet sometimes... Ah yes, so he is!

If you bought through an online broker (eg. selftrade, e-trade) then your shares are probably held in a nominee account with the broker - all you need to do is give the broker your new details, the shares remain in their nominee account. If you actually hold the shares in certificate form (big sheet of paper saying SOUTHAMPTON LEISURE HOLDINGS ORDINARY SHARES of 5p and the number of shares), then the only record of you being the owner is with the company registrars and you should let them know of your change of address.

The question of an independent boad is an interesting one. Firstly, I have to say I think it is simply unrealistic as any board has to have representation of its major shareholders - people may not agree with that, but that's the way it is... who in their right mind would own a sizeable chunk of a company and not seek some form of representation on that board? It's also part of the chapter and verse regarding corporate governance, but that's a mis-used weapon at the best of times so not something I want to use exclusively as a reason! The other problem with an entirely independent board is that they are, well, independent. That doesn't make sense - whose interests are they working in? The shareholders? Seemingly not. Their own? Well if they aren't shareholders themselves then not really. What you are in danger of ending up with is a group of people whose interests are *not* aligned with the shareholders, yet they hold sufficient power to do what they like, even to their own personal benefit. Needless to say I would classify the Dulieu, Hone, Hoos and Oldknow board like this. Both execs and non-execs should be encouraged to have a holding in the company - if they are confident in their management of the club, there is no reason not to have a small investment in it themselves. What I would like to see is for the existing major shareholders to sell down their holdings. I would like a change to the Articles of Association to limit any control over shares to 9.99% or even 4.99%. This would massively limit the control that any individual had over the club (MW or LC in recent times), and any "controlling group" would then need at least 11 people in agreement - people always have different ideas, but a consensus is as good as it gets. Beyond that the board should be the regular composition of execs and non-execs - provided we don't end up with as many as Wilde used! The overriding issue will still remain that everyone involved at present (RL, MW, LC, Wiseman, Richards, Askham, etc) are all tarnished - people will always personalise the arguments about decisions as it's easy to do. Hence I still remain of the opinion that for now the best (only) thing to do is to get back on an even keel and get the club into a financially safe state. Once we have done that, the larger shareholders can start to sell down their holdings and new faces can be brought in. The problem even then is that this will take years, and we know fans aren't patient enough to look beyond Saturday, let alone a 3 year plan.

"Technical vocubulary" my arse, nothing like moving the goalposts after the event to make yourself look a bit less dumb is there... ;-) Anyone would think you didn't actually understand the difference between being a PLC and being listed... or an open offer and a rights issue... or a real proxy and a pretend one sprinkled with fairy dust... or competent businessmen and egotistical fantasists. Anyway, glad we cleared that one up!

cambsaint, being a PLC has nothing to do with being listed. For a related example, Wilde's Merlion was originally a PLC yet he was the only shareholder. Being a PLC rather than a private limited company means there are certain differences such as in terms of paying dividends and in terms of what you have to present in terms of profit and loss.

Yeah, it's a real struggle to think of more than a couple... SLH Aberdeen Reading Sheff Utd Sheff Weds Rangers Celtic Birmingham Arsenal Norwich Blackburn Charlton Spurs West Brom Gillingham Leeds Utd Preston Sunderland West Ham Leicester Millwall Chelsea Shrewsbury Nottm Forest AFC Wimbledon Ipswich Bolton Grimsby Wycombe Watford St Johnstone Bristol Rovers Hearts Chesterfield Torquay United Or maybe you just have very large hands.

Wow, lucky we're not a listed company to be alleging such a damaging and unfounded comment about the club's finances on a public board eh. Oh the irony! "Let's go Wilde"! Top job by the Saints Trust in stabilising the club... As usual there's the usual name-calling and personalisation of the argument, but no answer as to the viable alternative at the present time. I assume most of the posters on this thread are the same people who so intelligently sang "we want Rupert out" when our 11 players went 2-0 down on Saturday. Thankfully the normal fans got behind the team and drowned you all out. It's good to know some people still go to support the team and club. Then again, I'm sure another 12 months of concerted vitriol and you will be able to sing "we want Barclays out" against Rochdale next season.

Sorry, but a bit of moaning about the other lot is not quite the same as urging shareholders to oust the chairman on local radio 48 hours (?) before a home match with no viable alternative in place. I remember Duncan moaning about Wilde's dross after they had been in place for a while, but I certainly don't remember him demanding that shareholders vote them out. Don't even get me started on the shambolic Trust and the disgraceful way they behaved over the last 3 or 4 years. The facts remain simple - we tried the "anyone but Lowe" witch hunt and have driven the club to the verge of extinction. Despite the overwhelming evidence that mob rule doesn't actually work, we ended up with a situation where nobody else wanted to touch SFC with a bargepole. And let's be clear, it was there for the taking - Wilde, Crouch and Lowe would all have sold up in a flash if there was any offer on the table. But the club was in such a mess that in the end we've ended up with Lowe & Cowen trying to fix the financial mess and keep us in business. When do you want business/financial people in charge? When that's the overriding factor in the club's progress - new stadium and financing? RL and AC made sense. On the verge of administration? RL and AC make sense. The bits in between where business was steady? Welllll, there was an argument for a different sort of leadership - unfortunately there was nobody who came even close to being suitable for that. I would not trust anybody who ever gave their backing to the original Wilde plans - they were not only stupid to fail to spot the many many flaws in his claims and "plan", but they were downright negligent in putting their personal issues over RL ahead of the wellbeing of the club. They are as responsible for this mess as Wilde himself, and if any people should be mistrusted over their opinions regarding the club's future, it is these people. As well as Wilde's hefty IOU bill to the club, several other people should not be allowed within 100 miles of our club again IMO. But hey, most people can forgive and move on - sadly others, it seems, cannot. For now it's very simple - the club is in dire straits. We need everyone to pull together, try to support the youngsters, put up or at least shut up with regards to the boardroom and get back on an even keel. Once we are stable again we will be in a position to reconsider our options. AFAIC, right now we have no options whatsoever.