Rupert and co saying the right things

[Mole]

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?

 

You seem rather dismissive of the consortium from that comment. Is this stance taken from you being "In the Know" as to the Merrington consortiums finances or is your assumption pure guesswork?

 

I'm simply stating that the cheaper the Merrington consortium can buy us for, the more money they will have left to spend on what matters - SFC. A reasonable enough comment i would suggest.

 

As to your last comment you clearly didn't read what i wrote so maybe you should read it through again a little bit more slowly. The simple truth is that Saints is a sinking ship with unsustainable losses. Accelerating the process to bring about investment is not jeopodising the present, it is securing the future.

[scooby]

Thank goodness you are limited to 3 trolling messages a day.

 

That is a shame.

[pedg]

The simple truth is that Saints is a sinking ship with unsustainable losses.

 

unsustainable at the current level. You don't appear to get the concept that by cutting costs and the over paid players that we are reducing these losses. If the bank, who have, I suspect, a better handle on all the figures that you have, have given us the all clear to continue they have accepted Lowe and Wildes plan and do not then appear to agree with your statement.

[trousers]

....the Merrington consortium

 

So, just to clarify, from now on they should be referred to as the 'Merrington consortium' rather than the 'Fulthorpe Consortium'?

 

Just try to keep abreast....(so to speak)

[pedg]

That is a shame.

 

Oooo, scooby has found 10 dollars on the street and has managed to become a full member. up bright and early I see as it must be about 8am in Washington.

Edited 7 August, 2008 by pedg

[Mole]

unsustainable at the current level. You don't appear to get the concept that by cutting costs and the over paid players that we are reducing these losses. If the bank, who have, I suspect, a better handle on all the figures that you have, have given us the all clear to continue they have accepted Lowe and Wildes plan and do not then appear to agree with your statement.

 

The bank agreed to support Leon Crouch for another 12 months. Of course they will throw some good money after the bad for a certain amount of time because in comparison to the monies owing the overdraft is a drop in the ocean. However they won't keep doing this year on year. Eventually Barclays will say enough is enough.

 

You talk of Lowes cost cutting. Pray tell us how much we are making/losing a month now?

[Wes Tender]

Sorry I was going to reply but realised that your post was just a collection of cliches and waffle.

 

I at least made the point that Wilde's calling for unity was a bit rich under the circumstances that he was the architect of most of the disruption at the club. If you want to avoid giving examples of anything in his statement not being cliches and waffle by the simple expedient that you used, then I'll just take it that you couldn't respond properly, as you realised that there weren't any grounds for a response.

[Mole1]

You seem rather dismissive of the consortium from that comment. Is this stance taken from you being "In the Know" as to the Merrington consortiums finances or is your assumption pure guesswork?

 

I'm simply stating that the cheaper the Merrington consortium can buy us for, the more money they will have left to spend on what matters - SFC. A reasonable enough comment i would suggest.

 

As to your last comment you clearly didn't read what i wrote so maybe you should read it through again a little bit more slowly. The simple truth is that Saints is a sinking ship with unsustainable losses. Accelerating the process to bring about investment is not jeopodising the present, it is securing the future.

 

What's interesting though is that share price has fallen further today to 26p.

 

Does this mean the Fulthorpe group are biding their time and won't make a move until administration or the eve of it?

[pedg]

I at least made the point that Wilde's calling for unity was a bit rich under the circumstances that he was the architect of most of the disruption at the club. If you want to avoid giving examples of anything in his statement not being cliches and waffle by the simple expedient that you used, then I'll just take it that you couldn't respond properly, as you realised that there weren't any grounds for a response.

 

 

No its just I have not got time to go through it at the moment as I am too busy.

 

To be honest his statement did not really tell us much new, but did anyone expect anything different. It mainly appeared to point out the obvious. e.g. We could go into admin and cease to exist, to those who appear to think we can go into admin and be back in the premiership in within a couple of years smelling of roses.

[pedg]

What's interesting though is that share price has fallen further today to 26p.

 

Does this mean the Fulthorpe group are biding their time and won't make a move until administration or the eve of it?

 

There appears again to be this misinterpretation of what the share price means. What it means is that you can on the open market go and buy a limited number of shares at that value. If you want to buy any of the large blocks of share you have to deal directly with the seller and in those cases the current share price is of far less relevance, especially if your aim is to take over as there is always a premiium to be paid in these cases. See how the share price went when the PA rumour came out because people thought that an offer would have to be made at significantly more than the initial share price. If Fulmerrington come out the woodwork and say 'we are going to buy all the shares' the share price today will be of no relevance.

[stevegrant]

You seem rather dismissive of the consortium from that comment. Is this stance taken from you being "In the Know" as to the Merrington consortiums finances or is your assumption pure guesswork?

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.

 

I'm simply stating that the cheaper the Merrington consortium can buy us for, the more money they will have left to spend on what matters - SFC. A reasonable enough comment i would suggest.

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.

 

As to your last comment you clearly didn't read what i wrote so maybe you should read it through again a little bit more slowly. The simple truth is that Saints is a sinking ship with unsustainable losses. Accelerating the process to bring about investment is not jeopodising the present, it is securing the future.

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.

[Mole1]

There appears again to be this misinterpretation of what the share price means. What it means is that you can on the open market go and buy a limited number of shares at that value. If you want to buy any of the large blocks of share you have to deal directly with the seller and in those cases the current share price is of far less relevance, especially if your aim is to take over as there is always a premiium to be paid in these cases. See how the share price went when the PA rumour came out because people thought that an offer would have to be made at significantly more than the initial share price. If Fulmerrington come out the woodwork and say 'we are going to buy all the shares' the share price today will be of no relevance.

 

Yep, 100% agree.

 

However the closer the club gets to administration the more willing Lowe/Wilde will be to cut heir losses and sell at a reasonable price. If they don't play ball on Fulthorpes terms there's nothing to stop Fulthrorpe from simply waiting a bit longer and buying the club off the administrators. The latter scenario makes the best business sense, but i'm sure you'll agree we'd all rather the takeover happened before this so the transition was smooth.

[stevegrant]

If they don't play ball on Fulthorpes terms there's nothing to stop Fulthrorpe from simply waiting a bit longer and buying the club off the administrators.

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.

[Secret Site Agent]

I am only glad he is here is because someone has to make a lot of ****ty decisions to be very tight with the purse strings and I hate him anyway, so there will be no love lost.

On the matter of staying away, I don't agree. The club needs the cash and it is stupid to deny them that. We can all protest in other ways.

 

As for the season, my thoughts are this.

we have a young squad, and unproven manager, we are predicted in the press to finish 23rd and to be relegated. Well, it can't get any worse for us unless we go into administration, so what have we got to lose. The season hasn't even started yet and we are a dead duck, (thanks Rupe). So I will act in the way i always do, and fight againstv the odds with a smile on my face and my head held high. If everybody tries their hardest, and we fail, then so be it, but at least we tried.

 

Or maybe we should just go into administration now, sell all our players and turn SMS into a housing estate, which will also lose money, and then go and support Chelsea or Man United because we are not true fans but wannabe plastics. we can also support Brazil in the world cup, and the All Blacks in rugby, and the US and Russia in the olympics.

 

No, I say no. We love our club and we must try and do what we can, and expect others to do the same.

 

On the back of that, anyone want to follow me into battle or up Everest or to race to the North pole or something, I think I did a ralling cry in my lunch break.

 

I forgot to say, COYR.

[pedg]

Yep, 100% agree.

 

However the closer the club gets to administration the more willing Lowe/Wilde will be to cut heir losses and sell at a reasonable price. If they don't play ball on Fulthorpes terms there's nothing to stop Fulthrorpe from simply waiting a bit longer and buying the club off the administrators. The latter scenario makes the best business sense, but i'm sure you'll agree we'd all rather the takeover happened before this so the transition was smooth.

 

Looking to administration to solve our problems is like looking to use a revolver to solve a headache.

Edited 7 August, 2008 by pedg

[Fowllyd]

Looking to administration to solve out problems is like looking to use a revolver to solve a headache.

 

I like that - it should framed and hung on the wall of anybody foolish enough still to believe that administration would in some way benefit Saints!

[pedg]

I like that - it should framed and hung on the wall of anybody foolish enough still to believe that administration would in some way benefit Saints!

 

Need to correct the obvious spelling mistake first... oops.

[um pahars]

unsustainable at the current level. You don't appear to get the concept that by cutting costs and the over paid players that we are reducing these losses. If the bank, who have, I suspect, a better handle on all the figures that you have, have given us the all clear to continue they have accepted Lowe and Wildes plan and do not then appear to agree with your statement.

 

The giving us the all clear is a but OTT.

 

At best, they have agreed to support us in the short term in an attempt to get everything in order.

 

However, the problem with this is that it is very possible that we will never be able to cut our cloth down here and so this support is not open ended. There may well come a time when they cut us adrift.

 

Indeed, if a consortium came along with a potential cash injection, I would not be at all surprised for the bank to be telling Wilde/Lowe that they must accept it (i.e. they get their overdraft paid off and if Lowe/Wilde dissented they would threaten to pull the plug).

[Big Bad Bob]

The simple truth is that Saints is a sinking ship with unsustainable losses. Accelerating the process to bring about investment is not jeopodising the present, it is securing the future.

 

And that's helped Leeds (who were bought back by Ken Bates), and Bournemouth and Luton and the list goes on

 

Has the knee jerk sale to SISU helped Coventry, nobody has them down as Championship pretenders.

 

It's a fallacy that going into administration will solve all (or even any) of the clubs problems.

 

The very least it will do is rid the club of the current divisive shreholdings, and don't forget RL and MW could themselves buy the club out of administration, what would you think of that??

Edited 7 August, 2008 by Big Bad Bob

[pedg]

The giving us the all clear is a but OTT.

 

At best, they have agreed to support us in the short term in an attempt to get everything in order.

 

However, the problem with this is that it is very possible that we will never be able to cut our cloth down here and so this support is not open ended. There may well come a time when they cut us adrift.

 

Indeed, if a consortium came along with a potential cash injection, I would not be at all surprised for the bank to be telling Wilde/Lowe that they must accept it (i.e. they get their overdraft paid off and if Lowe/Wilde dissented they would threaten to pull the plug).

 

I was trying to make the point that we are not the hopeless case obviously doomed to crash and burn as those who appear to want to accelerate that situation would like to believe.

 

As to the last point as I said it is telling that having been in a bid situation for so long we came out of it only after Lowe and Wilde had talked to the money men so they appear to think that the club being run as it is now is a better option for them than what ever the offer from the mystical consortium had put forward otherwise one assumes they would have insisted negotiations continue and we would not have left the bid situation.

[um pahars]

I was trying to make the point that we are not the hopeless case obviously doomed to crash and burn as those who appear to want to accelerate that situation would like to believe.

 

Failure on the pitch will certainly see us really suffer, but even allowing for a modicum of success, it will still be very, very difficult to run this club on a self sustaining basis.

 

Only a few months back one of the duo in charge posted as much as that on the predecssor to this forum.

 

As to the last point as I said it is telling that having been in a bid situation for so long we came out of it only after Lowe and Wilde had talked to the money men so they appear to think that the club being run as it is now is a better option for them than what ever the offer from the mystical consortium had put forward otherwise one assumes they would have insisted negotiations continue and we would not have left the bid situation.

 

I don't think talking to the bank and not being in a bid situation (or someone sniffing around) are at all related.

 

We came out of a bid situation, because there were no bidders, not because the bank preferred Lowe and co in charge, but because there were no alteratives (with regards external investment).

 

The bank would have spoken to Lowe/Wilde in just the same way they spoke to Crouch, i.e. we need to see your concrete proposals for running this Club, with projected cshflows, target etc. They would have thrown in their requirements, an then said happy or not happy.

 

If a bid appears on the horizon then the bank will take stock of that if and when it arises and will then judge whether the bid is in their best interests. The bank are most definitely calling the shots nowadays (at least regarding the major decisions).

[pedg]

Failure on the pitch will certainly see us really suffer, but even allowing for a modicum of success, it will still be very, very difficult to run this club on a self sustaining basis.

 

Only a few months back one of the duo in charge posted as much as that on the predecssor to this forum.

 

There are obviously two parts to maintaining the club on a self sustaining basis. Ongoing regular income, ticket sales, tv money, etc and one off player sales income.

 

As long as the team perform as well in the league as they have preseason then we may have to sell in the transfer windows to pay off any short fall from the regular income. If we can get this working right and if people can accept that we have to sell on a regular basis to survive then I see no reason why the two forms of income should not be enough to balance the books. Especially if we continue to cut down the loses without player sales to a manageable level.

 

Yes it relies on the team doing well but that applies to the survival of just about every other club in the country outside a handful in the premiership.

[OldNick]

Does anyone know what our season ticket take up was for those three seasons??????

 

I would suggest the three seasons attendances were to do with:

 

2005-06 Pemiership hangover, with quite a few season tickets already bought when in Prem

 

2006-7 A bit of optimism at the start, and a relatively successful season on the pitch.

 

2007-8 Decent level of season tickets (our best since relegation???) , but shi7e on the pitch.

 

.

Dont forget the last 2 seasons had the ridiculous early bird s/ts which encouraged many people to buy s/t's but at a low price.The problem being they have a terrible job raising those prices without uproar.

The early birders are many of us fans who would pay through the nose and so a major part of the clubs finance is lost.

I of course am delighted to have a cheaper football ticket, but in a hard nosed business way we are the ones who normally are milked of money.

[um pahars]

The early birders are many of us fans who would pay through the nose and so a major part of the clubs finance is lost.

 

It may have had an impact on revenues, but I doubt it had any impact on attendances, as you yourself have said, many of those renewals were die hard fans who would have renewed anyway.

 

There's a totally seperate argument about prices and IMHO there was no way keeping the prices at Premiership level could be justified (not even with the extra 4 matches).

 

And I don't buy that fans paying less is a problem, as ultimatley there is a limit to what we should pay. I would argue the problem lies with costs (namely wages) not income from fans.

 

Taking it to it's extreme, then the £400 S/T should be the minimum price payable, but "really loyal" fans can tick boxes from £500 to £1,000 to show how much they care!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (or have buckets at the turnstile at every match that we an throw extra money in to give Nathan Dyer a wage rise).

[OldNick]

It may have had an impact on revenues, but I doubt it had any impact on attendances, as you yourself have said, many of those renewals were die hard fans who would have renewed anyway.

 

There's a totally seperate argument about prices and IMHO there was no way keeping the prices at Premiership level could be justified (not even with the extra 4 matches).

 

And I don't buy that fans paying less is a problem, as ultimatley there is a limit to what we should pay. I would argue the problem lies with costs (namely wages) not income from fans.

 

Taking it to it's extreme, then the £400 S/T should be the minimum price payable, but "really loyal" fans can tick boxes from £500 to £1,000 to show how much they care!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (or have buckets at the turnstile at every match that we an throw extra money in to give Nathan Dyer a wage rise).

but you mentioned the s/ts from under RL that made a difference to the first season down. As you rightly say the early birders are manily the hardcore fans and so the attendances dropping rather than rising when your new lot arrived does not show the common feeling that RL was the reason for attendances dropping.

 

As for your last comment I assume you are beling flippant. If Saints had kept the tickets at the PL price i expect Id still go like a lot of others,it would hurt but Im a victim of being a Saints fan.Giving me and others like me a good discount is not business sense or does your accounting not go to that. Unfortunately the most loyal in football get milked the most.

[buctootim]

You seem rather dismissive of the consortium from that comment. Is this stance taken from you being "In the Know" as to the Merrington consortiums finances or is your assumption pure guesswork?

 

I'm simply stating that the cheaper the Merrington consortium can buy us for, the more money they will have left to spend on what matters - SFC. A reasonable enough comment i would suggest.

 

As to your last comment you clearly didn't read what i wrote so maybe you should read it through again a little bit more slowly. The simple truth is that Saints is a sinking ship with unsustainable losses. Accelerating the process to bring about investment is not jeopodising the present, it is securing the future.

 

Are you really that muddled or is it just the script you have to work with? Fulthorpe's gang cant get control because they dont have enough money.

 

Sniping at Lowe and Wilde because they wont go into voluntary administration allowing Fulthorpe to pick up the carcass on the cheap is laughable. Leaving Saints team less, possibly groundless and certainly in Div 1 just so he can have his turn on the ego trip as fantasy manager is not.

Edited 7 August, 2008 by buctootim

[um pahars]

but you mentioned the s/ts from under RL that made a difference to the first season down. As you rightly say the early birders are manily the hardcore fans and so the attendances dropping rather than rising when your new lot arrived does not show the common feeling that RL was the reason for attendances dropping.

 

Which is exactly what I said if you had only taken the time to read the posts.

 

i.e. What happens on the pitch is the single biggest influence on attendances.

 

As for your last comment I assume you are beling flippant. If Saints had kept the tickets at the PL price i expect Id still go like a lot of others,it would hurt but Im a victim of being a Saints fan.Giving me and others like me a good discount is not business sense or does your accounting not go to that. Unfortunately the most loyal in football get milked the most.

 

If you can't even manage to read and absorb a post, then I suppose it's no surprise that you fail to grasp the simplest things on here.

[OldNick]

Which is exactly what I said if you had only taken the time to read the posts.

 

i.e. What happens on the pitch is the single biggest influence on attendances.

 

 

 

If you can't even manage to read and absorb a post, then I suppose it's no surprise that you fail to grasp the simplest things on here.

Thats the problem I cant grasp you at all.

[um pahars]

Thats the problem I cant grasp you at all.

 

I'm not sure you can grasp anything:rolleyes:

[OldNick]

I'm not sure you can grasp anything:rolleyes:

Not your load of tripe

[GreenTreeFrog]

 

Although the double Dutch cost less than Pearson together apparently, I have not heard any convincing argument supporting the case that we could not afford Pearson's continuance, nor indeed that he would not have been prepared to play the youngsters. He didn't seem to me to be the sort to walk away from a challenge.

 

 

Wes,

 

 

That is because its not about a direct comparison of the wages of the respective coaches/managers. Lowe did say the decision to change managers was 'partly financial' but he went on to explain how we cannot afford to buy new players or even pay wages of expensive loan signings any longer. He believes 'traditional managers' need to spend money to succeed but as we have very little to spend so it was decided we needed a new approach altogether. In fact if you recall Lowe even stated that success bonuses mean if the new team do well they will be on more money (combined) than Pearson was on.

 

Pearson did an 'OK' job, and I would have accepted him continuing, but where is the evidence he can work successfully (and almost exclusively) with younger players? It's alright saying (in your words) he probably would have 'been prepared' to play them, but the management team we have now are used to that model and Pearson is not. Pearson strengthened our defence at the expense of scoring goals but what would he do this season? Any attempt at an answer to that is pure guesswork - he has no real history we can look to so the answers that need filling in remain blank.

 

You also say its unlikely Pearson would have 'walked away from the challenge' and you are likely right, I mean he had nothing to lose and all the risk would be ours -none of it his. We would have been the brave ones here. In short it would have been as big a 'gamble' to continue with him than go with the new guys, at least they do have some experience in bringing young players through, admittedly at a lower level. Pearson did well out of us, appears he was very well paid and he got a new job out of it, so I find it a bit hard to feel too sorry for him.

 

Anything more than last day avoidance of relegation is an improvement, but I am expecting a decent season in mid table with some new guys coming through. Most importantly it would be good to see players that really do want to play for the club again. As we are so strapped for cash it is not really even a huge gamble.

[Wes Tender]

Pearson did an 'OK' job, and I would have accepted him continuing, but where is the evidence he can work successfully (and almost exclusively) with younger players?

 

Well, presumably being appointed as Stuart Pearce's assistant coach of the England under 21's might be deemed to be quite a good indication that he was respected enough to be considered as qualified to coach the best English youngsters in the land.

[pedg]

Well, presumably being appointed as Stuart Pearce's assistant coach of the England under 21's might be deemed to be quite a good indication that he was respected enough to be considered as qualified to coach the best English youngsters in the land.

 

But is the assistant coach the one who has to gather the team together in the dressing room after a disappointing first half and get the fired up for the second half? To me being assistant coach is, well, about coaching. Head Coach/Manager is something different and is the one picking the team and motivating them and its that function that I am not sure NP would be best at with a young team.

[Wes Tender]

But is the assistant coach the one who has to gather the team together in the dressing room after a disappointing first half and get the fired up for the second half? To me being assistant coach is, well, about coaching. Head Coach/Manager is something different and is the one picking the team and motivating them and its that function that I am not sure NP would be best at with a young team.

 

Well, as Poortvliet has such great motivational powers, perhaps he ought to do a job on Scacel and get him fired up to play for us. After all, we're still paying his wages to do nothing at the moment. Or is Poortvliet's motivational prowess only applicable to youngsters? It seemed to me that Pearson did a bloody good job of motivating players who had been accused of lacking pride and passion only a few weeks before. Are you also inferring that he is only capable of lifting seasoned pros? I'd have thought that if so, although a ridiculous opinion, it would nevertheless be a much harder job than motivating the youngsters, who are more naive and full of youthful idealism.

 

And anyway, even as assistant to Pearce, Pearson did actually have the opportunity to have that motivational talk with the England lads, as because of contractual obligations, Pearce was unable to manage the game against Italy, which was a 3-3 draw, the first match played at the new Wembley.

[pedg]

Well, as Poortvliet has such great motivational powers, perhaps he ought to do a job on Scacel and get him fired up to play for us. After all, we're still paying his wages to do nothing at the moment. Or is Poortvliet's motivational prowess only applicable to youngsters? It seemed to me that Pearson did a bloody good job of motivating players who had been accused of lacking pride and passion only a few weeks before. Are you also inferring that he is only capable of lifting seasoned pros? I'd have thought that if so, although a ridiculous opinion, it would nevertheless be a much harder job than motivating the youngsters, who are more naive and full of youthful idealism.

 

And anyway, even as assistant to Pearce, Pearson did actually have the opportunity to have that motivational talk with the England lads, as because of contractual obligations, Pearce was unable to manage the game against Italy, which was a 3-3 draw, the first match played at the new Wembley.

 

I never meant to imply that one could only motivate youths and the others motivate season pros as that would be stupid. You appear to be misreading 'better' as 'only' or something. So to repeat IN MY OPINION Poortvliet will be BETTER at motivating the youths to than Pearson and via versa.

[70's Mike]

Well, as Poortvliet has such great motivational powers, perhaps he ought to do a job on Scacel and get him fired up to play for us. After all, we're still paying his wages to do nothing at the moment. Or is Poortvliet's motivational prowess only applicable to youngsters? It seemed to me that Pearson did a bloody good job of motivating players who had been accused of lacking pride and passion only a few weeks before. Are you also inferring that he is only capable of lifting seasoned pros? I'd have thought that if so, although a ridiculous opinion, it would nevertheless be a much harder job than motivating the youngsters, who are more naive and full of youthful idealism.

 

And anyway, even as assistant to Pearce, Pearson did actually have the opportunity to have that motivational talk with the England lads, as because of contractual obligations, Pearce was unable to manage the game against Italy, which was a 3-3 draw, the first match played at the new Wembley.

 

Only time will tell about Jan's motivational skills but as my Dutch friends told me at the time of his appointment, expect one good first season an average second season and then say good bye because he struggles to motivate players once they get to know him.

 

Probably a lot of Managers like that

[Mole]

Are you really that muddled or is it just the script you have to work with? Fulthorpe's gang cant get control because they dont have enough money.

 

Sniping at Lowe and Wilde because they wont go into voluntary administration allowing Fulthorpe to pick up the carcass on the cheap is laughable. Leaving Saints team less, possibly groundless and certainly in Div 1 just so he can have his turn on the ego trip as fantasy manager is not.

 

The trouble with people with "one track minds" like you and the other obsessives (on both sides of the fence) is that you have an agenda - supporting Lowe, and when you are unable to present a factual and honest reply you just make things up. Would it not be better to simply say nothing than to Lie?

 

By all mens have a different viewpoint, but keep it real folks.

[buctootim]

The trouble with people with "one track minds" like you and the other obsessives (on both sides of the fence) is that you have an agenda - supporting Lowe, and when you are unable to present a factual and honest reply you just make things up. Would it not be better to simply say nothing than to Lie?

 

By all mens have a different viewpoint, but keep it real folks.

 

 

Must do better, 5/10. If you are going to accuse other people of having an agenda or a one track mind its probably better to make sure you own post history isnt entirely about Rupert Lowe or takeovers. Tip - talk about football a bit, it might put the more credulous off your scent.

[Mole]

Must do better, 5/10. If you are going to accuse other people of having an agenda or a one track mind its probably better to make sure you own post history isnt entirely about Rupert Lowe or takeovers. Tip - talk about football a bit, it might put the more credulous off your scent.

 

The point i'm making is that i look at the full picture and make a judement, wheras you clearly paint the picture how you want it to look.

 

Prove me wrong.

 

Substantiate your claim or admit you just made it up.

 

Are you really that muddled or is it just the script you have to work with? Fulthorpe's gang cant get control because they dont have enough money.

[buctootim]

Prove me wrong.

 

Substantiate your claim or admit you just made it up.

 

Actually you're the one disagreeing with my point - so its for you to prove me wrong. That aside I'd be fascinated to discover what else apart from money is holding up the Fulthorpe 'bid', such as it is.

 

Lowe and Wilde have turned down the £50m, £100m and £150m bids have they and are currently holding out for £200m?? I dont think so.

 

Your gang hasnt been able to produce a serious level of funds and are getting ratty because the current owners wont give them the toy set for nothing.

Edited 8 August, 2008 by buctootim

[pedg]

The point i'm making is that i look at the full picture and make a judement, wheras you clearly paint the picture how you want it to look.

 

Sounds more like pot, kettle, black to me. Isn't funny how each of us can see the whole picture and everyone else is painting things how they want it. Amazing.

[Mole]

Actually you're the one disagreeing with my point - so its for you to prove me wrong. That aside I'd be fascinated to discover what else apart from money is holding up the Fulthorpe 'bid', such as it is.

 

Lowe and Wilde have turned down the £50m, £100m and £150m bids have they and are currently holding out for £200m?? I dont think so.

 

Your gang hasnt been able to produce a serious level of funds and are getting ratty because the current owners wont give them the toy set for nothing.

 

So you can't prove me wrong and therefore that is an admission that you made up the statement that i highlighted. Why? Is it really worth lieing to support an opinion on a internet messageboard? I think you, and a good many others, need to get over your blind obsessions and be more objective and honest.

[pedg]

So you can't prove me wrong and therefore that is an admission that you made up the statement that i highlighted. Why? Is it really worth lieing to support an opinion on a internet messageboard? I think you, and a good many others, need to get over your blind obsessions and be more objective and honest.

 

All the circumstantial evidence so far is that Fulthorpe is trying to organise a takeover but has yet to get together the money to do it. This message board would be rather thinner on posts if everyone's statements had to be backed up with incontrovertible evidence.

 

Plus just because you can't provide evidence for something does not by default make it untrue.

[buctootim]

So you can't prove me wrong and therefore that is an admission that you made up the statement that i highlighted. Why? Is it really worth lieing to support an opinion on a internet messageboard? I think you, and a good many others, need to get over your blind obsessions and be more objective and honest.

 

 

What I have posted I believe to be true - that Fulthorpe doesnt have enough money.

 

Please - for the second time of asking - tell me what the holdup is if it isnt money. Documentary bundles accompanying your assertion welcomed.

[broncoboy]

Was there any ever doubt? The professionals are back in charge and we're being run as a proper business once again.

 

 

For goodness sake whilst it is great to see the kids playing well we have yet to kick a ball in anger.

 

RL came back to rescue his share value. He has cut costs and off loaded as many players as he can like anyone would have had to do.

 

He wouldnt recognise a good player if one fell out the sky and hit him.

 

All we have is a holding strategy. If the kids do well they will be targeted by other clubs and sold. At best we can hope stay in this division

 

We dont have the money to get to the premiership and we certainly dont have the money to stay in the premiership.

 

If you think that is a brilliant strategy then you are easily pleased.

 

Lets see what happens between now and the end of the transfer period in Jan.

 

Try and catch a grip Scooby.

[trousers]

Why was Rupert Lowe "away on Business" this week of all weeks? Yes, I know he has "other business interests" but what was more important this week than being 'on the ground' at SFC Towers?

 

Cue the "Rupert being here this week won't have had any influence on the team's performance on Saturday" ripostes....fine....but it just seems like odd timing to me.

[scooby]

He wouldnt recognise a good player if one fell out the sky and hit him.

.

 

Actually, he has personally signed many of our best players of the last 10 years, Niemi being just one.

[trousers]

Actually, he has personally signed many of our best players of the last 10 years, Niemi being just one.

 

That's the Finnish for me

[Freemantle Saint]

Actually, he has personally signed many of our best players of the last 10 years, Niemi being just one.

 

 

 

Change that to read...

 

QUOTE=scooby;7249]Actually, he has personally SOLD many of our best players of the last 10 years, Niemi being just one

 

 

Then you are factually correct. Who can forget the panic induced fire sale after relegation where lowe sold off any player who could walk.

[Freemantle Saint]

That's the Finnish for me

 

Groan....

 

However as scooby has pointed out lowe personally signed some of our best players...like rory delap, agustin delgado, neil Mcann. Certainly his keen ability to sign a player should be noted. However where are all these great players he signed....oh yes lowe sold them.