Scudamore Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I assume the continual stream of trolling is because neither of you have a point to make ? GM was inferring that none of us have the right to make judgements about decisions made without knowing minuate of the financial context in which they were made. He then continued by making aspersions and judgements about the lives of those to whom his post was directed without having a clue about the persons involved or what they are doing professionally. Is that better now ? Do you understand now the essential hypocrisy of his post now that I havent used any long words or joined-up writing ? Bit like you trying to imply that i'm a Media Studies student in a bid to undermine me twice then? One rule for others and another altogether for alpine. Oh the hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I assume the continual stream of trolling is because neither of you have a point to make ? GM was inferring that none of us have the right to make judgements about decisions made without knowing minuate of the financial context in which they were made. He then continued by making aspersions and judgements about the lives of those to whom his post was directed without having a clue about the persons involved or what they are doing professionally. Is that better now ? Do you understand now the essential hypocrisy of his post now that I havent used any long words or joined-up writing ? Bit like you trying to imply that i'm a Media Studies student in a bid to undermine me twice then? One rule for others and another altogether for alpine. Oh the hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I assume the continual stream of trolling is because neither of you have a point to make ? GM was inferring that none of us have the right to make judgements about decisions made without knowing minuate of the financial context in which they were made. He then continued by making aspersions and judgements about the lives of those to whom his post was directed without having a clue about the persons involved or what they are doing professionally. Is that better now ? Do you understand now the essential hypocrisy of his post now that I havent used any long words or joined-up writing ? So you were using joined-up writing before? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I assume the continual stream of trolling is because neither of you have a point to make ? GM was inferring that none of us have the right to make judgements about decisions made without knowing minuate of the financial context in which they were made. He then continued by making aspersions and judgements about the lives of those to whom his post was directed without having a clue about the persons involved or what they are doing professionally. Is that better now ? Do you understand now the essential hypocrisy of his post now that I havent used any long words or joined-up writing ? So you were using joined-up writing before? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 23 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Bit like you trying to imply that i'm a Media Studies student in a bid to undermine me twice then? One rule for others and another altogether for alpine. Oh the hypocrisy. I agree, GM has been hypocritical. So tell me, what did you learn about the impact on society's values of Eastenders ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 23 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Bit like you trying to imply that i'm a Media Studies student in a bid to undermine me twice then? One rule for others and another altogether for alpine. Oh the hypocrisy. I agree, GM has been hypocritical. So tell me, what did you learn about the impact on society's values of Eastenders ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I agree, GM has been hypocritical. So tell me, what did you learn about the impact on society's values of Eastenders ? Well now you're just being childish. Well i hope you are. Otherwise you've really missed the point there. My point is you're being the hypocrite. And once again...i am not a Media Studies graduate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I agree, GM has been hypocritical. So tell me, what did you learn about the impact on society's values of Eastenders ? Well now you're just being childish. Well i hope you are. Otherwise you've really missed the point there. My point is you're being the hypocrite. And once again...i am not a Media Studies graduate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 23 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Well now you're just being childish. Well i hope you are. Otherwise you've really missed the point there. My point is you're being the hypocrite. And once again...i am not a Media Studies graduate. Maybe it was Hollyoaks in that lecture... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 23 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Well now you're just being childish. Well i hope you are. Otherwise you've really missed the point there. My point is you're being the hypocrite. And once again...i am not a Media Studies graduate. Maybe it was Hollyoaks in that lecture... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Maybe it was Hollyoaks in that lecture... You have indeed done a grand job of making yourself look pretty slow witted this morning... Another cup of coffee is probably required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Maybe it was Hollyoaks in that lecture... You have indeed done a grand job of making yourself look pretty slow witted this morning... Another cup of coffee is probably required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 23 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 February, 2009 You have indeed done a grand job of making yourself look pretty slow witted this morning... Another cup of coffee is probably required. I dont think so, even if I have, its probably because my work tasks today are somewhat more demanding than sifting through back-catalogues of Crossroads.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 23 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 February, 2009 You have indeed done a grand job of making yourself look pretty slow witted this morning... Another cup of coffee is probably required. I dont think so, even if I have, its probably because my work tasks today are somewhat more demanding than sifting through back-catalogues of Crossroads.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Not a gamble, that suggests a decision was made to keep him. Lowe said it would be difficult financially if he came back. Have no doubt he wanted Saga to sign permenantly at Aalborg. It's just a case of he's back so might as well play him. Crazy, as he's 100 times better than what we had, and that was obviously before the season. I'd have chosen him over rasiak and john despite last season. But make no mistake, if the buyers were there, even on free transfers, Davis, Skacel, Euell and Saga would all be gone. Then how good would we be?! Just imagine if we'd had Saga/Rasiak up front all season, Skacel in the team all season and Dyer right wing. Not to mention Size all season. About 25 more points probably. It's nice to concede a corner and not immediately feel like the opposition will definitely score... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Not a gamble, that suggests a decision was made to keep him. Lowe said it would be difficult financially if he came back. Have no doubt he wanted Saga to sign permenantly at Aalborg. It's just a case of he's back so might as well play him. Crazy, as he's 100 times better than what we had, and that was obviously before the season. I'd have chosen him over rasiak and john despite last season. But make no mistake, if the buyers were there, even on free transfers, Davis, Skacel, Euell and Saga would all be gone. Then how good would we be?! Just imagine if we'd had Saga/Rasiak up front all season, Skacel in the team all season and Dyer right wing. Not to mention Size all season. About 25 more points probably. It's nice to concede a corner and not immediately feel like the opposition will definitely score... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 It's nice to concede a corner and not immediately feel like the opposition will definitely score... Exactly and when needed he just put his foot through the ball to clear his lines. Did they ever fish that ball out of the Itchen BTW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 It is probably a question of us not being able to afford not to play him now. At the start of the season we did not know we would be 2nd from bottom now. Decisions were made on keeping the club afloat which meant off loading the high earners. That was done. Obviously we have managed to avoid administration so the financial juggling must be working. Saga and Rudi have not found clubs elsewhere so they are back here. If we can't find another home for them it makes sense to play them doesn't it? If they are up for it (which apparently Rudi wasn't for part of the season). But once more we spend ages looking back, time to look forward. We have some players capabale of keeping us up, at the moment that is the only thing that matters. Those who do not study history are destined to make the same mistakes as those in the past. Or put it another way, if you keep doing what you've always done, you'll always get the same result. It is obvious to any man alive that we had more chance of success with better players playing for us. We all believe we know why three international forwards were loaned and we were left to rely on other team's misfits. But perhaps now the error of under-investment in the first team has been recognised? Surely, the directors would have been better advised to forfeit some of their own salaries, or seek other more drastic cost-sutting/revenue generating ideas measures (underwriting a rights issue?) to retain a striker who could score goals and utlimately keep us in the division - maybe even challenging? That's what good business people do - recognise what's essential from what's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 I dont think so, even if I have, its probably because my work tasks today are somewhat more demanding than sifting through back-catalogues of Crossroads.. I would love to know what immensely taxing job you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Well we know there is an overdraft of £6M, which Crouch was going to chip away at with £2M if Lowe and Wilde would match him. Then we have the Stadium outstanding mortgage of around £20M, which has helped to sift away money, but obviously has to be paid out. The rest has been loan-ins, pay-offs of old contracts, new contracts to replace old contracts - the list goes on. And apart from the stadium mortgage, most of it would have been unnecessary if, instead of trying to be cheapskate in the first place, Saints had got in experienced, good quality staff with a track record of success, and stuck with them. That way stability lies. Remember stability..? It's the sort of thing successful clubs do. And if they are not successful, they pay the price and get the right people in. They don't try to do it on the cheap. I know I have joined this debate a bit late and this has probably been discussed already but didnt the OD under the previous lot grow to 6 Mil for 1 reason or another and since then the current lot have got it down to 4.5 Mil even with added expenses of Loans and Spiderman? My guess is last season there was allot more money going out for 1 reason or another and had Crouch and Co stayed maybe they would have brought the outgoings down like Lowe and Co have. Im not trying to debate who would have done what but black and white answer shows the outgoings went up under the last lot and have gone down under the new lot. To make that much of an impact in such a short time its no wonder the bank still gives its support and also a fair reason as to why Lowe and Co brushed off Crouches idea of all putting in 2 Mil. It may be just cleverly timed release of information that shows figures at there worst and at there most improved. But when the next set of accounts gets released we will at least have a better idea of how much exactly Lowe has wasted on all these loans that did nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Sorry, something CLEARLY doesnt add up here... 1. If we only needed to get rid of two of the big 3 wage earners, why did we get rid of Stern John (the last of the 3 to go on loan) at all ? If we had to get 2 out of the 3 off our books, Saga and Ras were already sorted before the season was underway I think. I understood that there was a falling out with John when JP refused to make him first choice of McG (quite how anyone could makes such a stupid decision is beyond me), and so john wa spushed out. No recall was possible for Saga, so could not get him back until January, and this became clear anyway once Todd (?) was known to be leaving Allborg. So, once John had got the boot for upsetting Nice But Dim, we were actually stuffed until 1st January. I don't think that its a case of now being able to afford to play Saga, I suspect we could have equally afforded to play him August-December, but had lost the opportunity. Still a huge gaff by Lowe, but explainable due to subsequent events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Let's make it clear, at present we cannot afford all the players wages. We loaned out Rasiak for the season, Saganowski for half a season, John to Bristol City and told the other high earners they could go and would unlikely feature. What has changed, in my opinion is two fold. First Lowe's experiment with youth only has failed. Secondly despite the pressures on the high earners some are still here with the window closed until the end of the season so we have to pay them, we cannot force them away from the club. That is the reason. It damages our prospects of financial survival but it seems the club have finally realised that the experience is needed and just maybe a few wins will bring the paying supporters back to the break even level. This may be the last throw of the dice. Let us all hope it is successful and I speak as a supporter of the football club not the individuals within that structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Forget about the fact Saga could throw us a relegation lifeline, it also makes financial sense to be playing him to bump up what we can get for him when he's sold in the summer. I'm sure this is a big factor is Lowes decision to pick him for the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonsaint1604 Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Forget about the fact Saga could throw us a relegation lifeline, it also makes financial sense to be playing him to bump up what we can get for him when he's sold in the summer. I'm sure this is a big factor is Lowes decision to pick him for the team. Yeah I'm sure you're right, it has nothing to do with the fact that he's our best striker by a long way and can actually score goals and might keep us up. Muppet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Forget about the fact Saga could throw us a relegation lifeline, it also makes financial sense to be playing him to bump up what we can get for him when he's sold in the summer. I'm sure this is a big factor is Lowes decision to pick him for the team. I saw what you did there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Yeah I'm sure you're right, it has nothing to do with the fact that he's our best striker by a long way and can actually score goals and might keep us up. Well, it had nothing to do with that for the first 6 months of the season... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Let's make it clear, at present we cannot afford all the players wages. We loaned out Rasiak for the season, Saganowski for half a season, John to Bristol City and told the other high earners they could go and would unlikely feature. What has changed, in my opinion is two fold. First Lowe's experiment with youth only has failed. Secondly despite the pressures on the high earners some are still here with the window closed until the end of the season so we have to pay them, we cannot force them away from the club. That is the reason. It damages our prospects of financial survival but it seems the club have finally realised that the experience is needed and just maybe a few wins will bring the paying supporters back to the break even level. This may be the last throw of the dice. Let us all hope it is successful and I speak as a supporter of the football club not the individuals within that structure. I believe it is a lot simpler than that. If we found someone that was prepared to pay Saga's or Euell's salary, the bank would have insisted upon it. There appears little choice in this, just the fact we can use them because no one else wants them. The bank can pull the plug on us at any time, such is the state of our finances. This is not a last throw of the die, unless we have found someone to put some money in. This is the bank accepting things at present, under the proviso that we are doing everything possible to address the problems. Try going your own way without finance and you are on your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 (edited) Off subject a bit, but if Saga continues this form until the end of the season, then surely the bank will be happy in the Knowledge that we should be able to command a good fee for him in the summer transfer window ? This will help us towards holding off admin until then.(hopefully) Just seen Stanleys post along the same lines. Damn I've agreed with him on something. Edited 23 February, 2009 by slickmick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Off subject a bit, but if Saga continues this form until the end of the season, then surely the bank will be happy in the Knowledge that we should be able to command a good fee for him in the summer transfer window ? This will help us towards holding off admin until then.(hopefully) Just seen Stanleys post along the same lines. Damn I've agreed with him on something. The only issue with this assumption is that it needs one other assumption in order to be the case. That SECOND assumption is that we will survive as a trading entity UNTIL the summer window opens. Now, I don't have recent experience of how British Bank Managers work, but in the current environment, I really cannot see how anyone in a corporate banking division would be looking at what we here would term "insh'allah" strategies of "hopefully" adding 400 extra full price paying customers to the attendance instead of simply "what were last week's figures". IMHO I just think that we have a lump of cash flow left which is diminishing and that we are in a total catch-22 situation, bust if we play them and down if we don't. (And just for Alps!) THAT we could have reached that point financially as much as the "playing side" failure of the club casts it's own clear verdict on the return of Lowe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 The only issue with this assumption is that it needs one other assumption in order to be the case. That SECOND assumption is that we will survive as a trading entity UNTIL the summer window opens. Now, I don't have recent experience of how British Bank Managers work, but in the current environment, I really cannot see how anyone in a corporate banking division would be looking at what we here would term "insh'allah" strategies of "hopefully" adding 400 extra full price paying customers to the attendance instead of simply "what were last week's figures". IMHO I just think that we have a lump of cash flow left which is diminishing and that we are in a total catch-22 situation, bust if we play them and down if we don't. (And just for Alps!) THAT we could have reached that point financially as much as the "playing side" failure of the club casts it's own clear verdict on the return of Lowe Interesting point. On the basis that the banks have told our board that we will go into admin if we continue with gates of 14,000 ish, I wonder if a public statement to that effect would entice fans to come back. Hypotheticaly speaking, if gates of say 20,000 would be needed until the end of the season, would we get the support needed ? Reading this forum I'd have to say No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 23 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Now, I don't have recent experience of how British Bank Managers work, but in the current environment, I really cannot see how anyone in a corporate banking division would be looking at what we here would term "insh'allah" strategies of "hopefully" adding 400 extra full price paying customers to the attendance instead of simply "what were last week's figures". Well, bankers really are the bunch of idiots we are currently taking them for then. How can anyone, for example, assume the attendance for Reading at home next week would be the same as Barnsley the week before when there is about 350miles difference in commute for the away fans ? I think you do a disservice to those account managers who deal with football clubs; I am sure they have some knowledge of the business they have been made responsible for financially superivsing, and will accordingly expect a string of good results to put bums on seats and increase revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Unfortunately though, the world (was) ruled by accountants who looked at bottom lines in accounts ie they viewed history, not creators or visionaries who looked at how the bottom line could be made better. I would agree that this approach was adopted this season, and I also agree that any fool can cut costs. But where those who really earn their money come inn to their own forte, is by growing revenues or at least holding on to the important revenue drivers of a business. I maintain that cutting so deeply in to the playing squad had a detrimental affect on results (and attendances), and ultimately cost us more than it ever saved. Very difficult to evaluate and justify beyond doubt, but with each 1,000 bums equating to £500,000 over a season, it's not difficult to see how the drop in attendances caused by poor performances starts to eat into any perceived savings by reducing the quality of the playing squad. Now, I don't have recent experience of how British Bank Managers work, but in the current environment, I really cannot see how anyone in a corporate banking division would be looking at what we here would term "insh'allah" strategies of "hopefully" adding 400 extra full price paying customers to the attendance instead of simply "what were last week's figures". But these cuts were instigated from day one and although attendances are driven by season ticket sales (which were relatively poor) the most recent game was a sell out and the prior season averaged 22,000+. The bank would not have insisted on specific wage cuts, nor would they have just looked at costs in isolation. They would have focussed primarily on the troughs in the cashflow and these are affected by revenues as much as costs. Of course fixed costs such as playing contracts are much more definite than forecast attendances, but the 6,000 drop in revenue equates to £3,000,000 in revenue. I'm not suggesting for one minute that these numbers would have been returned had we kept all our squad intact, BUT there is most definitely a strong case for arguing that by leaving us with no recognised forwards in a game where goals win points and plaudits (and bums on seats), we were asking for trouble. To keep one of strikers, we would have to stop the decline in attendances by just under 1,000 supporters and given the contribution from Saga to date, I don't think that is an unrealistic assumption. Of course cuts had to be made to the playing staff (and elsehwere), but I think the cuts were too drastic, and ultimately they were a false economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Well, bankers really are the bunch of idiots we are currently taking them for then. How can anyone, for example, assume the attendance for Reading at home next week would be the same as Barnsley the week before when there is about 350miles difference in commute for the away fans ? I think you do a disservice to those account managers who deal with football clubs; I am sure they have some knowledge of the business they have been made responsible for financially superivsing, and will accordingly expect a string of good results to put bums on seats and increase revenue. You're right Alps, the bankers concerned would undoubtedly understand the model that says wins equals more crowd. Just like they don't have to sew buttons to be M&S's bankers, they do at least understand the mechanics of retailing and fashion. However, they could well have been taken in by the idea that "we have a young man in the mould of Theo Walcott who can score all the goals we need..." Really, a banker can only act on information he is provided. Like Steve, I think we cut too deep too soon and it has cost us dearly. And could yet cost us Championship status. But then Rupert doesn't believe that you should pay players high salaries. He believes you can grow all your own on low wages. On this he is fundementally wrong as has been proved over 33 matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Off subject a bit, but if Saga continues this form until the end of the season, then surely the bank will be happy in the Knowledge that we should be able to command a good fee for him in the summer transfer window ? This will help us towards holding off admin until then.(hopefully) Just seen Stanleys post along the same lines. Damn I've agreed with him on something. But you failed to get the little dig in at Rupert - keep up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Legod Third Coming;214846] Surely, the directors would have been better advised to forfeit some of their own salaries, or seek other more drastic cost-sutting/revenue generating ideas measures (underwriting a rights issue?) to retain a striker who could score goals and utlimately keep us in the division - maybe even challenging? That's what good business people do - recognise what's essential from what's not. Careful, LGTC. Otherwise you and others who run their own businesses will be asked why we aren't rich enough to buy the club, instead of being critical of those who do. Of course, some have wealth thrust upon them and others have other things to occupy their minds, like running their own businesses that made them wealthy in the first place. Not many of us have the opportunity granted to us by the board of a top division football club to take over that club purely on the basis that we ran a rather small retirement homes business that happened to be a PLC, the unfortunate side effect of which reverse takeover considerably increased the value of the shareholdings of that board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 23 February, 2009 Share Posted 23 February, 2009 Careful, LGTC. Otherwise you and others who run their own businesses will be asked why we aren't rich enough to buy the club, instead of being critical of those who do. LOL, so now you're only allowed an opinion if you can match the wealth of those currently running it:rolleyes::rolleyes:. Considering all the fck ups that these"rich" people have made in recent years, I reckon there is actualy a negative correlation between personal wealth and ability to run a football club well. (and that's before we get on to the ridiculous notion that clever automatically = rich, and how wealth is the only measurement we should use). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 24 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Careful, LGTC. Otherwise you and others who run their own businesses will be asked why we aren't rich enough to buy the club, instead of being critical of those who do. What you mean like GM did yesterday ? Interesting, he continually hints at his wealth, and claims to love Saints, but chooses to do nothing. In my book, that makes him worse. The power to do something but accepts the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 What you mean like GM did yesterday ? Interesting, he continually hints at his wealth, and claims to love Saints, but chooses to do nothing. In my book, that makes him worse. The power to do something but accepts the status quo. I know how much you like slagging people off, from your Austrian bunker, so here's a previous post of mine that you can use. I'm sure you'll get a hard-on in no time, thinking of a biting reposte. 29-01-2009, 09:05 PM Local businesses would support the club and it's players, not Crouch, or any other individual. I decided a couple of weeks ago that £400 to sponsor Saga for the rest of the season was good value. The (presumably) lovely and (definitely) efficient Danielle Lewis, the sponsorship executive at the club responded quickly to my email and even before I had signed the agreement, she had made sure that my companies name and logo appeared after Saga's name at the Donnie game. We lost, he scored, but, I tell you what, with my son next to me jumping into the air when he stuck the ball in the back of the net, while most of the stadium were fighting with each other or moaning, was one of the best moments I've enjoyed at the ground. In addition to the enjoyment of having a player that is "mine" I get a signed shirt and two tickets to the presentation dinner at the end of the season and a chance to meet Saga with my son. What a bargain and even with the recession, without doubt the best £400 I've spent since my last visit to "Your Eyes Only". Leon might be trying to rally the local businessmen behind some sort of power play, but why ruin the investment by further dividing the club. Phone Danielle up at the club up and tell her what you can afford to spend on sponsorship. In my opinion she'll try and involve you in the club and who knows, in addition to helping the club, you may feel part of it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 24 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 24 February, 2009 I know how much you like slagging people off, from your Austrian bunker, so here's a previous post of mine that you can use. I'm sure you'll get a hard-on in no time, thinking of a biting reposte. Nope, wont slag you off - congratulations in putting a little of your money where your mouth is. Though I am somehow reminded of that Biblical tale of the old woman who donates a penny to the collection tray in a temple, and a group of rich old men s****** at her, only for Jesus to point out that she had donated more than them because it represented a greater share of her wealth than their donations... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 24 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Sn.igger is a banned word ? FFS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Sn.igger is a banned word ? FFS...Take away the s and you should then realise why! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Nope, wont slag you off - congratulations in putting a little of your money where your mouth is. Though I am somehow reminded of that Biblical tale of the old woman who donates a penny to the collection tray in a temple, and a group of rich old men s****** at her, only for Jesus to point out that she had donated more than them because it represented a greater share of her wealth than their donations... Only you could slag someone off, using a parable....I can't wait for the story of the camel and the eye of a needle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red and White Army Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Sorry, something CLEARLY doesnt add up here... Alpine, you really are a stinking piece of turd on the boot of humanity. Enjoy the win and stop being such a moaning little cnt. You're impressing nobody, you're wasting your life with thousands of useless posts on this bulletin board and you're boring everyone here. Support the team or shut the fck up. We all hoped Austria would be too far away; sadly you are still inflicting your gormless half formed little opinions on the sentient world. FCK OFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red and White Army Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Take away the s and you should then realise why! He isn't smart enough to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 JFP...you are wrong on that one. We can't get Rasiak and John back if we wanted to - our wonderful astute businessmen running the club can't change FA rules.... Like I told Fartypants some threads ago... but he's a (very) slow learner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Like I told Fartypants some threads ago... but he's a (very) slow learner. Well perhaps we couldn't get those two back but many others could and some have returned. Pardon me for not knowing every rule the FA have put in place. My life is obviously not as empty as some. Am I to feel inferior to you because you gen up on nerdy FA rules to impress your friends? Sorry, I must lead a different and to be honest, more interesting life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Alpine, you really are a stinking piece of turd on the boot of humanity. Enjoy the win and stop being such a moaning little cnt. You're impressing nobody, you're wasting your life with thousands of useless posts on this bulletin board and you're boring everyone here. Support the team or shut the fck up. We all hoped Austria would be too far away; sadly you are still inflicting your gormless half formed little opinions on the sentient world. FCK OFF. Too far away for the innernetz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Too far away for the innernetz We live in hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALWAYS_SFC Posted 24 February, 2009 Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Alpine, you really are a stinking piece of turd on the boot of humanity. Enjoy the win and stop being such a moaning little cnt. You're impressing nobody, you're wasting your life with thousands of useless posts on this bulletin board and you're boring everyone here. Support the team or shut the fck up. We all hoped Austria would be too far away; sadly you are still inflicting your gormless half formed little opinions on the sentient world. FCK OFF. Are you the new boss of the posting police or just a **** who cannot accept other peoples opinions? My guess is, it`s just the latter.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 24 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 24 February, 2009 Alpine, you really are a stinking piece of turd on the boot of humanity. Enjoy the win and stop being such a moaning little cnt. You're impressing nobody, you're wasting your life with thousands of useless posts on this bulletin board and you're boring everyone here. Support the team or shut the fck up. We all hoped Austria would be too far away; sadly you are still inflicting your gormless half formed little opinions on the sentient world. FCK OFF. Dear oh dear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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