Did Lowe make the biggest mistake of all without us noticing?

[dubai_phil]

Been reading and analysing lots of opinions and hints the last few days and something that 19C said (in an unrelated way) made me wonder if Lowe inadvertently made the biggest mistake of all.

 

"The club was heading for financial meltdown when he and Wilde returned" is something I recall being said ages ago

 

"It would not have lasted until Christmas" was 19C

 

these comments made me think

 

Lowe gambled with our season in a desperate attempt to stave off Administration (ie save shareholder value but also protect the "clubs" assets)

 

I expect the actual accounts to show that he did a good job on this (but obviously not good enough for Barclays)

 

BUT, with 34 enquiries now received, possibly 3 or 4 of them serious, can it not now be argued that while still INCREDIBLY dangerous for our long term survival, MAYBE just maybe we should have taken admin BEFORE Christmas or EVEN back in May.

 

Think back to May, Lehman Bros had not happened, people were more inclined to still do "deals".

Maybe the CLUB could have started the season on -10 points but still had the semblance of a squad and MANAGER and new owners that could have scraped survival.

 

Even around September when Barclays are said to have cut the O/D, there was still some money around, still time to rescue a season even WITH 10 points penalty.

 

But today? Well if we can get 34 people in THIS environment..... Maybe a proper manager could have got more out of the team - how many times did JP drop points with wrong selections that even he admitted blame for...

 

So no this isn't a new go at Lowe, I think the financial facts will eventually show he came close to performing a miracle of recovery in our finances (IF ONLY HE HAD STAYED AWAY FROM THE FOOTBALL SIDE), but I think one of the unforeseen events of his return was to actually hasten our demise

 

anyway something different to argue about during the "takeover phoney war" quiet period

[OldNick]

The world was shakier place in september. I doubt that the confidence and low interest rates would be there at that time.There has a been a minute improvement in confidence, the banks will loan and in september i doubt any bank would have lent to an investor in a football club.

Jan did ok with the resources in an up and down period but should have been dispensed with 4-5 games earlier.To be fir had we won 2 or 3 more home games he wouldnt have been usch a disaster. I still think he was a mistake but it was a finely run thing

[Alain Perrin]

You boys in Dubai were in denial. The rest of the global economy started to nose dive from Bear Stearns onwards (March 2008 I think)

[John B]

Been reading and analysing lots of opinions and hints the last few days and something that 19C said (in an unrelated way) made me wonder if Lowe inadvertently made the biggest mistake of all.

 

"The club was heading for financial meltdown when he and Wilde returned" is something I recall being said ages ago

 

"It would not have lasted until Christmas" was 19C

 

these comments made me think

 

Lowe gambled with our season in a desperate attempt to stave off Administration (ie save shareholder value but also protect the "clubs" assets)

 

I expect the actual accounts to show that he did a good job on this (but obviously not good enough for Barclays)

 

BUT, with 34 enquiries now received, possibly 3 or 4 of them serious, can it not now be argued that while still INCREDIBLY dangerous for our long term survival, MAYBE just maybe we should have taken admin BEFORE Christmas or EVEN back in May.

 

Think back to May, Lehman Bros had not happened, people were more inclined to still do "deals".

Maybe the CLUB could have started the season on -10 points but still had the semblance of a squad and MANAGER and new owners that could have scraped survival.

 

Even around September when Barclays are said to have cut the O/D, there was still some money around, still time to rescue a season even WITH 10 points penalty.

 

But today? Well if we can get 34 people in THIS environment..... Maybe a proper manager could have got more out of the team - how many times did JP drop points with wrong selections that even he admitted blame for...

 

So no this isn't a new go at Lowe, I think the financial facts will eventually show he came close to performing a miracle of recovery in our finances (IF ONLY HE HAD STAYED AWAY FROM THE FOOTBALL SIDE), but I think one of the unforeseen events of his return was to actually hasten our demise

 

anyway something different to argue about during the "takeover phoney war" quiet period

 

Yes in hindsight you are correct but

 

In May it was probably thought that some of Rasiak John Skacel etc could be sold for a fee which would reduce the overdraft.

 

But I still think not playing 442 was a mistake but that said our Strikers were the highest earners so playing them was going to cause a financial problem.

 

 

But simple things like arguing at Cardiff in the last minute which led to their goal , giving a stupid penalty against Blackpool and missing two ourselves against Watford did not help either

Edited 9 April, 2009 by John B

[sadoldgit]

We can all be geniuses in hindsight. One minute though the Board were working in one set of circumstances in which they were working through our problems and in another the circumstances changed. I am sure, given what they know now, they would have done things differently, but hey, that's life!

I think that anyone in any set of circumstances would like to be in charge of their own destiny. Can you blame the Board for wanting to continue to work for what they thought best for the club?

Now it is all in the lap of the Gods and we have to trust in a suit from outside to make the calls. Hopefully he will make the right ones for SFC not just based on money.

[dubai_phil]

Yes in hindsight you are correct but

 

In May it was probably thought that some of Rasiak John Skacel etc could be sold for a fee which would reduce the overdraft.

 

But I still think not playing 442 was a mistake but that said our Strikers were the highest earners so playing them was going to cause a financial problem.

 

 

But simple things like arguing at Cardiff in the last minute which led to their goal , giving a stupid penalty against Blackpool and missing two ourselves against Watford did not help either

 

Yep I was only thinking back, not particularly "wishing" back

 

And the Cardiff game was one example that sprang to mind of "wasted points" - obviously that is very subjective as to whether it would have happened with (for eg) Fergie in charge

 

Alain PerrinYou boys in Dubai were in denial. The rest of the global economy started to nose dive from Bear Stearns onwards (March 2008 I think)

 

Many here still are :cool: but my point being that at a "much reduced cost" in admin - ie without the share cost at that time - maybe people would have come in and bought us then and they MAY have had time to save us

 

nickhThe world was shakier place in september. I doubt that the confidence and low interest rates would be there at that time.There has a been a minute improvement in confidence, the banks will loan and in september i doubt any bank would have lent to an investor in a football club.....

 

But not SO shaky in May and let's face it maybe we wouldn't have had JP...

[OldNick]

 

 

But not SO shaky in May and let's face it maybe we wouldn't have had JP...

I see what you mean, but as soon as RL was going to have anyhting to do with the club Jan was going to be appointed i suspect. It is such a fineline between an abject failure and a masterstroke. This season was only about staying up and keeping out of admin, sadly both may come to pass.

[Nineteen Canteen]

Been reading and analysing lots of opinions and hints the last few days and something that 19C said (in an unrelated way) made me wonder if Lowe inadvertently made the biggest mistake of all.

 

"The club was heading for financial meltdown when he and Wilde returned" is something I recall being said ages ago

 

"It would not have lasted until Christmas" was 19C

 

these comments made me think

 

Lowe gambled with our season in a desperate attempt to stave off Administration (ie save shareholder value but also protect the "clubs" assets)

 

I expect the actual accounts to show that he did a good job on this (but obviously not good enough for Barclays)

 

BUT, with 34 enquiries now received, possibly 3 or 4 of them serious, can it not now be argued that while still INCREDIBLY dangerous for our long term survival, MAYBE just maybe we should have taken admin BEFORE Christmas or EVEN back in May.

 

Think back to May, Lehman Bros had not happened, people were more inclined to still do "deals".

Maybe the CLUB could have started the season on -10 points but still had the semblance of a squad and MANAGER and new owners that could have scraped survival.

 

Even around September when Barclays are said to have cut the O/D, there was still some money around, still time to rescue a season even WITH 10 points penalty.

 

But today? Well if we can get 34 people in THIS environment..... Maybe a proper manager could have got more out of the team - how many times did JP drop points with wrong selections that even he admitted blame for...

 

So no this isn't a new go at Lowe, I think the financial facts will eventually show he came close to performing a miracle of recovery in our finances (IF ONLY HE HAD STAYED AWAY FROM THE FOOTBALL SIDE), but I think one of the unforeseen events of his return was to actually hasten our demise

 

anyway something different to argue about during the "takeover phoney war" quiet period

 

I wouldn't disagree with your synopsis DP but all hindsight is 20/20 and you don't put yourselves in administration your creditors do so it would have needed some deliberate action to expedite that event which I think would have gone against most human instincts to save what you have.

 

I certainly wouldn't have taken administration in May as I presume we would have been relegated and to take it during any part of the season will have a detrimental effect on the staff especially the players as we have witnessed and Wotte (excuse or otherwise) has told us about. I don't put much stall in 34 expressions of interest, a house can have that many viewings but never get sold for many reasons and to express an interest is merely a no cost and unobligated way of getting yourself in the loop. Who can confirm you and I have not individually expressed an interest?

 

Summer of 2007 we were ripe for a takeover because it was shortly after Northern Rock went to the wall and then Feb 2008 Bear Stearns crashed and was the harbinger of even worse to come. Before the end of last season credit was being squeezed and the banks and the rating agencies were running for cover so perhaps it could be argued that only now as the fog turns to a less threatening mist in the financial market that people are prepared to take a risk.

 

One thing is certain nobody considers us seriously worthy of takeover unless they could buy us on the cheap and that I don't think reflects well on many people's overly inflated opinion of our status in the wider football community. Ideally we need a strong businessman with flair and brilliant communication skills and hopefully one who just happens to be a fan but not one concerned about his popularity in fan-related opinion polls. We need someone to inject their intelligent capital not necessarily ongoing small amounts of cash and someone who will surround himself with like minded forward thinking individuals instead of the short sighted and parochial 'rich fan' injecting relatively small amounts of cash to be effectively meaningless in the long term future of the club. One thing is already clear compromise is going to be needed on both sides of the new consortium's boardroom door.

 

You raise an interesting point but ultimately for me it would go against my gut feel to instinctively work hard at saving what you have and building on that platform. Administration vs New Owners? Time will tell if we have actually lost on both fronts.

[JustMike]

The world was shakier place in september. I doubt that the confidence and low interest rates would be there at that time.There has a been a minute improvement in confidence, the banks will loan and in september i doubt any bank would have lent to an investor in a football club.

Jan did ok with the resources in an up and down period but should have been dispensed with 4-5 games earlier.To be fir had we won 2 or 3 more home games he wouldnt have been usch a disaster. I still think he was a mistake but it was a finely run thing

 

:confused: id hate to see what not doing ok is like

[dubai_phil]

I see what you mean, but as soon as RL was going to have anyhting to do with the club Jan was going to be appointed i suspect. It is such a fineline between an abject failure and a masterstroke. This season was only about staying up and keeping out of admin, sadly both may come to pass.

 

That was included in his planning as soon as he started to talk to MW if not even before, which would have been well before February last year.

 

Perhaps I should have said a "inadvertent consequence" of avoiding admin in May resulted in a worse situation now...

[OldNick]

:confused: id hate to see what not doing ok is like

I know what you mean but he did ok for a while with a real lack of resources.It was the home form that did him/us in.He was a mistake.

[hypochondriac]

With pearson in charge with Lowe's financial cost cutting talent we could have gone places. Lowe's fatal flaw though is that he always wants to do things his own way

[Legod Third Coming]

What the 34 expressions of interest show is that (like SISU), there were always deals to be done.

 

The key question is - why did no one do a deal when Lowe was around????

[John B]

I know what you mean but he did ok for a while with a real lack of resources.It was the home form that did him/us in.He was a mistake.

 

To some extent it was the tactics at home did for us.

 

 

We have 18 points at home 23 away

[John B]

What the 34 expressions of interest show is that (like SISU), there were always deals to be done.

 

The key question is - why did no one do a deal when Lowe was around????

 

Because they would have needed to buy the shares which they do not have to now.

[OldNick]

What the 34 expressions of interest show is that (like SISU), there were always deals to be done.

 

The key question is - why did no one do a deal when Lowe was around????

Dont get fooled by 34 expressions of interest. You could regisiter that.Anybody dreamer could do so.The administrator will love the fees coming in as he researches each and every one.

I see it as a confusion and may even put some off as they dont wish to waste money, as there is lots of competition and the club look less attractive as it will be hotly contested.

[krissyboy31]

Now it is all in the lap of the Gods and we have to trust in a suit from outside to make the calls. Hopefully he will make the right ones for SFC not just based on money.

 

I actually think that is the best part of the situation we find ourselves in. MF has none of the baggage (disrespect, dislike, mis-trust, spite, oneupmanship etc.) that has blighted our club for the last 5 years.

[John B]

With pearson in charge with Lowe's financial cost cutting talent we could have gone places. Lowe's fatal flaw though is that he always wants to do things his own way

 

An assumption not a fact I would have thought.

[70's Mike]

biggest mistake was noticed he appointed JP

[alpine_saint]

Been reading and analysing lots of opinions and hints the last few days and something that 19C said (in an unrelated way) made me wonder if Lowe inadvertently made the biggest mistake of all.

 

"The club was heading for financial meltdown when he and Wilde returned" is something I recall being said ages ago

 

"It would not have lasted until Christmas" was 19C

 

these comments made me think

 

Lowe gambled with our season in a desperate attempt to stave off Administration (ie save shareholder value but also protect the "clubs" assets)

 

I expect the actual accounts to show that he did a good job on this (but obviously not good enough for Barclays)

 

BUT, with 34 enquiries now received, possibly 3 or 4 of them serious, can it not now be argued that while still INCREDIBLY dangerous for our long term survival, MAYBE just maybe we should have taken admin BEFORE Christmas or EVEN back in May.

 

Think back to May, Lehman Bros had not happened, people were more inclined to still do "deals".

Maybe the CLUB could have started the season on -10 points but still had the semblance of a squad and MANAGER and new owners that could have scraped survival.

 

Even around September when Barclays are said to have cut the O/D, there was still some money around, still time to rescue a season even WITH 10 points penalty.

 

But today? Well if we can get 34 people in THIS environment..... Maybe a proper manager could have got more out of the team - how many times did JP drop points with wrong selections that even he admitted blame for...

 

So no this isn't a new go at Lowe, I think the financial facts will eventually show he came close to performing a miracle of recovery in our finances (IF ONLY HE HAD STAYED AWAY FROM THE FOOTBALL SIDE), but I think one of the unforeseen events of his return was to actually hasten our demise

 

anyway something different to argue about during the "takeover phoney war" quiet period

 

 

So, boiling this lengthy post down to the essential message; should we have gone into admin earlier ??

 

Well, at the risk of annoying many people on here, some us called for this ages ago and were sneered at and abused for our trouble..

[John B]

biggest mistake was noticed he appointed JP

 

Of course and the system

[Nineteen Canteen]

With pearson in charge with Lowe's financial cost cutting talent we could have gone places. Lowe's fatal flaw though is that he always wants to do things his own way

 

The fatal flaw of our chairman was to show leadership and lead. No doubt Lowe collated the necessary information and then like all leaders in industry, public service, armed forces, politics etc etc the person at the top has to make a decision. Thank god Lowe had that fatal flaw as Crouch was even in his short time the antipathy of a man who leads he listened and at times I think to the wrong people and was unable to decide a path and stick with it.

 

We talk about Lowe didn't do this and didn't do that why didn't Crouch start cutting costs drastically in December 2007? Who was he listening to?

[dubai_phil]

What the 34 expressions of interest show is that (like SISU), there were always deals to be done.

 

The key question is - why did no one do a deal when Lowe was around????

 

Conspiracists know it is because Lowe refused to sell at any price of course

 

Alternatively from the 2008 Accounts

 

about 28 million of debt

 

(assets not particularly tangible or disposable )

 

shares at say 25p a pop even without any premium = 7mil

 

just posted a loss of over 10 million in 2008 before player trading

 

no squad players left worth much or wanted because of their wages

 

so 35mil before you even START to try and reduce the "Opex"

 

So it was not actually a very good deal at that time, but with Admin, as we have been learning, that whole 35mil liability has come crashing down to levels that people could afford to manage

[John B]

So, boiling this lengthy post down to the essential message; should we have gone into admin earlier ??

 

Well, at the risk of annoying many people on here, some us called for this ages ago and were sneered at and abused for our trouble..

 

If we dont lose any points yes but until recently it was assummed that Administration would lead to a reduction of points and selling off of the players.

 

 

Lets wait and see before coming to that conclusion

[OldNick]

So, boiling this lengthy post down to the essential message; should we have gone into admin earlier ??

 

Well, at the risk of annoying many people on here, some us called for this ages ago and were sneered at and abused for our trouble..

Wrong then, wrong now.

Administration is a disaster. just wait to see those bills bleeding us dry, players being sold on the cheap and if we get bought by asset strippers you can come back and tell us how good it was.

[alpine_saint]

Wrong then, wrong now.

Administration is a disaster. just wait to see those bills bleeding us dry, players being sold on the cheap and if we get bought by asset strippers you can come back and tell us how good it was.

 

Keep the lies up, Roops.

 

There are 34 reasons why your scare-mongering doesnt work anymore.

 

And apart from Kelvin Davies, I couldnt give a shiny one which players stay or go anymore. The whole squad needs a rebuild.

[JustMike]

The fatal flaw of our chairman was to show leadership and lead. No doubt Lowe collated the necessary information and then like all leaders in industry, public service, armed forces, politics etc etc the person at the top has to make a decision. Thank god Lowe had that fatal flaw as Crouch was even in his short time the antipathy of a man who leads he listened and at times I think to the wrong people and was unable to decide a path and stick with it.

 

We talk about Lowe didn't do this and didn't do that why didn't Crouch start cutting costs drastically in December 2007? Who was he listening to?

 

here we go again!!

 

Crouch was there for 5 minutes, yes he made mistakes but Lowe repeatedly made the same mistakes over and over. You talk about leaders in industry, public service, armed forces, politics etc etc difference is, they learn from what went wrong, resign if they mess up.

[Legod Third Coming]

Conspiracists know it is because Lowe refused to sell at any price of course

 

Alternatively from the 2008 Accounts

 

about 28 million of debt

 

(assets not particularly tangible or disposable )

 

shares at say 25p a pop even without any premium = 7mil

 

just posted a loss of over 10 million in 2008 before player trading

 

no squad players left worth much or wanted because of their wages

 

so 35mil before you even START to try and reduce the "Opex"

 

So it was not actually a very good deal at that time, but with Admin, as we have been learning, that whole 35mil liability has come crashing down to levels that people could afford to manage

 

I'm thinking back beyond 2008 tbh. Although, even then it could be us with SISU's money, Chris Coleman and our safety assured... And that does surely come down to a refusal to sell?

 

Yes, we're cheaper now, we're also 400% riskier and at a time when we were eminently investible there was cash everywhere!!!!!

[John B]

here we go again!!

 

Crouch was there for 5 minutes, yes he made mistakes but Lowe repeatedly made the same mistakes over and over. You talk about leaders in industry, public service, armed forces, politics etc etc difference is, they learn from what went wrong, resign if they mess up.

 

Yes but we were told by Hone in 2007 we were in financial trouble but Leon appeared not to notice but I think we was expecting investment to be coming in..

Edited 9 April, 2009 by John B

[dubai_phil]

The fatal flaw of our chairman was to show leadership and lead. No doubt Lowe collated the necessary information and then like all leaders in industry, public service, armed forces, politics etc etc the person at the top has to make a decision. Thank god Lowe had that fatal flaw as Crouch was even in his short time the antipathy of a man who leads he listened and at times I think to the wrong people and was unable to decide a path and stick with it.

 

We talk about Lowe didn't do this and didn't do that why didn't Crouch start cutting costs drastically in December 2007? Who was he listening to?

 

 

Was trying to avoid the blame game that always starts.

 

Admin is a desperately dangerous time, and we don't know if it will be a success - so of course page 1 of management books is about minimizing but taking risks

 

But with so much interest NOW????

 

Oh and Alps - fair point BUT, let's try the

 

Admin earlier may inadvertently have been better for Southampton Football Club by bringing in new blood and investors and giving us a better chance of staying the CCC

 

As opposed to "Admin to get rid of Lowe" at any cost

 

Similar but not quite the same

[Nineteen Canteen]

I actually think that is the best part of the situation we find ourselves in. MF has none of the baggage (disrespect, dislike, mis-trust, spite, oneupmanship etc.) that has blighted our club for the last 5 years.

 

Krissy you have completely misunderstood MF's role. He is just a conduit between the failed company and it's creditors and is there solely to protect the interests of the latter. MF will not decide, we will put forward the most favourable bids but if they don't meet the creditors demands the club will be liquidated. Our future lies with the simple fact will Barclays and probably HMRC get their money and to a lesser degree (as they have some kind of security) Aviva.

 

Barclays or Lowe? Don't think there'll be too many at Barclays worried about 15k loyal Saints fans and their wishes more to do with tickiing off the return of over 4 million of their British Pounds and appeasing their own shareholders.

[John B]

I'm thinking back beyond 2008 tbh. Although, even then it could be us with SISU's money, Chris Coleman and our safety assured... And that does surely come down to a refusal to sell?

 

Yes, we're cheaper now, we're also 400% riskier and at a time when we were eminently investible there was cash everywhere!!!!!

 

Yes I agree but none of the Shareholders wanted to sell but how committed were SISU as they appeared not to respond to shareholders concerns.

 

 

In fact I am not certain they were going to buy the shares anyway I think they were going to reduce value of the shares.

 

Administration did the latter pretty well

[Fitzhugh Fella]

We can all be geniuses in hindsight. One minute though the Board were working in one set of circumstances in which they were working through our problems and in another the circumstances changed. I am sure, given what they know now, they would have done things differently, but hey, that's life!

I think that anyone in any set of circumstances would like to be in charge of their own destiny. Can you blame the Board for wanting to continue to work for what they thought best for the club?

Now it is all in the lap of the Gods and we have to trust in a suit from outside to make the calls. Hopefully he will make the right ones for SFC not just based on money.

 

Your last sentence sets a worrying tone. The more consortiums there are the more the price for the club rises leaving less money for the football side of things after any transaction. The administrator is just chasing cash for the creditors - is he worried where that cash comes from?

[Nineteen Canteen]

Was trying to avoid the blame game that always starts.

 

Admin is a desperately dangerous time, and we don't know if it will be a success - so of course page 1 of management books is about minimizing but taking risks

 

But with so much interest NOW????

 

Oh and Alps - fair point BUT, let's try the

 

Admin earlier may inadvertently have been better for Southampton Football Club by bringing in new blood and investors and giving us a better chance of staying the CCC

 

As opposed to "Admin to get rid of Lowe" at any cost

 

Similar but not quite the same

 

I appreciate you were trying to avoid the blame game Phil hence my first post in the thread in some attempt to analyse your scenario. As always any thread soon falls into the blame game and in the interests of balance I was merely addressing the usual unbalanced blame game levelled at Lowe who was apparently fatally flawed when like you say the writing on the wall should have been addressed in the Hone/Crouch era.

[John B]

Your last sentence sets a worrying tone. The more consortiums there are the more the price for the club rises leaving less money for the football side of things after any transaction. The administrator is just chasing cash for the creditors - is he worried where that cash comes from?

 

Your are correct I fear.

 

 

One party could come in with an offer of say £5 million with a view to selling off loads of players with a view to recouping their outlay.

 

 

While another could offer £4 million with a view to not selling players.

 

 

Am I right?

[krissyboy31]

Krissy you have completely misunderstood MF's role. He is just a conduit between the failed company and it's creditors and is there solely to protect the interests of the latter. MF will not decide, we will put forward the most favourable bids but if they don't meet the creditors demands the club will be liquidated. Our future lies with the simple fact will Barclays and probably HMRC get their money and to a lesser degree (as they have some kind of security) Aviva.

 

Barclays or Lowe? Don't think there'll be too many at Barclays worried about 15k loyal Saints fans and their wishes more to do with tickiing off the return of over 4 million of their British Pounds and appeasing their own shareholders.

 

I know all that! My point is that we now have bids on the table, which because of the rediculous politics of the club (under Lowe, Wilde, Hone, Crouch and Lowe & Wilde, their back-biting and completely inflated share asking price), we never managed before.

[Nineteen Canteen]

Your last sentence sets a worrying tone. The more consortiums there are the more the price for the club rises leaving less money for the football side of things after any transaction. The administrator is just chasing cash for the creditors - is he worried where that cash comes from?

 

No of course he is not as long as it can be proven before he puts it forward the cash is to hand. This has been my concern all along that it is not the administrator we should be concerned about but what Barclays are willing to accept not forgetting the other creditors. I suspect it's nothing short of full repayment and failing that they could refuse to accept any proposals put forward from the administrator based on part repayment and the best business plan.

 

I very much doubt that what is good for our creditors will exacly mirror what is good for the club and it's supporters and in fact could see the club being liquidated or of cries, the devil you know and all that.

 

Makes Alpine's boasts so ill informed and badly judged to really question if 'fans' like him really do want the club to survive. Nothing is worth the risk we have now exposed ourselves to, nothing, not even a season long boycott or idiotic, told you so and unjustified one liners.

[Nineteen Canteen]

I know all that! My point is that we now have bids on the table, which because of the rediculous politics of the club (under Lowe, Wilde, Hone, Crouch and Lowe & Wilde, their back-biting and completely inflated share asking price), we never managed before.

 

You are still missing the point that many posters other than me are now making. Of those 34 bids our creditors may actually select the one bid that would be deemed a disaster for the club for many reasons. No one is acting in the interests of the Sainst supporter. the men you mentioned in varying degrees would have done their best to act in the interests of the supporters.

 

Its out of our hands, including Fry's

[alpine_saint]

Was trying to avoid the blame game that always starts.

 

Admin is a desperately dangerous time, and we don't know if it will be a success - so of course page 1 of management books is about minimizing but taking risks

 

But with so much interest NOW????

 

Oh and Alps - fair point BUT, let's try the

 

Admin earlier may inadvertently have been better for Southampton Football Club by bringing in new blood and investors and giving us a better chance of staying the CCC

 

As opposed to "Admin to get rid of Lowe" at any cost

 

Similar but not quite the same

 

I disagree. They are EXACTLY the same. I feel there is now enough anecdotal evidence floating around to inidicate he was an obstacle to investment or a buyout.

[alpine_saint]

 

Makes Alpine's boasts so ill informed and badly judged to really question if 'fans' like him really do want the club to survive. Nothing is worth the risk we have now exposed ourselves to, nothing, not even a season long boycott or idiotic, told you so and unjustified one liners.

 

 

Or so your boss would have us believe.

[dubai_phil]

I know all that! My point is that we now have bids on the table, which because of the rediculous politics of the club (under Lowe, Wilde, Hone, Crouch and Lowe & Wilde, their back-biting and completely inflated share asking price), we never managed before.

 

They did not inflate the share price - that's actually pretty sort of illegal

 

The MARKET dictated the share price..

 

The total COST of buying the club prior to admin was an issue as I tried to explain, that cost reflects the financial position of the club and that was down to all parties at differing points in time as we have discussed to death

 

However yes, the politics at the club were (allegedly) responsible for at least one potential bid not moving forwards, but that was at the time of the execs, and everyone held a part of that blame

[Nineteen Canteen]

Your are correct I fear.

 

 

One party could come in with an offer of say £5 million with a view to selling off loads of players with a view to recouping their outlay.

 

 

While another could offer £4 million with a view to not selling players.

 

 

Am I right?

 

Or perhaps someone could buy us just to acquire our land assets as future speculation and close the club down.

 

Gaydamak could buy us and merge us with Pompey.

 

All unlikely maybe but i wouldn't discount anything except the likliehood of the best offer from 34 being the same for the club as the best for the creditors as remote because of the different motivations.

[John B]

I disagree. They are EXACTLY the same. I feel there is now enough anecdotal evidence floating around to inidicate he was an obstacle to investment or a buyout.

 

 

 

 

 

You seem to forget nothing happened between 2006 and 2008 when Lowe was not involved.

 

 

When Lowe was here after that the falling Stock Market and Credit Crunch and the SFC financial situation made it really unlikely that anybody would buy the shares.

[sadoldgit]

Your last sentence sets a worrying tone. The more consortiums there are the more the price for the club rises leaving less money for the football side of things after any transaction. The administrator is just chasing cash for the creditors - is he worried where that cash comes from?

 

This is my big fear Duncan. Mr Fry is just a businessman carrying out his job in the business world. One of the reason that Lowe was not accepted by he fans was that he was a "City suit". Our future will be decided by one of the same breed.

 

The have been a number of white knights mentioned over the last couple of years, people like Salz, who may or may not be what we are looking for. But by not moving earlier might they now find themselves out muscled by those with a less healthy interest in SFC's future?

 

Whilst the problems of Lowe's tenure have been well discussed, I do believe he had the best interests of SFC's future at heart. As we can see from the names that cease trading every week, it is not easy running a business in the current climate. Lowe had a plan that maye well had worked long term. I just hope that whoever buys us also has a decent plan and that we don't end up with well meaning people who like the idea of playing with a football club for the sake of the own vanity.

 

This is a very sad time for the club. We were probbaly very fortunate to have a man like Ted Bates at the helm so so long. If we find another of that stature then perhaps the last fews years will not have been for nothing, but you do wonder if any of that breed still exist.

I hope I am wrong, but I sense another HOne waiting in the wings.

[Clapham Saint]

Was trying to avoid the blame game that always starts.

 

Admin is a desperately dangerous time, and we don't know if it will be a success - so of course page 1 of management books is about minimizing but taking risks

 

But with so much interest NOW????

 

Oh and Alps - fair point BUT, let's try the

 

Admin earlier may inadvertently have been better for Southampton Football Club by bringing in new blood and investors and giving us a better chance of staying the CCC

 

As opposed to "Admin to get rid of Lowe" at any cost

 

Similar but not quite the same

 

 

+1.

[Legod Third Coming]

No of course he is not as long as it can be proven before he puts it forward the cash is to hand. This has been my concern all along that it is not the administrator we should be concerned about but what Barclays are willing to accept not forgetting the other creditors. I suspect it's nothing short of full repayment and failing that they could refuse to accept any proposals put forward from the administrator based on part repayment and the best business plan.

 

I very much doubt that what is good for our creditors will exacly mirror what is good for the club and it's supporters and in fact could see the club being liquidated or of cries, the devil you know and all that.

 

Makes Alpine's boasts so ill informed and badly judged to really question if 'fans' like him really do want the club to survive. Nothing is worth the risk we have now exposed ourselves to, nothing, not even a season long boycott or idiotic, told you so and unjustified one liners.

 

Mark Fry is looking to sell the business as a 'going concern'. That is actually in the best interests of everyone.

 

The idea (not yours) that someone who buy is in order to liquidate us is patent nonsense, since they would never recover their outlay (otherwise the world would be full of peple buying businesses out of administration purely to liquidate them.

 

Fry has an obligation to the creditors, solely, but they would benefit from having a viable, successful business back.

[madsent]

With pearson in charge with Lowe's financial cost cutting talent we could have gone places. Lowe's fatal flaw though is that he always wants to do things his own way

 

Where on earth did you get that idea about Pearson from ? Leicester have a team of highly paid players, most of whom have years of Premiership and Championship experience. Their wage bill is being paid personally by their chairman and is over twice as much as our wage bill. Pearson kept us up with a team of experienced pros including a couple of expensive loans. The only young (and cheap) player to regularly play under Pearson was Andrew Surman. There is no indication whatsoever that Pearson would succeed on a restrictive budget.

[sadoldgit]

You are still missing the point that many posters other than me are now making. Of those 34 bids our creditors may actually select the one bid that would be deemed a disaster for the club for many reasons. No one is acting in the interests of the Sainst supporter. the men you mentioned in varying degrees would have done their best to act in the interests of the supporters.

 

Its out of our hands, including Fry's

 

This is what scares me, and why I have been praying that we managed to stave off adminstration whilst many of here were thinking that it would be the answer to all our problems (ie getting rid of Lowe).

 

Lowe, for all of the issues surrounding him, was not nedessarily the biggest problem with SFC, as we well now may discover.

 

Mr Fry has it in his hands to make a business decison that will dwarf anything unpleasant that Lowe ever dished out to us.

 

Oh God, I am beginning to sound like Alpine!!!!

[Legod Third Coming]

This is my big fear Duncan. Mr Fry is just a businessman carrying out his job in the business world. One of the reason that Lowe was not accepted by he fans was that he was a "City suit". Our future will be decided by one of the same breed.

 

The have been a number of white knights mentioned over the last couple of years, people like Salz, who may or may not be what we are looking for. But by not moving earlier might they now find themselves out muscled by those with a less healthy interest in SFC's future?

 

Whilst the problems of Lowe's tenure have been well discussed, I do believe he had the best interests of SFC's future at heart. As we can see from the names that cease trading every week, it is not easy running a business in the current climate. Lowe had a plan that maye well had worked long term. I just hope that whoever buys us also has a decent plan and that we don't end up with well meaning people who like the idea of playing with a football club for the sake of the own vanity.

 

This is a very sad time for the club. We were probbaly very fortunate to have a man like Ted Bates at the helm so so long. If we find another of that stature then perhaps the last fews years will not have been for nothing, but you do wonder if any of that breed still exist.

I hope I am wrong, but I sense another HOne waiting in the wings.

 

You cannot have a succesful long-term plan that fails in the short term, though.

[aintforever]

One obvious mistake is not taking admin before the deadline and taking any points hit this season instead of starting next season on -10.

 

The club will be much harder to sell if the prospective buyers know they will have at least 2 seasons in League 1.

 

Alpine's "take admin now" thread got alot of stick but he was proved 100% right.