Ponty Posted 25 March, 2009 Share Posted 25 March, 2009 con·jec·ture (kn-jkchr)n. 1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork. 2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: I think it's fair to say that your statement, "and that protecting the club and its history is utterly irrelevant to Lowe and Wilde." is conjecture as nothing in the article alludes to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 25 March, 2009 Share Posted 25 March, 2009 con·jec·ture (kn-jkchr)n. 1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork. 2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: I think it's fair to say that your statement, "and that protecting the club and its history is utterly irrelevant to Lowe and Wilde." is conjecture as nothing in the article alludes to that. You obviously missed this bit then : "In any case, they would not make a decision based on a deadline imposed by the football authorities as it would be their bank or other creditors who would force the issue. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 25 March, 2009 Share Posted 25 March, 2009 That implies nothing about Lowe or Wilde's feelings about the history of the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 25 March, 2009 Share Posted 25 March, 2009 You obviously missed this bit then : "In any case, they would not make a decision based on a deadline imposed by the football authorities as it would be their bank or other creditors who would force the issue. " Alps, I've highlighted the important bit for you. There, there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 25 March, 2009 Share Posted 25 March, 2009 And here was me thinking that internet message boards and conjecture went hand in hand.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperm_john Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 we arent going into administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 That implies nothing about Lowe or Wilde's feelings about the history of the club. So what ? It doesnt mean that its relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Alps, I've highlighted the important bit for you. There, there. Nope, still dont see the point. Lowe and Wilde will not go into Adminstration earlier in the hope of protecting the club and its history. They will wait for the bank to force it. Ergo, the club and its history are irrelevant to them. What part of this do you lot not get, FFS ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 And here was me thinking that internet message boards and conjecture went hand in hand.... hehehehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Nope, still dont see the point. Lowe and Wilde will not go into Adminstration earlier in the hope of protecting the club and its history. They will wait for the bank to force it. Ergo, the club and its history are irrelevant to them. What part of this do you lot not get, FFS ? You are in effect sufggesting that administration now would be in the best interests of the clubs history and protection? Now explain how you worked that out exactly.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 You are in effect sufggesting that administration now would be in the best interests of the clubs history and protection? Now explain how you worked that out exactly.... Because if it does not happen today, and we get relegated, it will happen anyway but then it will screw up next season as well. Then we have a good chance of ending up in the FOURTH DIVISION I am really beginning to wonder about the intelligence of some on this site... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 it will happen anyway but then it will screw up next season ... Intelligence? I would suggest unless you are 'gifted' - you sont know this WILL happen. It may not, which was why I asked the question... are you familiar with what adminstration will actually mean for Saints ? I am not talking about point losses, but the real long term consequences - If you were, its teh last thing on earth you would be wishing for irrespective of whether we are relegated or not or who is in the boardroom.... so you are right to questin the intelligence of posters on this site, but I suggest you should start by looking in the mirror! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 There is going to be a programme on Radio 5 Live tonight at 8pm about 'former Premiership clubs struggling to survive in the Football League'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 The thing that makes me worried most is that administration and possible liquidation is seen by some as a potential saviour! Fair enough, there is a REMOTE possibilty that someone might be waiting to invest and return us to the glory days following admin - but are we really that desperate to get rid of Lowe that we are prepared to risk admin on the HOPE that someone comes in and save us - remember anyone 'wainting' for this is just as likely to be a snivelling business type first and foremost as well - a true fan would come in now and help us if they had the resources, not wait unttil we fail to get us on the cheap. Secondly, there is a real danger that administrators of the PLC would sell off teh constituent parts to maximise the return on assets for creditors - eg sell off St Mary's Stadium Ltd - and a developer might be thinking longterm of the land as its cheap at teh moment, sell off the football club ltd, with its players, but without a stadium... a whole open bag of tricks to maximise creditor value rather than worry about the club in any guise... its these unknowns that scare teh sh!t out of me MORE than worrying who is in teh borad room now and even what division we are in - because we truely do not know what teh consequences of entering admin either voluntariliy or having it enforced on us really are. Some have obviously become blinkered by teh false belief that because w may well be rid of Lowe as a result, we will have a new start - we may have nothing left but memories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Frank - I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet that there's a covenant on SMS saying the land must be used for sporting purposes only (and therefore not available for commercial development). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 (edited) Because if it does not happen today, and we get relegated, it will happen anyway but then it will screw up next season as well. Then we have a good chance of ending up in the FOURTH DIVISION I am really beginning to wonder about the intelligence of some on this site... I get exactly what you are saying alpine, even with my lack of intelligence. It would be a very brave man to take that decision, BUT it could be the one that ultimately saves this club. If it were a Ted Bates figure making the decision, a majority of fans would trust him and go with it, just like when we appointed Lawrie Mac and got relegated, sometimes you have to bite the bullet. Rupert's time was up long long ago and whatever happens it will always be a case of him taking the blame, and others taking the credit. My opinion fwiw, we should stick to a results based football league. Despite the penalties and reasoning behind them I always think it is grossly unfair to punish the hard work of players due to financial mishandling. There must be an alternative? If a shop was saved from extinction by going into administartion, they would not insist that they move away from the High Street into the bargain. Edited 26 March, 2009 by hamster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Frank - I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet that there's a covenant on SMS saying the land must be used for sporting purposes only (and therefore not available for commercial development). Uhm, would be nice to hav ethat confirmed, but i suggest there are always ways round that.... 'deeds' or 'covenants' can be altered under certain conditions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 ................................. My opinion fwiw, we should stick to a results based football league. Despite the penalties and reasoning behind them I always think it is grossly unfair to punish the hard work of players due to financial mishandling. There must be an alternative? If a shop was saved from extinction by going into administartion, they would not insist that they move away from the High Street into the bargain. But somehow there has to be a mechanism to TRY to ensure that there is a level playing field (pun very much intended). Interesting to see what Dave Whelan has to say about this and about the tests that Brian Mawhinney (sp?) is seeking to impose on Premiership clubs: http://www.sportinglife.com/football/premiership/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/09/03/25/SOCCER_Wigan_Nightlead.html He also raises the spectre of 'foreign owners lending money to clubs and then, potentially, calling in their loans' - could that happen 'down the road'? Particularly as it's rumoured that one Premiership club will be put into Receivership soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Because if it does not happen today, and we get relegated, it will happen anyway but then it will screw up next season as well. Then we have a good chance of ending up in the FOURTH DIVISION I am really beginning to wonder about the intelligence of some on this site... I actually usually agree with a fair chunk of your views Alpine, but not this time. I think the correct decision would be to try to scrape past this deadline, and TRY to stay up. We're still in the mix, amazingly, given how the club is run and the clowns we have chosen to lead the playing staff. And we all know that Rupert will do his disastrous 'cutting the cloth' bit if we did go down - a certainty if we took the hit now - and we'd end up in the fourth division anyway. At least this way we have a chance of Championship football next time out. I'm pretty sure the banks would take a fairly dim view on automatic relegation, too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Reluctantly as it effects us, the points penalty IS probably the ebst way of dealing with this - afterall, a club that has over spent on players and wages has given themselves a competitive advantage, or tried to. We spent that 7.5 mill under BUrley to get promoted, when we realy could not afford it, so in that respect we made our own bed and now have to lie in it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Frank - I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet that there's a covenant on SMS saying the land must be used for sporting purposes only (and therefore not available for commercial development). Shhh! dont tell him that, it blows away his completely paper-thin argument.... Its not suprising a luvvie is more scared of the future following administration than carrying on under Lowe. In my opinion, we are a dead man walking under Lowe - we will go under somewhen. Whereas following administration there is a chance of a future.... Its as simple as that. Some of you need to go and stamp your feet if cannot accept that some of us feel this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Shhh! dont tell him that, it blows away his completely paper-thin argument.... Its not suprising a luvvie is more scared of the future following administration than carrying on under Lowe. In my opinion, we are a dead man walking under Lowe - we will go under somewhen. Whereas following administration there is a chance of a future.... Its as simple as that. Some of you need to go and stamp your feet if cannot accept that some of us feel this way. Alpine, it is because of the stadium, that Administration is very different for Saints than other clubs. I can't be bothered typing it all up again, but the only way we could come out of admin having achieved anything is if we get picked up / bought by someone who Aviva are satisfied can service a 24 million pound debt, or pay it off all in one go and there aren't many of those around now. If the debt was owed to someone else or it was unsecured,it would be a different story, but the ground is still in effect own by Aviva, without it we don't have a club, (Unless they can get some stands erected at the common). If the Administrators found 10, 20 or 30 p in the pound for Aviva, do you think they would take it or hold onto the land or reuse for some other sports related business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Because if it does not happen today, and we get relegated, it will happen anyway but then it will screw up next season as well. Then we have a good chance of ending up in the FOURTH DIVISION I am really beginning to wonder about the intelligence of some on this site...So the choice is to try and stay up and then avoid administration, or take it now and try and get promoted.Either way is very risky.I myself am happy to try and stay up,and i still think we will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Shhh! dont tell him that, it blows away his completely paper-thin argument.... Its not suprising a luvvie is more scared of the future following administration than carrying on under Lowe. In my opinion, we are a dead man walking under Lowe - we will go under somewhen. Whereas following administration there is a chance of a future.... Its as simple as that. Some of you need to go and stamp your feet if cannot accept that some of us feel this way. That I agree with 100%. Never judge a book by its cover, but with Lowe he has already PROVED beyond any reasonable doubt that he is not capable of running a business such as SFC. Mistake followed by mistake! As for the future, well who knows? So many uncertainties that we will never know the answer to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ludgershallsaint Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Alpine, it is because of the stadium, that Administration is very different for Saints than other clubs. I can't be bothered typing it all up again, but the only way we could come out of admin having achieved anything is if we get picked up / bought by someone who Aviva are satisfied can service a 24 million pound debt, or pay it off all in one go and there aren't many of those around now. If the debt was owed to someone else or it was unsecured,it would be a different story, but the ground is still in effect own by Aviva, without it we don't have a club, (Unless they can get some stands erected at the common). If the Administrators found 10, 20 or 30 p in the pound for Aviva, do you think they would take it or hold onto the land or reuse for some other sports related business Who do you think would be prepared to take the land, flatten the stadium and use it for something else and take all the bad PR, aggravation et al that would go with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Shhh! dont tell him that, it blows away his completely paper-thin argument.... Its not suprising a luvvie is more scared of the future following administration than carrying on under Lowe. In my opinion, we are a dead man walking under Lowe - we will go under somewhen. Whereas following administration there is a chance of a future.... Its as simple as that. Some of you need to go and stamp your feet if cannot accept that some of us feel this way.There is nothing wrong if feeling that way, i just believe you are totally wrong and we will move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 But somehow there has to be a mechanism to TRY to ensure that there is a level playing field (pun very much intended). Interesting to see what Dave Whelan has to say about this and about the tests that Brian Mawhinney (sp?) is seeking to impose on Premiership clubs: http://www.sportinglife.com/football/premiership/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/09/03/25/SOCCER_Wigan_Nightlead.html He also raises the spectre of 'foreign owners lending money to clubs and then, potentially, calling in their loans' - could that happen 'down the road'? Particularly as it's rumoured that one Premiership club will be put into Receivership soon. And here's the article now on the BBC Sports website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7965152.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Who do you think would be prepared to take the land, flatten the stadium and use it for something else and take all the bad PR, aggravation et al that would go with it? Well given that it would be owned by Aviva, they would simply need to bring contractors in. On the basis that a lot of these trades are on the balls of their arses, there really wouldn't be a problem if it meant good work. That's not to say thats what i think will happen, i'm sure it won't, but people need to stop kidding themselves that Aviva will simply walk away or take a massively reduced percentage. There is no reason for them to do so and they aint walking away from 24 million pounds. Do not apply the same rules to administration with other clubs to Saints, we are a very different kettle of fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Shhh! dont tell him that, it blows away his completely paper-thin argument.... Its not suprising a luvvie is more scared of the future following administration than carrying on under Lowe. In my opinion, we are a dead man walking under Lowe - we will go under somewhen. Whereas following administration there is a chance of a future.... Its as simple as that. Some of you need to go and stamp your feet if cannot accept that some of us feel this way. LOL...Coco, you really need to learn to read and comprehend.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 I agree with Alpine, administration could be very bad, but it could also see the end to Lowe and the PLC, it's a huge risk but is one that is looking more and more worth taking with every balls up by Lowe. How many relegations will it take before even the most die hard luvies finally realise that Lowe hasn't got a clue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xerox Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Uhm' date=' would be nice to hav ethat confirmed, but i suggest there are always ways round that.... 'deeds' or 'covenants' can be altered under certain conditions...[/quote'] this information should be available via the land registory for about £4.50 fee you can get the deeds from the website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St_Tel49 Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Thanks for clarifying...so, in short, there is no way that we can stay up this season, go into admin, and start next season on minus 10 in the championship...this admin lark is confusing! Exactly - so you are better off avoiding it unless you are forced into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Uhm' date=' would be nice to hav ethat confirmed, but i suggest there are always ways round that.... 'deeds' or 'covenants' can be altered under certain conditions...[/quote'] Hmm, not in my experience. A few years ago I was a project manager on a hospital relocation scheme. We wanted to sell our site that we were vacating for commercial development but it had a covenant on it restricting its use to health or education purposes. So we had to sell it to a University and consequently raised far less money than if we'd been able to sell it for commercial development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St_Tel49 Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Read my words. I reacted to the piece. Nothing more. Apart from the fact there are 1001 reasons to call Lowe a stubborn egotistical oaf without even considering this report... However, the report fits with the public perception of him. That public perception is his fault. Your dismissal of the report and my reaction to it as "conjecture" rings somewhat hollow, imo. I don't want to be picky but what you do not know as fact is conjecture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Hmm, not in my experience. A few years ago I was a project manager on a hospital relocation scheme. We wanted to sell our site that we were vacating for commercial development but it had a covenant on it restricting its use to health or education purposes. So we had to sell it to a University and consequently raised far less money than if we'd been able to sell it for commercial development. Plus the site is of archeological importance, we had to have shallow foundations etc when the stadium was built so that there wasn't much disturbance. That would create more problems if anyone ever wanted to redevelop the site. And of course there's probably still contamination from it's previous use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Back on topic. Just now I was reading about 'Pre-pack administration' and decided to research it a bit. Here's the best explanation I've found so far. I think it could be a possibility that 'some' at the club might be looking at Pre-pack as a way of setting up a 'new company' to buy up the assets of SLH before it's put into administration. It seems the advantage of this is that creditors don't get to know of this arrangement until it's done and dusted and administration is announced. I'd welcome the views of those in the know http://www.business-sale.com/pre-pack-administrations-benefits.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Back on topic. Just now I was reading about 'Pre-pack administration' and decided to research it a bit. Here's the best explanation I've found so far. I think it could be a possibility that 'some' at the club might be looking at Pre-pack as a way of setting up a 'new company' to buy up the assets of SLH before it's put into administration. It seems the advantage of this is that creditors don't get to know of this arrangement until it's done and dusted and administration is announced. I'd welcome the views of those in the know http://www.business-sale.com/pre-pack-administrations-benefits.html Im not saying they arent loking at it or indeed actioning it, but the points below mean that AVIVA would still get over 10 million (Average 42%) and Barclays would get 70k, so whilst Aviva might (I doubt it though) take 10 million if Barclays only got 70k, they would never sign a CVA and we would have another minus 17 points The business is usually sold with little or no open marketing. Unsecured creditors are usually not informed of the pre-pack until after it has been completed. Secured creditors will usually be aware of the transaction as they will generally be required to release their security. What are the benefits of a pre-pack? More jobs are preserved Pre-packs preserve more jobs than business sales (i.e. a going concern sale of the business negotiated and arranged after the commencement of the insolvency procedure). In 92% of pre-pack cases, all of the employees were transferred to the new company which compares with 65% for a business sale. They provide a satisfactory return for secured creditors The reality of a business going through insolvency is that the creditors very rarely receive all of the money owed to them. It is therefore more accurate (and helpful) to consider what creditors might reasonably expect in a distressed situation rather than the total amount owed. The average return for secured creditors in a pre-pack is an average of 42% as compared with 28% in a business sale. The average returns to unsecured creditors in insolvency cases are very low, pre-packs provide just 1% of return, whilst in business sales the average return is 3% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Thanks Gemmel, I'd forgotten about the CVA without which we wouldn't get the Football League's Golden Share and therefore wouldn't be able to compete. That's right, isn't it? I was looking at it more from the point of view of assets being sold on to a 'new' company, thus ensuring that the 'new' company got its mitts on Jacksons Farm etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 My main issue with McGoldrick is actually how he continues to play week in week out. Whether or not the lad will go on to anything is not the issue. There are plenty of times i've seen him when he has looked tired and not interested. Even Shearer and Le Tissier were only used spradoically early in the careers. For all our's sakes, to have taken him out of the firing line for a few games would have been good for him, in my opinion. Certainly since Saga came back, we've had that option. if your main issue with David is that he is picked every week why call him a sack of ****? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 I agree with Alpine, administration could be very bad, but it could also see the end to Lowe and the PLC, it's a huge risk but is one that is looking more and more worth taking with every balls up by Lowe. How many relegations will it take before even the most die hard luvies finally realise that Lowe hasn't got a clue? Contrary to popular belief, I have no problem with the end of Lowe and his cronies, I am just not convinced that administration is a risk worth taking to achieve that aim - If it was guarranteed that after admin Lowe would was gone and what we had in place was better its a no brainer, but its a pretty extreme risk consideringw e could be left with just the memories - and I dont think even Lowe's antics would justify that kind of risk. Right now we might be a badly run club with an unpopular chaairman struggling to avoid relegation, but w eare still a club... administration could well see the end of all of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ludgershallsaint Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Well given that it would be owned by Aviva, they would simply need to bring contractors in. On the basis that a lot of these trades are on the balls of their arses, there really wouldn't be a problem if it meant good work. That's not to say thats what i think will happen, i'm sure it won't, but people need to stop kidding themselves that Aviva will simply walk away or take a massively reduced percentage. There is no reason for them to do so and they aint walking away from 24 million pounds. Do not apply the same rules to administration with other clubs to Saints, we are a very different kettle of fish. I think we broadly agree. Theoretically possibly, but in practice highly unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Is the deadline actually midnight tonight then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Contrary to popular belief' date=' I have no problem with the end of Lowe and his cronies, I am just not convinced that administration is a risk worth taking to achieve that aim - If it was guarranteed that after admin Lowe would was gone and what we had in place was better its a no brainer, but its a pretty extreme risk consideringw e could be left with just the memories - and I dont think even Lowe's antics would justify that kind of risk. Right now we might be a badly run club with an unpopular chaairman struggling to avoid relegation, but w eare still a club... administration could well see the end of all of it.[/quote'] I don't believe all this end of club malarky, tons of clubs have gone into admin without folding. SMS has only one use, it will never be financially viable to bulldoze it for housing as long as there are 15,000+ people wanting to pay to watch football there every other week, and no Southampton Council would give planning permission for that anyway. Pompey went into admin and a few years later won the FA Cup - sure, they got lucky but so could we. Sure admin is not good and very risky, but I think the risks are just as great if Lowe is left to carry out more of his experiments. This current setup would go through League 1 like a vindaloo IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the wedge Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Is the deadline actually midnight tonight then? 5pm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 5pm Oh FFS, I have to leave for work at 4. (Cheers, by the way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Oh FFS, I have to leave for work at 4. (Cheers, by the way). Dont fret clarky, i am sure they would have had to anonced to the LSE before then if its happening as trading would be suspended, so keep an eye on the LSE news bit under SOO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 admin and the removal of Lowe could leave us as the next Leeds Utd who crashed spectacularly and have never recovered... Or should that be, a club currently making a healthy profit and with every chance of swapping divisions with us quite soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 I don't believe all this end of club malarky, tons of clubs have gone into admin without folding. SMS has only one use, it will never be financially viable to bulldoze it for housing as long as there are 15,000+ people wanting to pay to watch football there every other week, and no Southampton Council would give planning permission for that anyway. Pompey went into admin and a few years later won the FA Cup - sure, they got lucky but so could we. Sure admin is not good and very risky, but I think the risks are just as great if Lowe is left to carry out more of his experiments. This current setup would go through League 1 like a vindaloo IMO. Last bit made me laugh... admire teh optimism, and appreciate the frustration, but I remain unconvinced because i cant see anyone out there with the cash to see any change anyway - If there is a knight in shining armour waiting to pick up a dic 1 side for a quid, why not buy it now - its only 3 mil and the impact could just keep us up which is worth an extra 3 mil next season as well. All this 'I wont invest whilst Lowe is at the club; is tyrekicker speek, they dont need to to, they can oust him with share purchse at these prices, only need 20% (less than 1mil) or so to start with anyway + Crouch and his crionies (not my choice - but illsutrating the point) - it just shows to me that all teh mC/CRouch stuff re investors is about as likely as Wilde mag 7.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paris Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 Tick Tock tick tock... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 26 March, 2009 Share Posted 26 March, 2009 admin and the removal of Lowe could leave us as the next Leeds Utd who crashed spectacularly and have never recovered... Or should that be, a club currently making a healthy profit and with every chance of swapping divisions with us quite soon. With Ken bates injecting cash... fair enough, but where is our Ken Bates?????? 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