Administration inevitable

[JohnnyFartPants]

You obviously don't read many of the other threads that have covered the alternatives to Lowe. Do a little research before you come up with the wrong angle about it.

 

Enlighten me, please. What all knowing thread was there that I missed that would inform me of who could and couldn't be our Chairman or on the board? That's a pretty short list to chose from, is it not?

[aintforever]

OK, I'm going to step into the breech once more my firends...

 

Would you rather

 

a) Spend £1 on a club and inherit lots of debt that you have to finance or

b) Spend £30m on a club with no debt and turning a nice profit every year

 

Currently SLH shares are worth, and I stand to be corrected, ~£10M. Someone has to pay to buy all the shares. However there is the debt on top of that that has to be serviced too. So you're looking at ~£50m

 

However if RL wants £0.50 per share and the club was running a profit with no debt (excl Stadium) that would cost someone ~£20M.

 

I know what I'd do

 

P.S. Please correct my guesstimates as you feel fit

 

The problem is I expect Rupes would try to get 50p a share as we are now. A few leaks to the press about takeovers and the price soon shoots up. So its a case of:

 

a) Spend £1 on a club and inherit lots of debt that you have to finance after admin

a) spend £20mill on a club and inherit lots of debt that you have to finance

[Big Bad Bob]

The problem is I expect Rupes would try to get 50p a share as we are now. A few leaks to the press about takeovers and the price soon shoots up. So its a case of:

 

a) Spend £1 on a club and inherit lots of debt that you have to finance after admin

a) spend £20mill on a club and inherit lots of debt that you have to finance

 

But isn't that why the effort is there to reduce debt and turn us into a profit making organisation??

[Wes Tender]

Enlighten me, please. What all knowing thread was there that I missed that would inform me of who could and couldn't be our Chairman or on the board? That's a pretty short list to chose from, is it not?

 

The onus is on you to do the digging, not me. The issue was covered by posts contained in threads covering various related subjects similar to this one. What I'm getting at is that it doesn't necessarily require a takeover, although that would obviously be the best case scenario if major investment were made available. There are possible other variations of control involving other major shareholders in various alliances, directors appointed to represent the various factions but not involving those divisive people themselves and also the appointment of independent directors.

[NickG]

the only alternative who has thrown his hat in the ring is Crouch.

 

It will be his turn again soon!

[Village Saint]

You are proud of the thousands of stay away fans who are going to bring this club to an end by putting it into administation from which there is absolutely no chance of it emerging. My god.....

[JohnnyFartPants]

The onus is on you to do the digging, not me. The issue was covered by posts contained in threads covering various related subjects similar to this one. What I'm getting at is that it doesn't necessarily require a takeover, although that would obviously be the best case scenario if major investment were made available. There are possible other variations of control involving other major shareholders in various alliances, directors appointed to represent the various factions but not involving those divisive people themselves and also the appointment of independent directors.

 

There is only all that in your head. You are asking lots and lots of much smaller shareholders to get together and ALL think that two people with a hell of a lot of shares, proportionally (plus their shareholding supporters) are doing a worse job than they could do and for ALL of them to think EXACTLY the same way forward is right and to offer up someone/some people as chairman and board. At the end of this dream do we win The Champions League? Total and utter folly, but it would make a good film put on the shelf between Seabiscuit and Field of Dreams.

[NickG]

How's Gareth Barry getting on at Liverpool? And Ronaldo at Madrid? They were desperate to leave so i'm sure they are enjoying life at their new clubs

 

Dear Verbal Kint

 

Cant you read

 

He said apart from the top 4

 

1 Chelsea

2 Liverpool

3 Man Utd

4 Aston Villa

 

thank you - I was going to challenge him to add to his list!

[TheSaint75]

Thanks for your contribution Rupert and welcome to the forum.

 

Why is it that if a person doesn't agree with an anti-lowe post he becomes Rupert? Moronic

 

What Tom said I agree with entirely, that said I wish Lowe would F-off, but are YOU able to appoint somebody who is going to achieve avoiding admin without selling off our talent? Probably not unless they have a very big pot of disposable cash to inject.

 

Too many people are using a boycott as an excuse not to go without coming up with any positive suggestions on how the situation will improve!!

 

Happy to be proved wrong but I haven't heard any viable suggestions as yet

[Wopper]

Bring it on lets get it out the way. Thousands of fans will support whats left.

[TheSaint75]

Bring what on, and what will be left??

[Roman]

Bring what on, and what will be left??

 

I think he means administration. As to the second question, who knows?

 

To be perfectly honest (and not that it matters), I'm beginning to think that all that can be said, has been said - on administration, Lowe, Wilde, the fate of the club, etc. For this and other reasons which I've explained to the mods, I'm not going to be posting here any more. I'll still go to as many games as I can, and keep hoping we find some way out of this desperate quagmire that leaves everyone at least a little happier. Bye!

[Wes Tender]

There is only all that in your head. You are asking lots and lots of much smaller shareholders to get together and ALL think that two people with a hell of a lot of shares, proportionally (plus their shareholding supporters) are doing a worse job than they could do and for ALL of them to think EXACTLY the same way forward is right and to offer up someone/some people as chairman and board. At the end of this dream do we win The Champions League? Total and utter folly, but it would make a good film put on the shelf between Seabiscuit and Field of Dreams.

 

 

Puerile and juvenile. The PLC board chairman only has 6% of the shares, so when you are talking about shareholders' alliances, there are only a couple of them who have anything like a reasonable amount and they are Wilde and Crouch. Everybody else is a small shareholder. Of course it is all in my head, the same as what you said is in your head

 

There will almost certainly have to be a change of board in the event of administration, so if you do not possess enough imagination to foresee that similar changes to the board could take place before that eventuality, then it is you who is lacking something.

[Tom28]

Wes, your reply to my post was so baffling and full of contradiction, I'm not sure I have the energy to reply to it all. But I'll try..

 

First you say in response to my suggestion that Lowe was driven out by fans that "He (Lowe) was actually driven out by the possibility that a majority of shareholders would have outvoted him at the EGM called by his current poodle, Michael Wilde." I think you kinda proved MY point there - Wilde and other shareholders (many of whom are fans anyway) were pandering to the fans. Lowe was getting abuse every week at both home and away games. He had no option but to leave.

 

"Having ****ed up the original Stoneham project and having then been rescued by Southampton City Council providing the St. Mary's site."

 

Putting the blame on the Stoneham project squarely on Lowe isn't based on any sort of fact. Quite honestly, I don't care how it got done, but it got done and I for one prefer the location of St Mary's to Stoneham anyway. Even if he was 'rescued' by SCC (which is unsubstantiated) he still would have had to work very hard to get it done, and it got done.

 

"How do you know this? Crouch is a far better businessman than Lowe and Wilde combined, proven by the turnover of the companies he runs. Do you have a crystal ball?"

 

I don't care about their other companies, I care about Southampton FC and what Crouch did in terms of increasing player wages at a time when revenue streams were falling sharply was irresponsible. There is no evidence to suggest he wouldn't have continued this policy and driven us into administration by now.

 

 

"So in your opinion, the best people to be running the club are the two former failed Chairmen, who are despised by most of the fanbase. And then you wonder why gate revenue is falling."

 

I'm not painting Lowe out to be saint (no pun intended) and some of the things he's done over the years such as frequently changing managers and that time he decided to go along to training in his kit just made me cringe, but he knows his stuff financially and thats all that we need from a Chairman right now. The 'most of the fanbase' (which I think is a minority by the way) you are talking about need to wake up and realise we aren't a Premiership club anymore, we can't go on spending sprees, we can't fork out wages for high profile players, and thats the reality. So deal with it.

 

"But he didn't need to dismiss a popular manager who seemed to have turned around a team of disinterested journeyman, steadied a leaky defence with great loan signings and saved us from relegation. He didn't need then to appoint a pair of Dutchmen virtually unknown in this country and totally inexperienced in British football and fill the team with the youth, playing a style of football they are not used to playing, did he?"

 

You lost my respect here.

 

"Those players will be gone in January, the resultant loss of quality will weaken the team sufficiently that we will probably be relegated and administration will follow."

 

And here.

 

"You mean the short termist strategies employed by Lowe presumably, who had a manager a year throughout his decade in charge? Regrettably we seem stuck with his current manager as he will be given far more time than any of the others, as he is part of Lowe's bizarre masterplan."

 

I actually agree with you here. Lowe made too many management changes and too many poor managerial appointments. I think he has the right people in now though and we should get behind him. Do you seriously prefer the way we played under Nigel Pearson to how we are playing now? We're in the same league position so no difference there, but its so much more entertaining these days.

 

Cheer up Wes.

[Norm]

While I applaud the stay sways for having the courage of their convictions - now is not the time. Saints need all the fans to pull together - forget the politics - even try to forget about the board but don't forget the days like sat when supporting your club is just perfect! FWIW I can't stand the pair that are in charge but I will not stop supporting my team because of them - nobody wins that way.

 

I'm with you on the above, TS. I really can't believe this is happening to our club.

 

Terry Paine (one of the true Saints legends) is here and is signing copies of his book (Monday 1st Dec at Waterstones 6.30pm). What on earth must he be thinking about our situation. Please come and support Terry on the evening!

[NickG]

perhaps we should have a week when the following are banned;

 

mention of any board member past or present, directly or indirectly

 

mention of clubs accounts

 

administration

 

takeover

 

past managers

 

unless there is official notification of any news!

 

and we can talk about players, results and tactics -i.e football!

[dubai_phil]

perhaps we should have a week when the following are banned;

 

mention of any board member past or present, directly or indirectly

 

mention of clubs accounts

 

administration

 

takeover

 

past managers

 

unless there is official notification of any news!

 

and we can talk about players, results and tactics -i.e football!

 

 

Well in that case what has happened today that is interesting?????....

 

Oh yes, we just had the Mother of all thunderstorms and there is about 2 feet of water outside my house and car crashes every 500 meters or so on the main highway here!

 

Oh and I won at golf today and the Rugby 7's starts on Friday HOORAY the Dubai Saints flag will be there! (but not for Eng v Fiji tomorrow 'cos we'll be having a curry

 

Maybe politics is more interesting after all

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Why is it that if a person doesn't agree with an anti-lowe post he becomes Rupert? Moronic

 

What Tom said I agree with entirely, that said I wish Lowe would F-off, but are YOU able to appoint somebody who is going to achieve avoiding admin without selling off our talent? Probably not unless they have a very big pot of disposable cash to inject.

 

Too many people are using a boycott as an excuse not to go without coming up with any positive suggestions on how the situation will improve!!

 

Happy to be proved wrong but I haven't heard any viable suggestions as yet

 

You make it sound like the club were eager to hear our opinions and would genuinely value the fans input , I see no evidence to support this contention .

 

For what it's worth this forum has produced an abundant supply of good , bad and indifferent ideas as to how the fortunes of the club could be improved over the years ranging from the usual arguments about on the field matters to the boardroom and financial aspects . For example some quite interesting ideas were put forward on here as to how we could attract more fans back into SMS - the only answer we received from SFC was a reply claiming that nothing could be done because it would supposedly upset the season ticket holders , why my fellow ST holders would want to see the stadium half empty and the club in administration I have no idea . :confused:

 

At the end of last season some 90% of Saints fans were of the expressed view that Nigel Pearson should remain as manager - but in spite of this one of Rupert Lowe's first actions upon his return to the boardroom was to (in effect) dimiss him , now compare where Leicester City FC are in their league with where we are tonight and then tell me that was a good decision .

 

Maybe - just maybe if the fans opinions had been listened to every now and then more of us might feel we were not just mere 'turnstile fodder' and were actually a valued part of this enterprise , who knows then the club might not be in quite the perilous state it is today .

[solentstars]

Why is it that if a person doesn't agree with an anti-lowe post he becomes Rupert? Moronic

 

What Tom said I agree with entirely, that said I wish Lowe would F-off, but are YOU able to appoint somebody who is going to achieve avoiding admin without selling off our talent? Probably not unless they have a very big pot of disposable cash to inject.

 

Too many people are using a boycott as an excuse not to go without coming up with any positive suggestions on how the situation will improve!!

 

Happy to be proved wrong but I haven't heard any viable suggestions as yet

 

thats because they have not got any viable plan and our dreamers, the only way out of this mess is someone investing in our club and thats not gone to happen at the moment.

the banks run this club and if we do not get more than 15,000 fans at games the board will cut costs even more so we lose even more players.

[um pahars]

Wilde and other shareholders (many of whom are fans anyway) were pandering to the fans. Lowe was getting abuse every week at both home and away games. He had no option but to leave..

 

They weren't pandering to the fans.

 

They and many others were using their shares in a democratic, rational and normal manner to remove a CEO/Chairman and board that had failed to deliver and had cost the Club millions in lost revenue due to a number of very poor decisions (decisions that you yourself criticise later on).

 

Frankly, I'm surprised that given the number of poor decisions and the huge cost to the Club that they weren'te removed earlier.

 

Putting the blame on the Stoneham project squarely on Lowe isn't based on any sort of fact. Quite honestly, I don't care how it got done, but it got done and I for one prefer the location of St Mary's to Stoneham anyway..

 

You are either unaware of the background regarding the Stoneham project or side steeping some very well known events. I can only suggest you can and have a read up about how the goalposts were moved allowing EBC and HCC to start pulling the rug from under the project.

 

Even if he was 'rescued' by SCC (which is unsubstantiated) he still would have had to work very hard to get it done, and it got done. .

 

Once again, you are either unaware of the history and timeline of SMS or are being obtuse with regards the role played by SCC, the local MP and local councillors.

 

Lowe, Cowen and others did a good job delivering the stadium on time and within budget, but you cannot ignore the fact that the new stadium project was rescued by SCC and other parties.

 

I don't care about their other companies, I care about Southampton FC and what Crouch did in terms of increasing player wages at a time when revenue streams were falling sharply was irresponsible. There is no evidence to suggest he wouldn't have continued this policy and driven us into administration by now..

 

Crouch did not increase players wages.

 

Players wages went up in the period from Jul 07 to Dec 07, at which point the Club was run by Hone & the Executives who had a cabal of 5 votes against 3 Non Execs.

 

I'm not painting Lowe out to be saint (no pun intended) and some of the things he's done over the years such as frequently changing managers and that time he decided to go along to training in his kit just made me cringe, but he knows his stuff financially and thats all that we need from a Chairman right now. .

 

A slight contradiction saying he knows his stuff financially, when in the same sentence you highlight his deficiencies which have cost this Club millions.

 

As CEO/Chairman last time he oversaw some appalling footballing decisions which ultimately cost this Club millions. Matters on and off the pitch are intrinsically linked as can be seen by his decision to go with thos "revolutionary coaching set up".

 

The 'most of the fanbase' (which I think is a minority by the way) you are talking about need to wake up and realise we aren't a Premiership club anymore, we can't go on spending sprees, we can't fork out wages for high profile players, and thats the reality. So deal with it..

 

I think the majority of supporters appreciate the tough position we find ourselves in.

 

However, knowing that doesn't mean you have to blindly accept every decision taken as being "the only option available".

 

The most obvious point in case was dispensing of Pearson and bringing inthe "revolutionary coaching set up".

 

I actually agree with you here. Lowe made too many management changes and too many poor managerial appointments. I think he has the right people in now though and we should get behind him..

 

He indeed made too many poor managerial decisions in his last sojourn, so I think it is perfectly acceptable to be against his reappointment due to this poor track record. A track record that cost us our top flight status on the pitch and millions off of it.

 

You can bluster all you like about getting behind him, but the proof of the pudding is in attendances.

 

The 13,000 there last night shows that many are failing to heed your call either as a conscious decision, or are they are failing to heed your call as they don't find what is being served up as being worthy of their cash.

 

Do you seriously prefer the way we played under Nigel Pearson to how we are playing now? We're in the same league position so no difference there, but its so much more entertaining these days.

 

I have seen 2 1/2 games out of about 11 that have been good. I have seen numerous home defeats or draws. I have only seen one win at home. I have seen us spanked. I have seen us defend like schoolkids and I have seen us unable to hit a barndoor etc etc etc.

 

Sure I appreciate the youngsters skill, effort and willingness, but ultimately that needs to be translated into points. Jan's points per game ratio is still below Pearson's (which was no great shakes BTW).

[NickG]

You make it sound like the club were eager to hear our opinions and would genuinely value the fans input , I see no evidence to support this contention .

 

For what it's worth this forum has produced an abundant supply of good , bad and indifferent ideas as to how the fortunes of the club could be improved over the years ranging from the usual arguments about on the field matters to the boardroom and financial aspects . For example some quite interesting ideas were put forward on here as to how we could attract more fans back into SMS - the only answer we received from SFC was a reply claiming that nothing could be done because it would supposedly upset the season ticket holders , why my fellow ST holders would want to see the stadium half empty and the club in administration I have no idea . :confused:

 

At the end of last season some 90% of Saints fans were of the expressed view that Nigel Pearson should remain as manager - but in spite of this one of Rupert Lowe's first actions upon his return to the boardroom was to (in effect) dimiss him , now compare where Leicester City FC are in their league with where we are tonight and then tell me that was a good decision .Maybe - just maybe if the fans opinions had been listened to every now and then more of us might feel we were not just mere 'turnstile fodder' and were actually a valued part of this enterprise , who knows then the club might not be in quite the perilous state it is today .

 

 

yep we are considerably higher than them! my gut feeling is that it will turn out to be a better appointment, jury still out on both of them, but to compare a team that scraped through a relegation battle last year then got rid of all of its players to one that is the richest and promotion favorite in a lower division is not a fair comparison

[John B]

They weren't pandering to the fans.

 

They and many others were using their shares in a democratic, rational and normal manner to remove a CEO/Chairman and board that had failed to deliver and had cost the Club millions in lost revenue due to a number of very poor decisions (decisions that you yourself criticise later on).

 

Frankly, I'm surprised that given the number of poor decisions and the huge cost to the Club that they weren'te removed earlier.

 

 

 

You are either unaware of the background regarding the Stoneham project or side steeping some very well known events. I can only suggest you can and have a read up about how the goalposts were moved allowing EBC and HCC to start pulling the rug from under the project.

 

 

 

Once again, you are either unaware of the history and timeline of SMS or are being obtuse with regards the role played by SCC, the local MP and local councillors.

 

Lowe, Cowen and others did a good job delivering the stadium on time and within budget, but you cannot ignore the fact that the new stadium project was rescued by SCC and other parties.

 

 

 

Crouch did not increase players wages.

 

Players wages went up in the period from Jul 07 to Dec 07, at which point the Club was run by Hone & the Executives who had a cabal of 5 votes against 3 Non Execs.

 

 

 

A slight contradiction saying he knows his stuff financially, when in the same sentence you highlight his deficiencies which have cost this Club millions.

 

As CEO/Chairman last time he oversaw some appalling footballing decisions which ultimately cost this Club millions. Matters on and off the pitch are intrinsically linked as can be seen by his decision to go with thos "revolutionary coaching set up".

 

 

 

I think the majority of supporters appreciate the tough position we find ourselves in.

 

However, knowing that doesn't mean you have to blindly accept every decision taken as being "the only option available".

 

The most obvious point in case was dispensing of Pearson and bringing inthe "revolutionary coaching set up".

 

 

 

He indeed made too many poor managerial decisions in his last sojourn, so I think it is perfectly acceptable to be against his reappointment due to this poor track record. A track record that cost us our top flight status on the pitch and millions off of it.

 

You can bluster all you like about getting behind him, but the proof of the pudding is in attendances.

 

The 13,000 there last night shows that many are failing to heed your call either as a conscious decision, or are they are failing to heed your call as they don't find what is being served up as being worthy of their cash.

 

 

 

I have seen 2 1/2 games out of about 11 that have been good. I have seen numerous home defeats or draws. I have only seen one win at home. I have seen us spanked. I have seen us defend like schoolkids and I have seen us unable to hit a barndoor etc etc etc.

 

Sure I appreciate the youngsters skill, effort and willingness, but ultimately that needs to be translated into points. Jan's points per game ratio is still below Pearson's (which was no great shakes BTW).

 

 

So what should have been done then?

 

What was Crouch's Strategy for the future where were going and how were going to pay for it?

[Amesbury Saint]

I get behind the team at all home matches so far. But I regret that I will not get behind the club when the two most divisive elements in its history are running it.

 

Have to agree with almost all you have written . I continue to support the team and club but I wish Lowe leaves and never returns.

[JohnnyFartPants]

Puerile and juvenile. The PLC board chairman only has 6% of the shares, so when you are talking about shareholders' alliances, there are only a couple of them who have anything like a reasonable amount and they are Wilde and Crouch. Everybody else is a small shareholder. Of course it is all in my head, the same as what you said is in your head

 

There will almost certainly have to be a change of board in the event of administration, so if you do not possess enough imagination to foresee that similar changes to the board could take place before that eventuality, then it is you who is lacking something.

 

Forget the rest of your superior rant, lets work on the "only 6%" angle that the Chairman has. Forgive me if I am wrong but he also has the backing of the largest shareholder and many much smaller shareholders. This means that all other shareholders, Crouch aside, will be starting from a much weakened position. It really isnt rocket science. If you can get one of the two in charge now to opt for Crouch then something could change, likewise a new investor could. Otherwise, Wes, please get a window to look from where you can gaze at reality.

[Wes Tender]

Forget the rest of your superior rant, lets work on the "only 6%" angle that the Chairman has. Forgive me if I am wrong but he also has the backing of the largest shareholder and many much smaller shareholders. This means that all other shareholders, Crouch aside, will be starting from a much weakened position. It really isnt rocket science. If you can get one of the two in charge now to opt for Crouch then something could change, likewise a new investor could. Otherwise, Wes, please get a window to look from where you can gaze at reality.

 

I am the one gazing at reality. You are the one wearing the rose-tinted glasses. Wilde has proved already to be capable of turning about and stabbing his former allies in the back. Who is to say that he won't do it again?

 

I am on record as saying on more than one occasion that I would be happiest if they all went.

[Wes Tender]

They weren't pandering to the fans.

 

They and many others were using their shares in a democratic, rational and normal manner to remove a CEO/Chairman and board that had failed to deliver and had cost the Club millions in lost revenue due to a number of very poor decisions (decisions that you yourself criticise later on).

 

Frankly, I'm surprised that given the number of poor decisions and the huge cost to the Club that they weren'te removed earlier.

 

 

 

You are either unaware of the background regarding the Stoneham project or side steeping some very well known events. I can only suggest you can and have a read up about how the goalposts were moved allowing EBC and HCC to start pulling the rug from under the project.

 

 

 

Once again, you are either unaware of the history and timeline of SMS or are being obtuse with regards the role played by SCC, the local MP and local councillors.

 

Lowe, Cowen and others did a good job delivering the stadium on time and within budget, but you cannot ignore the fact that the new stadium project was rescued by SCC and other parties.

 

 

 

Crouch did not increase players wages.

 

Players wages went up in the period from Jul 07 to Dec 07, at which point the Club was run by Hone & the Executives who had a cabal of 5 votes against 3 Non Execs.

 

 

 

A slight contradiction saying he knows his stuff financially, when in the same sentence you highlight his deficiencies which have cost this Club millions.

 

As CEO/Chairman last time he oversaw some appalling footballing decisions which ultimately cost this Club millions. Matters on and off the pitch are intrinsically linked as can be seen by his decision to go with thos "revolutionary coaching set up".

 

 

 

I think the majority of supporters appreciate the tough position we find ourselves in.

 

However, knowing that doesn't mean you have to blindly accept every decision taken as being "the only option available".

 

The most obvious point in case was dispensing of Pearson and bringing inthe "revolutionary coaching set up".

 

 

 

He indeed made too many poor managerial decisions in his last sojourn, so I think it is perfectly acceptable to be against his reappointment due to this poor track record. A track record that cost us our top flight status on the pitch and millions off of it.

 

You can bluster all you like about getting behind him, but the proof of the pudding is in attendances.

 

The 13,000 there last night shows that many are failing to heed your call either as a conscious decision, or are they are failing to heed your call as they don't find what is being served up as being worthy of their cash.

 

 

 

I have seen 2 1/2 games out of about 11 that have been good. I have seen numerous home defeats or draws. I have only seen one win at home. I have seen us spanked. I have seen us defend like schoolkids and I have seen us unable to hit a barndoor etc etc etc.

 

Sure I appreciate the youngsters skill, effort and willingness, but ultimately that needs to be translated into points. Jan's points per game ratio is still below Pearson's (which was no great shakes BTW).

 

 

Thanks UM; it saves me a lot of effort, as you have answered comprehensively all the points that Tom had made in response.

 

Tom28:Wes, your reply to my post was so baffling and full of contradiction, I'm not sure I have the energy to reply to it all. But I'll try..

 

So it seems that although Tom thought that I had somehow contradicted myself, he hasn't proved where yet. As you say, he certainly doesn't appear to know his facts about the Stoneham project. I had taken the trouble to find out about that from speaking to officers at Eastleigh Borough Council and it is indisputable that had not Southampton City Council bailed out Lowe after Stoneham collapsed, we would not have had anywhere to go. Tom says that he prefers St. Mary's to the Stoneham proposal anyway, but Stoneham could have had several other facets to it that would have made it a better investment prospect for a takeover.

 

And just for the record, yes, I did prefer watching those matches under Pearson to those under Poortvliet and believe that had he remained, I reckon that he would have got us higher up the table than Poortvliet, even with the same restrictions and personnel availability. Each to their own, I suppose.

[Goodfellas Jay]

A timewaster.....only kidding

 

Wasting my time watching Saints on TV on the moment it would seem!!!!

 

Banjo, Ass, Cow and Hit...

 

UTS

[um pahars]

So what should have been done then?

 

What was Crouch's Strategy for the future where were going and how were going to pay for it?

 

Well, I imagine keeping Pearson would have been a start.

 

After that, Pearson and Crouch were acutely aware of our financial position and the need to restruture.

 

Here's some words from Pearson, which make it clear that he was aware of the financial constraints he would have to work under, but how he still felt he could improve the team:

 

 

"It will be a combination. The reality is there will be comings and goings, there is no doubt about that.

 

Economics will play a part and there will be some natural wastage as players come to the end of their contracts. Then it will be a case of finding players who fit the bill.

 

We need a side capable of getting success but which fits in with the financial situation. But we are not going to be splashing fortunes on players.

 

Even in the short time I have been here, I have been looking to see if we can get players on loan. Short-term is the immediate priority but I am looking long-term too."

 

 

Crouch's agreement with the bank was essentially the same as what has been agreed by Lowe, in that we have to meet certain milestones, can't breach certain covenants etc etc etc. He would be acutely aware of the repercussions of not meeting the criteria laid down by the bank.

 

And going back to Pearson, he was also up for using the Academy and the youth players in the future (although I doubt he would play as many as Jan did at tmes).

 

 

"A lot of my background is working with youngsters. I worked with the England youth teams for three years and I see the Academy as a massive part of the club.

 

I have worked at clubs where the academy and first-team are separate entities and not integrated at all and those clubs are the poorer for it.

 

If you put the right effort into recruiting and developing the right players then it can save the club a lot of money on transfer fees."

 

 

Quite simply, changing managers, "going for this revolutionary coaching set up", getting in 12+??? new players, team tactics, priorities etc etc etc clearly show that we still have/had options.

 

Whilst conditions may dictate some of the things we can and cannot do, there is enough flexibility to do things differently. Would it be as successful, or even better or worse, who knows, but we did have choices to make (and indeed those at the top made a number of choices).

[John B]

Well, I imagine keeping Pearson would have been a start.

 

After that, Pearson and Crouch were acutely aware of our financial position and the need to restruture.

 

Here's some words from Pearson, which make it clear that he was aware of the financial constraints he would have to work under, but how he still felt he could improve the team:

 

 

"It will be a combination. The reality is there will be comings and goings, there is no doubt about that.

 

Economics will play a part and there will be some natural wastage as players come to the end of their contracts. Then it will be a case of finding players who fit the bill.

 

We need a side capable of getting success but which fits in with the financial situation. But we are not going to be splashing fortunes on players.

 

Even in the short time I have been here, I have been looking to see if we can get players on loan. Short-term is the immediate priority but I am looking long-term too."

 

 

Crouch's agreement with the bank was essentially the same as what has been agreed by Lowe, in that we have to meet certain milestones, can't breach certain covenants etc etc etc. He would be acutely aware of the repercussions of not meeting the criteria laid down by the bank.

 

And going back to Pearson, he was also up for using the Academy and the youth players in the future (although I doubt he would play as many as Jan did at tmes).

 

 

"A lot of my background is working with youngsters. I worked with the England youth teams for three years and I see the Academy as a massive part of the club.

 

I have worked at clubs where the academy and first-team are separate entities and not integrated at all and those clubs are the poorer for it.

 

If you put the right effort into recruiting and developing the right players then it can save the club a lot of money on transfer fees."

 

 

Quite simply, changing managers, "going for this revolutionary coaching set up", getting in 12+??? new players, team tactics, priorities etc etc etc clearly show that we still have/had options.

 

Whilst conditions may dictate some of the things we can and cannot do, there is enough flexibility to do things differently. Would it be as successful, or even better or worse, who knows, but we did have choices to make (and indeed those at the top made a number of choices).

 

 

I am sorry but that does not appear to be a strategy to me so in the absence of anything else I feel I have no alternative but to support Lowe and JP.

[Wes Tender]

I am sorry but that does not appear to be a strategy to me so in the absence of anything else I feel I have no alternative but to support Lowe and JP.

 

Firstly, there are alternatives. If you don't wish to acknowledge them, fine, that is your prerogative.

 

Secondly, because you feel there are no viable alternatives, that does not mean that you have to support Lowe and JP.

 

So now that we know that you are a Lowe supporter, we will take all your posts as being biased in his favour and judge them accordingly.

[up and away]

So it seems that although Tom thought that I had somehow contradicted myself, he hasn't proved where yet. As you say, he certainly doesn't appear to know his facts about the Stoneham project. I had taken the trouble to find out about that from speaking to officers at Eastleigh Borough Council and it is indisputable that had not Southampton City Council bailed out Lowe after Stoneham collapsed, we would not have had anywhere to go. Tom says that he prefers St. Mary's to the Stoneham proposal anyway, but Stoneham could have had several other facets to it that would have made it a better investment prospect for a takeover.

 

You have part of the story, but the important bits you gloss over or fail to acknowledge.

Yes Lowe pulled the plug on Stoneham.

Yes Southampton City Council helped with St Mary's.

 

Lowe pulled the plug on Stoneham because the economics did not stand up. You can bluster on about what could or could not have been done to improve the Stoneham economics, but you have no figures and are just ****ing in the wind. If it made economic sense Lowe would have gone for it, exactly as he did with St Mary's. At the end of the day we ended up with a far better deal at St Mary's and your only concern is that we knocked back a far worse deal at Stoneham? Where exactly are your priorities here?

 

By your analysis we should have moved from the Dell irrespective of cost, priceless.

[John B]

Firstly, there are alternatives. If you don't wish to acknowledge them, fine, that is your prerogative.

 

Secondly, because you feel there are no viable alternatives, that does not mean that you have to support Lowe and JP.

 

So now that we know that you are a Lowe supporter, we will take all your posts as being biased in his favour and judge them accordingly.

 

I know we disagree but I am not a Lowe supporter but unlike you I do not hate him.

 

I support that he is trying to sort out the financial mess like I would have supported Crouch if he had a reasonable strategy.

 

Of course there are alternatives but with out buying out Wilde nothing can be achieved.

 

Perhaps I am more pragmatic than you because with loads of money I always thought relegation from the Premiership was enevitable

Edited 27 November, 2008 by John B

[Wes Tender]

So it seems that although Tom thought that I had somehow contradicted myself, he hasn't proved where yet. As you say, he certainly doesn't appear to know his facts about the Stoneham project. I had taken the trouble to find out about that from speaking to officers at Eastleigh Borough Council and it is indisputable that had not Southampton City Council bailed out Lowe after Stoneham collapsed, we would not have had anywhere to go. Tom says that he prefers St. Mary's to the Stoneham proposal anyway, but Stoneham could have had several other facets to it that would have made it a better investment prospect for a takeover.

 

You have part of the story, but the important bits you gloss over or fail to acknowledge.

Yes Lowe pulled the plug on Stoneham.

Yes Southampton City Council helped with St Mary's.

 

Lowe pulled the plug on Stoneham because the economics did not stand up. You can bluster on about what could or could not have been done to improve the Stoneham economics, but you have no figures and are just ****ing in the wind. If it made economic sense Lowe would have gone for it, exactly as he did with St Mary's. At the end of the day we ended up with a far better deal at St Mary's and your only concern is that we knocked back a far worse deal at Stoneham? Where exactly are your priorities here?

 

By your analysis we should have moved from the Dell irrespective of cost, priceless.

 

You can join Tom as somebody who doesn't know the full inside story about Stoneham, either that or your memory has faded. Lowe didn't pull the plug on Stoneham. Eastleigh Borough Council and Hampshire County Council did. EBC could not allow the two things that Lowe had insisted on to help finance the project; a multi-screen cinema and a shopping centre the size of Asda at Chandlers Ford. There were several other things that could have been allowed permission to help finance the project, but Lowe insisted on those two things and it all fell through. So if you think that Lowe pulled the plug on it, it is you who are p*ssing in the wind.

 

Lowe went for St. Mary's not so much because it made economic sense, but because it was the ONLY option, granted to him by Southampton City Council. Even then he tried to **** them off over that insisting that they pay for some of the infrastructure.

 

If you believe that St. Marys' is better deal than Stoneham would have been, then you're a bigger idiot than I thought.

[John B]

You can join Tom as somebody who doesn't know the full inside story about Stoneham, either that or your memory has faded. Lowe didn't pull the plug on Stoneham. Eastleigh Borough Council and Hampshire County Council did. EBC could not allow the two things that Lowe had insisted on to help finance the project; a multi-screen cinema and a shopping centre the size of Asda at Chandlers Ford. There were several other things that could have been allowed permission to help finance the project, but Lowe insisted on those two things and it all fell through. So if you think that Lowe pulled the plug on it, it is you who are p*ssing in the wind.

 

Lowe went for St. Mary's not so much because it made economic sense, but because it was the ONLY option, granted to him by Southampton City Council. Even then he tried to **** them off over that insisting that they pay for some of the infrastructure.

 

If you believe that St. Marys' is better deal than Stoneham would have been, then you're a bigger idiot than I thought.

 

Perhaps he lives near St Mary's and it is convenient for him

[um pahars]

Yes Lowe pulled the plug on Stoneham.

 

Once again your lack of knowledge of a particular area is shown to be so wanting?

 

Lowe did not pull the plug on Stoneham.

 

You either have no knowledge on this subject and are just making it up as you go along, or you have a very poor memory.

 

Go away and do some research before you add to debates about which you have no knowledge.

[Guided Missile]

Independent, The (London), Oct 26, 1998

 

Plans to construct a new 25,000-seat stadium at Stoneham, near junction five of the M27 and close to Southampton airport, have been under discussion for eight years but last week, Eastleigh Council, the authority within which the proposed site lies, effectively refused permission for the project by rejecting proposals for commercial facilities that would accompany the stadium. "It is all very well saying "yes" to community facilities and stadia if you say "no" to the financial engine to create them," Lowe said in Saturday's programme notes. The council, while not opposing a "community stadium" - for athletics, gymnastics and county sports events as well as football - in principle, have rejected plans by Southampton Leisure Holdings plc (the company that owns the football club) to build a supermarket and multiplex cinema alongside their proposed new ground at Stoneham to add commercial viability to the plan. The Dell - maximum capacity, 15,000 - is simply not big enough to sustain a Premiership football club, with all its attendant financial demands for transfer fees and wages, in the current era, and Lowe, a businessman with a background in the City, is now looking to an alternative site, a disused gasworks, in the St Mary's area of the city. "We will submit a detailed planning application within two to three weeks as part of an ongoing process designed to deliver a new stadium as soon as is humanly possible," Lowe said.

Edited 27 November, 2008 by Guided Missile

[up and away]

You can join Tom as somebody who doesn't know the full inside story about Stoneham, either that or your memory has faded. Lowe didn't pull the plug on Stoneham. Eastleigh Borough Council and Hampshire County Council did. EBC could not allow the two things that Lowe had insisted on to help finance the project; a multi-screen cinema and a shopping centre the size of Asda at Chandlers Ford. There were several other things that could have been allowed permission to help finance the project, but Lowe insisted on those two things and it all fell through. So if you think that Lowe pulled the plug on it, it is you who are p*ssing in the wind.

 

Lowe went for St. Mary's not so much because it made economic sense, but because it was the ONLY option, granted to him by Southampton City Council. Even then he tried to **** them off over that insisting that they pay for some of the infrastructure.

 

If you believe that St. Marys' is better deal than Stoneham would have been, then you're a bigger idiot than I thought.

 

Without getting into the long winded explanation, I just accepted that the reason the Stoneham Stadium never went ahead was because of Lowe. I have clearly stated in the past (even to your myopic self), that the finances did not stack up at Stoneham and Lowe insisted upon the additional requirements to make those finances stack up. Eastleigh Council refused the additional options and the Lowe walked away because it failed the financial conditions without those options.

 

As for your second assumption regarding St Mary's, Lowe went for St Mary's because it made economic sense, if it did not we would have remained at the Dell.

 

There was only one criteria for moving from the Dell and that was it had to make financial sense. If it never made financial sense, there would be no move. How dumb do you have to be just to understand that basic concept?

[um pahars]

Independent, The (London), Oct 26, 1998

 

Plans to construct a new 25,000-seat stadium at Stoneham, near junction five of the M27 and close to Southampton airport, have been under discussion for eight years but last week, Eastleigh Council, the authority within which the proposed site lies, effectively refused permission for the project by rejecting proposals for commercial facilities that would accompany the stadium. "It is all very well saying "yes" to community facilities and stadia if you say "no" to the financial engine to create them," Lowe said in Saturday's programme notes. The council, while not opposing a "community stadium" - for athletics, gymnastics and county sports events as well as football - in principle, have rejected plans by Southampton Leisure Holdings plc (the company that owns the football club) to build a supermarket and multiplex cinema alongside their proposed new ground at Stoneham to add commercial viability to the plan. The Dell - maximum capacity, 15,000 - is simply not big enough to sustain a Premiership football club, with all its attendant financial demands for transfer fees and wages, in the current era, and Lowe, a businessman with a background in the City, is now looking to an alternative site, a disused gasworks, in the St Mary's area of the city. "We will submit a detailed planning application within two to three weeks as part of an ongoing process designed to deliver a new stadium as soon as is humanly possible," Lowe said.

 

 

Thanks for clearing that up GM and good to hear you're back safe and sound!!!!

 

It's a well established fact that EBC and HCC between them pulled the plug on the Stoneham Project, for a number of reasons (and not all of them just linked directly to the extra bits added on by Lowe).

[Guided Missile]

Thanks for clearing that up GM and good to hear you're back safe and sound!!!!

 

It's a well established fact that EBC and HCC between them pulled the plug on the Stoneham Project, for a number of reasons (and not all of them just linked directly to the extra bits added on by Lowe).

Actually, I know Keith House quite well and he told me that EBC were prepared to approve the stadium and associated sports facilities but it was the shopping/multiplex cinema part that they refused to permit, so Lowe pulled the plug on the application (ie didn't resubmit with amendments) and pursued St. Marys instead.

Eastleigh were worried about the effect that additional shops and a cinema would have on the "vibrant" Eastleigh Town Centre.

[Wes Tender]

Without getting into the long winded explanation, I just accepted that the reason the Stoneham Stadium never went ahead was because of Lowe. I have clearly stated in the past (even to your myopic self), that the finances did not stack up at Stoneham and Lowe insisted upon the additional requirements to make those finances stack up. Eastleigh Council refused the additional options and the Lowe walked away because it failed the financial conditions without those options.

 

As for your second assumption regarding St Mary's, Lowe went for St Mary's because it made economic sense, if it did not we would have remained at the Dell.

 

There was only one criteria for moving from the Dell and that was it had to make financial sense. If it never made financial sense, there would be no move. How dumb do you have to be just to understand that basic concept?

 

You refuse to admit here that you have had the ground taken from under your feet by GM and Um as well as me. The two things mentioned in the article that GM kindly posted would never be allowable, especially as EBC had plans to site the cinema at the Swan Centre (it is currently under construction there) and it would have been commercial suicide to have also had such a large retail facility so close to the Town centre. For all Lowe's supposed business accumen, he was extremely naive about wanting those two things. Instead, as I have listed before, there were several things that EBC would have allowed, such as a large 4* Hotel, a Bowling Alley, Ice Rink, Night Club, Plant Hollywood or similar, a large Sports superstore, etc. Without those things, it would have been just a stadium, whereas what do we have now? Just a stadium.

 

Lowe went for St Mary's because he had fallen out with EBC and his ego didn't allow him to eat humble pie. He went for St Mary's because The Dell was too small and there was no other alternative to the site offered to him by Southampton city Council to save his bacon.

 

But as for financial viability of the two projects, kindly explain to me why just a stadium is viable financially at St. Mary's, but just a stadium is not financially viable at Stoneham? It wasn't a case with Stoneham of mere financial viability; it was a case of a stonking profit that he wanted and probably jobs for the boys with the development along the way too. But as mentioned, the Stoneham project could have been so much more had Lowe not fallen out with EBC through his arrogance and getting up the noses of those who he needed to get onside.

 

How dumb do you have to be not to see all this?

[70's Mike]

Thanks for clearing that up GM and good to hear you're back safe and sound!!!!

 

It's a well established fact that EBC and HCC between them pulled the plug on the Stoneham Project, for a number of reasons (and not all of them just linked directly to the extra bits added on by Lowe).

 

if i remember correctly did the skate leader of HCC " Emery Wallis " also do everything he could to oppose stoneham, plus the residents

[up and away]

Originally Posted by Guided Missile

Independent, The (London), Oct 26, 1998

 

Plans to construct a new 25,000-seat stadium at Stoneham, near junction five of the M27 and close to Southampton airport, have been under discussion for eight years but last week, Eastleigh Council, the authority within which the proposed site lies, effectively refused permission for the project by rejecting proposals for commercial facilities that would accompany the stadium. "It is all very well saying "yes" to community facilities and stadia if you say "no" to the financial engine to create them," Lowe said in Saturday's programme notes. The council, while not opposing a "community stadium" - for athletics, gymnastics and county sports events as well as football - in principle, have rejected plans by Southampton Leisure Holdings plc (the company that owns the football club) to build a supermarket and multiplex cinema alongside their proposed new ground at Stoneham to add commercial viability to the plan. The Dell - maximum capacity, 15,000 - is simply not big enough to sustain a Premiership football club, with all its attendant financial demands for transfer fees and wages, in the current era, and Lowe, a businessman with a background in the City, is now looking to an alternative site, a disused gasworks, in the St Mary's area of the city. "We will submit a detailed planning application within two to three weeks as part of an ongoing process designed to deliver a new stadium as soon as is humanly possible," Lowe said.

Thanks for clearing that up GM and good to hear you're back safe and sound!!!!

 

It's a well established fact that EBC and HCC between them pulled the plug on the Stoneham Project, for a number of reasons (and not all of them just linked directly to the extra bits added on by Lowe).

 

It just gets better and better, but secret squirrel "um a load of sheite" knows of many other reasons, unable to divulge until the time limit on the official secrets act (Eastleigh branch) has expired. You'd better thank GM again for "clearing that up".

How you can look through that article and completely bypass the fact that Eastleigh Council were happy to approve the stadium, but Lowe could not afford the finances in that scenario. It must be the reading between the lines that caused all the confusion so let me help.

 

"It is all very well saying "yes" to community facilities and stadia if you say "no" to the financial engine to create them,"

The council, while not opposing a "community stadium" - for athletics, gymnastics and county sports events as well as football - in principle.have rejected plans by Southampton Leisure Holdings plc (the company that owns the football club) to build a supermarket and multiplex cinema alongside their proposed new ground at Stoneham to add commercial viability to the plan.

 

effectively refused permission for the project by rejecting proposals for commercial facilities that would accompany the stadium.

 

This abandonment of logic, common sense or even fact when confronted with anything connected to Lowe, just emphasises the stupidity of your position.

[saint1977]

if i remember correctly did the skate leader of HCC " Emery Wallis " also do everything he could to oppose stoneham' date=' plus the residents[/quote']

 

Didn't he end up doing a spell in HMP? Have to say, that idiot residents' association got a lovely alternative to SMS! Couldn't have happened to a nicer set of people.

[um pahars]

Actually, I know Keith House quite well and he told me that EBC were prepared to approve the stadium and associated sports facilities but it was the shopping/multiplex cinema part that they refused to permit, so Lowe pulled the plug on the application (ie didn't resubmit with amendments) and pursued St. Marys instead.

Eastleigh were worried about the effect that additional shops and a cinema would have on the "vibrant" Eastleigh Town Centre.

 

And at that time I spent many a long phone call talking to Keith House.

 

If my memory is right he was living in Hedge End at the time and at one point he was moaning about Green Belt land being used. I did point out that Hedge End was a few farms until his and other houses had been built on it and in usual politician style he sort of waffled on and on and on (but that's a seperate story).

 

EBC had swayed to and fro with regards the stadium, and as Full Time At The Dell states that in 1997, "Eastleigh, under the leadership of of Keith House, were now getting enthusiastic about it".

 

As you say the notion of adding bits on certainly didn't appeal to EBC (particularly when they had their own ideas for a cinema and other bits), but that was just Lowe trying to get greedy.

 

The numbers worked without these new add ons which EBC didn't like and there were other ways of generating the extra revenue required to make it work (yes U & A, I did see quite a few of the documents, including the novel idea of having SCC, the Club and others running it as a joint venture which got it over a number of public funding hurdles), Lowe just thought he saw an opportunity to make some extra money.

 

The final problem came when the Liberals lost power at HCC in 1997 and the Conservatives (who had always been against the development) took over in Winchester.

 

Hunt, the builder/Director was heavily involved in finding a new stadium and in the same book it says:

 

"Hunt is fully convinced that, had the Liberl Democrats remained the majority party in Hampshire, Stoneham would have gone through, but as soon as HCC came under Conservative conrol .......... 'It wasn't dead, but it was most unlikely to go ahead' ".

 

The book goes on to say that despite the setbacks, "The board had not given up on Stoneham", and whilst Stoneham was still being comtemplated (despite it appearing increasingly remote), Hunt explains that "SCC stepped in and said, 'you aren't going to get anywhere with this' and offered us the St Mary's site".

 

Llowe and the board did not pull the plug on Stoneham, it was effectively kibsohed by the Tory controlled HCC, and the Club were still actively trying to find ways of getting it done when Arnold, Whitehead and others offered them the gasworks.

Edited 27 November, 2008 by um pahars

[NickG]

so are we moving to Stoneham?

[um pahars]

But as for financial viability of the two projects, kindly explain to me why just a stadium is viable financially at St. Mary's, but just a stadium is not financially viable at Stoneham? It wasn't a case with Stoneham of mere financial viability; it was a case of a stonking profit that he wanted

 

Absolutely.

 

Stoneham was financially viable before these extras were added on by Lowe, it's just he and others thought it would be even more lucrative with these extra bits bolted on. In a way I can't fault him for trying!!!!!

 

EBC would probably have been OK (or at least they were warming to the idea) to the lesser commercial development, but once HCC went to the Tories, they were never going to pass it.

 

As Hunt mentions, the Club were still hoping Stoneham might come off right up until SCC bailed them out.

[miserableoldgit]

I remember Keith House being interviewed on local TV on the evening of one of the last meetings between the Club and the Council and he said " We want our cake and we want to eat it" in other words they wanted all of the facilities that were to be provided in the developement but were not prepared to allow any "financial engine" to help fund it. Lowe can be blamed for some of the failure for Stoneham, but Eastleigh played their part too.

[master]

Some of the comments in this thread crack me up. I cannot believe that people think its a good idea to boycott the club because of who is in charge. As another poster mentioned its not just Wilde and lowe running SFC. To stay away and probably increase the chance of administration is absolute lunacy and cannot be in the "Best interests of the club"

 

So you don't like Lowe or Wilde. SO Fecking what, the livelyhood of the team you support is in jeapordy and all you want to do is boycott the club to try to make some mute point that no one really gives a toss about anyway. At times like this the club needs every single supporter even if you don't like the people in charge. Get behind your TEAM, the players, the coaching staff etc etc NOT the people running the PLC.

If you love the club as much as you claim to then you will put your hate and dislikes aside for the greater good.

[docker-p]

The point is why should fans pay big money to watch ****? Why should they support the club when the best players are sent out on loan to rivals? Now if Lowe hadn't treated the fans as customers maybe more would be sympathetic and support the club despite this. But he's behaved like a **** for 10 years and now he is being treated like one.

 

Worth repeating.

[Wes Tender]

It just gets better and better, but secret squirrel "um a load of sheite" knows of many other reasons, unable to divulge until the time limit on the official secrets act (Eastleigh branch) has expired. You'd better thank GM again for "clearing that up".

How you can look through that article and completely bypass the fact that Eastleigh Council were happy to approve the stadium, but Lowe could not afford the finances in that scenario. It must be the reading between the lines that caused all the confusion so let me help.

 

This abandonment of logic, common sense or even fact when confronted with anything connected to Lowe, just emphasises the stupidity of your position.

 

What the heck are you waffling on about now? Kindly explain to us all how a stadium at Stoneham without add-ons is not financially viable, whereas one at St Mary's is? In fact, Stoneham could have had add-ons as I have already explained, but of course they were not the ones that Lowe wanted.

 

I just know that you've lost the argument because of the bluster and hot air that you're putting out.