Window Cleaner Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 We're clearly being buttered up for the sale of someone. Good, you're always telling us how crap they are so if we can offload someone you'll have one less to moan about.
saint1977 Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 And you are not an impartial poster I would have thought However the mismanagement by the previous regime has caused the financial situation we are in today True but it was mismanagement by ALL regimes 2004-present if we're being honest John. Mismanagement doesn't just equate to overspending on wages, it can be a lack of focus and overspending on unnecessary overheads in the first parachute season (2005/6) or bad appointments (Wilde, Crouch, Lowe please step forward). I'm not particuarly pro-Crouch either but let's not re-write history.
Scudamore Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 We're clearly being buttered up for the sale of someone. How is that buttering up? Butter up - Excessively praise or flatter someone, usually to gain a favour.
aintforever Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 How is that buttering up? Butter up - Excessively praise or flatter someone, usually to gain a favour. Lowe will obviously get less grief if he flogs Surman if the fans think we are knocking on the door of admin. It may be that we are that ****ed and do need to sell, but it could also be the case that our financial situation is being made to sound worse than it is.
Scudamore Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 Lowe will obviously get less grief if he flogs Surman if the fans think we are knocking on the door of admin. It may be that we are that ****ed and do need to sell, but it could also be the case that our financial situation is being made to sound worse than it is. And clubs knowing we're on the verge of administration means we'll get more money for our star players?
WealdSaint Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 I suspect that the Daily Mail article originated from Lowe. What will be interesting is how all the shadowy shareholders that have backed Lowe will react. Were they to be contacted by Crouch, Fulthrope etc etc. with a minimal offer for their shares (which will be worthless come March) would they sell?
broncoboy Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 Seems to me unless we raise £1.5 million by player sales or so we are going to be driven into administration. Falling gates as we flounder around on the pitch. Barclays in deep **** surely means that unless we can allieviate some of the debt we are bound to go into administration. The board will then have to take the decision as to whether they put their own money in.
John B Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 True but it was mismanagement by ALL regimes 2004-present if we're being honest John. Mismanagement doesn't just equate to overspending on wages, it can be a lack of focus and overspending on unnecessary overheads in the first parachute season (2005/6) or bad appointments (Wilde, Crouch, Lowe please step forward). I'm not particuarly pro-Crouch either but let's not re-write history. Yes I agree but mostly since 2006
St Paul Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 The rules as I understand them is the following: After a certain date the 10 point deduction is in effect suspended. If the Club would have gone down anyway without the 10 point deduction, then it's applied to the follwing season. If the Club would be safe, then the 10 points are added this season,meaning you have to finish 11 points above the relegation zone. Not sure when the cut off date is. As for Sale, I have a mate who works for a Press agency, he's told me before anything Sale says comes from Rupert, as they know each other quite well. Dont have any proof, but he does work in the press.
aintforever Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 And clubs knowing we're on the verge of administration means we'll get more money for our star players? I don't think that article would have any effect on the price of our players, the price would mainly be effected by how many and which clubs are interested.
ART Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 He's allegedly quite close to Rupert isn't he? Or am I completely wrong? It seems to ring a bell with me anyway. There's not really anything new here, apart from the specific mention of 'the third week in March'. I don't know if it's based on anything inparticular? Anyway, make of it what you will: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1125028/Charles-Sale-Premier-League-turn-Hero-Fund-cash-villain.html Lowe point for Southampton Southampton's beleaguered chairman Rupert Lowe, who regained a club left in financial meltdown by the chronic mismanagement of the regime that forced him out of office, will have to make a major decision by the third week of March. That is whether to put the club into administration and take the Football League’s 10-point penalty this season. Southampton, whose bank Barclays are threatening to reduce their overdraft facility considerably, have to find extra monies by the end of next month to keep afloat. He is no doubt referring to the Ides of March, the starting day of the third week As many on here will know, it is a time in the Calender each year at St Mary's when back stabbing and assassinations loom overpoweringly on the horizon. Caesar has not doubt learned from history and intends to stick in the knife and finish it all off once and for always.
Saint_John Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 Dunc, do you (or anyone else for that matter) actually know how close Sale is to Lowe? You obviously seem to think it's accurate and as i said in my original post, i remember talk about it previously, but can't remember specifics. Minty - I do not know for certain but I think if we trawled through everything he has written it has usually been consistently pro-Lowe and times to help his side of things. I also seem to remember people on here or previous forums making more factual linkages between the two. Perhaps others will help out later. You can get to some of the Radleian Society records online :- http://www.radley.org.uk/or/ORs/index.html You can find Lowe and Cowan in the class of 1971. There was a J R Sale in 1977, I don't know if it is "Charles". Is the J.H Marland from 1964, the same Marland who is a friend of rupes ?
SimonRichards Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 I met a Daily Mail sports jurno at a wedding 18 months ago. I asked him what he knew about sfc (this was during all the speculaion on paul Allen etc). He replyed that he was very good friends with Rupert Lowe. This guys was called Matthew. I've text the wife to find out his surname as it's her directors brother-in-law. Matthew Lawton.
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 Where did I hear that assumption is the mother of all f**k-ups..? 'Under Siege 2' A very worthy and important maxim by which to run one's life. Penn: Ryback's gone, Dane. Travis Dane: Did you see the body? Assumption is the mother of all F**K UPS!
Scudamore Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 I don't think that article would have any effect on the price of our players, the price would mainly be effected by how many and which clubs are interested. Bollock.s. It weakens our position if clubs know we're in dire need of getting money in...
SimonRichards Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 I met a Daily Mail sports jurno at a wedding 18 months ago. I asked him what he knew about sfc (this was during all the speculaion on paul Allen etc). He replyed that he was very good friends with Rupert Lowe. This guys was called Matthew. I've text the wife to find out his surname as it's her directors brother-in-law. Matthew Lawton Matthew Lawton.
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 Who the hell reads the Daily Mail anyway? There's not even any t:ts (Rupert Lowe aside) in there... Oi! I read the Mail (and The Times). Well, I look at the pictures anyway.
saintgert76 Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 Didn't Ken Bates do womething very similar at Leeds?
St Landrew Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 'Under Siege 2' A very worthy and important maxim by which to run one's life. Penn: Ryback's gone, Dane. Travis Dane: Did you see the body? Assumption is the mother of all F**K UPS! Yes..! I remember when I first heard that line, I thought... that's good, I like that. Because it's true. Tap that line into Google nowadays, and you'll be surprised how far it has travelled.
Chez Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 seeing as Mr Sale and Lowe are best buds you can take it as red that these are Lowe's words. This is therefore the first time we have heard the term `administration' from Lowe's mouth and tells me is that we are about to undersell Surman and/or Lallana or we have recieved no serious bids for either so are indeed going into administration. The only other reason I can think of for this article would be to explain why we can't afford to bring in anyone else or to sack the manager.
dubai_phil Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 I thought he was reported as saying that 'today would be the day' (I'm paraphrasing). Something Dubai Phil heard, I think :smt102 It's what he said to Cowen in public in the reception area of Hospitality on Saturday. I laughed as well
SaintRobbie Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 Sounds like Rupert wrote this himself. Cut and paste job. Of course it is. You can tell by the daft attack against the previous regime and attempt to absolve the man who put us in this position in the first place. Lowe really is a very evil, dishonest and self-interested man.
SaintRobbie Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 Why can't Lowe say... 'unless we find a buyer?' Why does Lowe want to kill this Club? What are his true motives? Do you trust his motives? DO WE TRUST THIS MAN?
Ponty Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 Robbie, you have to take into account that if we go into admin Lowe's shares become worthless. Add that to him not being able to guarantee being able to buy the club outright (it could happen - scary - but it won't be his decision. Someone could offer the administrators more money) and there's no tangible reason why Lowe would want the club to do anything other than survive and grow.
hypochondriac Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 I believe if it was a choice between say selling his shares to leon and backers or voluntary admin he would choose admin. That sort of attitude is worrying
aintforever Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 Bollock.s. It weakens our position if clubs know we're in dire need of getting money in... Then why do you think Rupert got his mate to release the information then?
SFKA South Woodford Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 Maybe, now is the time for us all to club together and buy the club from the administrators. We could then offer to do the £1 deal with someone who has the money to take the club forward, with a proviso of continuing investment for a set period of time. And yes, I do know that we couldn't furnish the clubs debts, or even offer a decent percentage in the pound, but it may be worth a shot. If 30,000 people could put in an average of £200, that would amount to a decent fund.
landford.saint Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 I believe if it was a choice between say selling his shares to leon and backers or voluntary admin he would choose admin. That sort of attitude is worrying Lowe has already shown this attitude by the Pearson /Portaloo decision. What I am trying to fathom out is Lowe's motivation. Is it purely egotism, or hatred of Crouch et al. Is it a desire to come back to a position he was ousted from and try to prove to those who ousted him he was right. Or is it financial. But how financial if it goes into Admin. It does not make sense. The only assets we have are the ground, but who wants to buy a second hand football stadium. The land on which its built is leased i beleive. The players, who to be honest in a case of a fire sale are virtually worthless (some of Luton players ended up at Salisbury) Luton got virtually nothing for the players they had to get rid of. Jacksons Farm, reading the bit on administration it states that the Adminstrator must get the best deal on 'property' to pay the major debtors, this woul I guess be Barclys overdraft or bigger debt Aviva for the stadium. So Lowe wouldn't get his hands on that (unless of course his building co. did the work) or purchased the land with all proceeds going to the debtor, I just dont get what is in it for Lowe, he is almost universally disliked by the fans, some of the board according to reports dont like him. Apart from pure pigheadedness Whats in it for Lowe? That I believe is the key to this whole thing
stanthemanfairoak Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 Who the hell reads the Daily Mail anyway? There's not even any t:ts (Rupert Lowe aside) in there...tories and masons of which lowe is both
OldNick Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 The bickering whether he is a friend is pretty pathetic when the underlying message is far more important to me. Administration is banded about as such a non event and it will make the club change hands. If you want people who are waiting for us to go into administration before taing us on, then you are foolish beyond belief. I as a fan would move heaven and high water to buy the club and keep us from the uncertainty of -10 and almost certain relegation if I had the means to do so. RL etc is no angel but I dont want to see another set of 'carpet baggers' rolling up to pick at the bones of the club. All those fighting with stewards and the ones holding up banners have seen nothing compared to people who will take every penny in fees they can and live off the clubs back as long as they can before selling us to the next purchaser, who will be left with what. The whole rotten bunch at the club need cleaning out lock stock and barrel, but not through Administration. The only people hurt then would be staff and fans, not the greedy hangers on who have supped at the pool for decades.
OldNick Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 Why can't Lowe say... 'unless we find a buyer?' Why does Lowe want to kill this Club? What are his true motives? Do you trust his motives? DO WE TRUST THIS MAN?It may be to try and shake a buyer out of the woodwork.
trousers Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 The whole rotten bunch at the club need cleaning out lock stock and barrel, but not through Administration. $64,000 question: How else?
OldNick Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 $64,000 question: How else?One of the tyre kickers actually stumping up the cash.
Redondo Saint Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 Maybe this is why portaloo is still here, if we don't win a game for the next month then everyone will be desperate for us to go into admin and take the points deduction this season so we have a better chance next year. Lowe will then buy the club back from the admins for next to nothing and have total control without the need of Wilde etc. Buying the club is the least of the issues - it is servicing the debts and generating income to cover the overhead. Keep in mind Lowe has a relatively small shareholding.
trousers Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 one of the tyre kickers actually stumping up the cash. Exactly...so that just leaves administration then.....
up and away Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 Seems to me unless we raise £1.5 million by player sales or so we are going to be driven into administration. Falling gates as we flounder around on the pitch. Barclays in deep **** surely means that unless we can allieviate some of the debt we are bound to go into administration. The board will then have to take the decision as to whether they put their own money in. Things are far worse than that, I doubt that sort of money now would change the banks intent. The club had to get the bank to buy into things long term over several years, such that sales from the youth players would be able to remove our overdraft. This was not a one year plan as soon as we failed to get fees or sell the high earners, compound that with no big offers for the other young talent and decreasing gates. I don't believe they have enough / prepared to put in enough to save us. Barclays and the economy in general are in deep trouble and they will be looking to extricate themselves pretty soon, irrespective of what we now do. Even if we take the point deduction this season, I still feel we will get hit with a deduction for not agreeing our CVA in time. In the case of Leeds they started the next season with -15 points, so I am not sure exactly what the position would be come the start of next season. If we are looking at that sort of points deduction this season the arguments regarding Poortvliet and Pearson will become irrelevant and it will be our finacial mismanagement that has done for us.
wild-saint Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 NOt sure I believe this story to be honest. The way I see it Barclas have nthing to gain by witdrawing thier support of the overdraught as we have no saleable assets that would allow them to reclaim their money. In reality £6m is small for barclays and they are more likely to leave us be and hop that we improve on the field, hence the attendances go up and then repayment is more likely. Just dont see what is achieved by withdrawing support. Anyoe agree or am I being to simplistic / unrealistic?
aintforever Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 NOt sure I believe this story to be honest. The way I see it Barclas have nthing to gain by witdrawing thier support of the overdraught as we have no saleable assets that would allow them to reclaim their money. In reality £6m is small for barclays and they are more likely to leave us be and hop that we improve on the field, hence the attendances go up and then repayment is more likely. Just dont see what is achieved by withdrawing support. Anyoe agree or am I being to simplistic / unrealistic? It says "threatening to reduce" which could mean anything. As we have just brought in 2 new players and given Smith a contract I cant see how admin is that near.
OldNick Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 Exactly...so that just leaves administration then..... No it doesnt.just because the paper says we might doesnt mean QED at all. RL may well keep the banks onside. The revenue i assume has been paid up and so we have a chance.players may well be sold and we may be softened up for the sale of KD.i personally would rather AS or AL be sold ahead of him at this time, but players will be sold now to save us 10 points or sold for a snip when we do into admin as well as getting 10 points.The much vaunted Wilde bunch, who I argued against but was sneered at by many, including our more depressing/critical fans on here, got us nowhere and subsequent suitors were all talk as well. Many also pour scorn on the fact that the former people who ran the club after RL was ousted lost the opportunity of the clubs BIGGEST opportunity in our history. LC,LM a respected financial journalist (not connected with football), Sky sports, Jones and people from RL's camp all confirmed that indeed PA was there. Mary Corbett even got on a plane to visit a friend who knew him to try and resurrect the deal.Now if we were to have fans causing mayhem that was the time when the clubs biigest **** up happened,the relegation pales into insignificence compared to that. Again people will scoff but I have heard too much from too many people who knew about the deal/things going on to disbelieve.i said at the time that it was in the boards interest to put a smokescreen up as the fans would never forgive them, for once they did a bloody good job because many on here shout the idea down and so it gets washed over. By the way Lowe out as he has kept jan.
thefuriousb Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 CVAs have not been granted in the past as HMRC have resolutely refused to accept the terms put forward in coming out of administration. HMRC are not one of the creditors so a CVA is far more likely. That being so, then the only points penatly will be the 10 we forego by going into admin iin the first place.
um pahars Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 The bickering whether he is a friend is pretty pathetic when the underlying message is far more important to me. You've missed the point here nickh, because in establishing that Sale is indeed Lowe's mouthpiece at The Mail it shows that Lowe is OK that this has gone into print. His motives for doing so and it's importance (or not) are then up for grabs, but knowing he is OK with it being aired sets the context for the debate that follows. Again people will scoff but I have heard too much from too many people who knew about the deal/things going on to disbelieve. Afraid I will have to scoff then nickh. Paul Allen was never in the ball game.
Mole Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 He's allegedly quite close to Rupert isn't he? Or am I completely wrong? It seems to ring a bell with me anyway. There's not really anything new here, apart from the specific mention of 'the third week in March'. I don't know if it's based on anything inparticular? Anyway, make of it what you will: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1125028/Charles-Sale-Premier-League-turn-Hero-Fund-cash-villain.html Lowe point for Southampton Southampton's beleaguered chairman Rupert Lowe, who regained a club left in financial meltdown by the chronic mismanagement of the regime that forced him out of office, will have to make a major decision by the third week of March. That is whether to put the club into administration and take the Football League’s 10-point penalty this season. Southampton, whose bank Barclays are threatening to reduce their overdraft facility considerably, have to find extra monies by the end of next month to keep afloat. Good old Charlie publishes what Lowe tells him to again. You've got to laugh how Lowe still accepts no blame though. That said it no longer matters who did what and when as Lowe and Wilde will soon lose all their investments in Saints and they'll both be gone. Happy days.
Mole Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 And clubs knowing we're on the verge of administration means we'll get more money for our star players? A five year old with an abacus couldv'e worked out we'd be going into administration a long time ago. I've been saying it for months. It's not rocket science when you look at the facts, i.e we are losing money month on month. Every clubs chairman in England will have know about our destiny for a long time.
um pahars Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 All I'm saying is that he may have misestimated the true potential of the academy without Georges Prost. I think he has always overestimated the true potential of our Academy!! It was always trotted out that we have this great Academy that will solve all of our ills, when in reality it was on a par with many others up and down the country. It was an intangible that was never able to be pinned down. It served us well for the odd player either in the first team or money brought in, but it was never going to solve all of our problems.
OldNick Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 You've missed the point here nickh, because in establishing that Sale is indeed Lowe's mouthpiece at The Mail it shows that Lowe is OK that this has gone into print. His motives for doing so and it's importance (or not) are then up for grabs, but knowing he is OK with it being aired sets the context for the debate that follows. Afraid I will have to scoff then nickh. Paul Allen was never in the ball game.I respect your opinion UMp but I have heard that he was from too many close to the deal to agree with you.Your scoffing (although not as scathing as normal, you're going soft mate) will serve the old board well. they came away unscathed and to my surprise it dissapted without a whimper.I put it down to us Saints fans always expecting to be let down.
OldNick Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 You've missed the point here nickh, because in establishing that Sale is indeed Lowe's mouthpiece at The Mail it shows that Lowe is OK that this has gone into print. .And whose purpose is that to serve then ? There are many scenarios I would think of for him to give that a go ahead, most to be wide of the mark I suspect but if RL wants it to be commonly known it will be for a reason.
um pahars Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 I respect your opinion UMp but I have heard that he was from too many close to the deal to agree with you.Your scoffing (although not as scathing as normal, you're going soft mate) will serve the old board well. they came away unscathed and to my surprise it dissapted without a whimper.I put it down to us Saints fans always expecting to be let down. Knowing Lowe, do you really think he would let it go unpublished that those who he replaced had fcked up such a deal??? Not a chance, he would have been waving it from the rooftops, way ahead of their incompetence with regards the finances. It would be his ultimate stick to beat them with. I have no idea who you have spoken to, but Paul Allen was nowhere near us a couple of summers ago. You need to go and ask some questions about Tom McCloughlin and his role in the whole affair. It's fantasy stuff.
um pahars Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 And whose purpose is that to serve then ? There are many scenarios I would think of for him to give that a go ahead, most to be wide of the mark I suspect but if RL wants it to be commonly known it will be for a reason. And that's exactly what I'm saying. It was not pathetic to state that Sale is Lowe's mouthpiece (which I'm sure is not known by all on here BTW), because by stating it it made sure we all understood the context in which that piece was published, ie that it has come from Lowe. I'm not sure whether it's preparing for players to be sold, a diversionary tactic to take the heat off an incompetent manager, or whatever, but we know it has been put out to serve Lowe's interests.
Mole Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 Originally Posted by Saint Marc FWIW I heard that Wilde resigned because there was too much media and fan pressure focusing on the investment issue and that this was putting the whole Board under pressure. He resigned to take the heat off the club and its executives and allow them to get on with the job while he carried on working on the investment issue in the background and out of the spotlight. The statement that he resigned because of a failure to raise finance was only issued to try and reduce fans unrealistic expectations. IMO, it was through Wilde's efforts, that PA was clearly aware that his approach would be welcomed rather than shunned and this is a big factor when looking at a potential acquisition. We now know that PA had contact with the club several months ago, before MW's resignation. IMO it is down to Wilde that we now have this opportunity to stabilise and secure the long term future of the club. If this takeover goes through I think we all owe him bigtime.
dubai_phil Posted 21 January, 2009 Posted 21 January, 2009 You've missed the point here nickh, because in establishing that Sale is indeed Lowe's mouthpiece at The Mail it shows that Lowe is OK that this has gone into print. His motives for doing so and it's importance (or not) are then up for grabs, but knowing he is OK with it being aired sets the context for the debate that follows. Afraid I will have to scoff then nickh. Paul Allen was never in the ball game. I wonder...... I try and analyse things and remove the emotion from it, sometimes I get close, sometimes I'm miles away. But what I see here is a very simple and very clear message. So who is it aimed at? Possibly at the fans, preparing us for the prospect of a bad last week in the transfer window Possibly at somebody stalling in some other field - the only example I could think of would be our resident comedy act - the Fulthorpe bid Possibly even to push some pressure back onto the bank who may be trying to play hardball on the overdraft - after all it's Barclays who are in HOW MUCH sh1t? Maybe, just maybe (oh how I HOPE) it's to do with trying to set expectations for levels of comepnsation for (soon) to be redundant ex coaching staff OR to try and get a replacement teams salary ambitions down The only way to try and see this stuff and make any sense is to take away the first and obvious reaction that everything is the work of a psychotic. So, if it was 2 or 3 above - by f**k I hope it has worked Rupert, if it is 4 then to be honest a week's delay may cost us more than he saves. If it is 1, then better go find the tin hats chaps and chappesses because the next few days to the end of the window could be melt down time As for the PA story. It's gonna make a good book one day when we get all the pieces
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now