Administration - Good or Bad?

[Wes Tender]

Here's one that measures the muppet factor on this website...

 

All in your oh so humble opinion, of course, Misguided.

 

Which are the muppets you refer to from that poll? Those who would boycott or those who would not? I'm suspecting that despite your lack of clarity, that it is the boycotters that you are referring to.

 

There might equally be opinions just as valid that those who are prepared to attend and pay whatever the club choose to charge, regardless of whether it is absolute dross are the muppets.

 

As a more sensible debate, who is to blame if attendances drop because the fans are served up dross? The fans, or the people who are responsible for that overpriced dross?

[um pahars]

As a more sensible debate, who is to blame if attendances drop because the fans are served up dross? The fans, or the people who are responsible for that overpriced dross?

 

Why it's the fans of course, as we certainly haven't been able to replicate the banana waving solidarity of the Kippax.

[sadoldgit]

Personally I would have preferred to have avoided administration at all costs. As you say GM, the team look totally demoralised and, basically, dead in the water. Goodness knows what the people who work at St Marys must be feeling.

 

Still, as we are there now we can only pray that this heralds a new beginning and better things to come. So much depends on who the buyer is though and we could well find ourselves with someone who is more liked than Lowe but without the nous and cash to get us back to the Premiership. Only time will tell.

 

Very sad times right now though.

[sadoldgit]

All in your oh so humble opinion, of course, Misguided.

 

Which are the muppets you refer to from that poll? Those who would boycott or those who would not? I'm suspecting that despite your lack of clarity, that it is the boycotters that you are referring to.

 

There might equally be opinions just as valid that those who are prepared to attend and pay whatever the club choose to charge, regardless of whether it is absolute dross are the muppets.

 

As a more sensible debate, who is to blame if attendances drop because the fans are served up dross? The fans, or the people who are responsible for that overpriced dross?

 

Wes, I can remember plenty of dross in the Premiership too, including one 0-0 draw with Fulham that was worse than sticking pins in my eyes.

[Guided Missile]

What are you going on about?????

 

Why is it a consequence of Rule 34 being circumvented?????

Rule 34 ensured that football clubs were run for the benefit of the fans and the community, not the directors or shareholders, numbnuts. It prevented some idiot with more money than sense, buying a few shares, deceiving a few gormless fans into supporting him and spunking all the club's money, on a sh! t or bust gamble to get promoted to the Premiership and thus potentially making lots of money for himself and his cronies along the way.

 

The question in this thread what other way can fans get rid of a board they don't like and the obvious way is for the fans to own the club. Rule 34 encouraged this type of structure, by removing the profit motive, levelling the playing field, which, without it, now favours rich sons of gun runners....

[Guided Missile]

There might equally be opinions just as valid that those who are prepared to attend and pay whatever the club choose to charge, regardless of whether it is absolute dross are the muppets.

 

As a more sensible debate, who is to blame if attendances drop because the fans are served up dross? The fans, or the people who are responsible for that overpriced dross?

Thanks for demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge on what differentiates a true fan from a punter looking for a couple hours light entertainment.

TBH, you're just a fickle windbag, whom the club will be well rid of next season. I'm glad I don't have to read your self preening and false justification for your absence from St. Mary's next season, as some sort of boycott against Lowe. Me? I'll be with at St. Marys with the rest of the muppets. Enjoy the shopping trips with the missus. You will have lots of fun, complaining about the fruit and vegetables at M&S.

[um pahars]

Rule 34 ensured that football clubs were run for the benefit of the fans and the community, not the directors or shareholders, numbnuts. It prevented some idiot with more money than sense, buying a few shares, deceiving a few gormless fans into supporting him and spunking all the club's money, on a sh! t or bust gamble to get promoted to the Premiership and thus potentially making lots of money for himself and his cronies along the way.

 

The question in this thread what other way can fans get rid of a board they don't like and the obvious way is for the fans to own the club. Rule 34 encouraged this type of structure, by removing the profit motive, levelling the playing field, which, without it, now favours rich sons of gun runners....

 

You need to go and read Rule 34 and really understand what it was all about then dinlo man, as it is about the restrictions on dividends, directors salaries etc etc etc

 

The ethos was to preserve sporting and cultural aspects of football and prevent over commercialisation, but it had absolutely fck all to do with supporter ownership or influence of Club's by its supporters.

 

Most clubs were and still are owned by shareholders and in fact in the "olden days" the share ownership and control was even more restricted.

 

Historically most football clubs incorporated as limited companies (with a restirction on the sale and control of shares, ownership and control of the clubs).

 

You only have to look at our own club who were probably an ideal exampe of how "old clubs" were set up and run. A few gentlemen shareholders doing their public service, but absolutley fck all supporter influence.

[lenwilkins]

You need to go and read Rule 34 and really understand what it was all about then dinlo man, as it is about the restrictions on dividends, directors salaries etc etc etc

 

The ethos was to preserve sporting and cultural aspects of football and prevent over commercialisation, but it had absolutely fck all to do with supporter ownership or influence of Club's by its supporters.

 

Most clubs were and still are owned by shareholders and in fact in the "olden days" the share ownership and control was even more restricted.

 

Historically most football clubs incorporated as limited companies (with a restirction on the sale and control of shares, ownership and control of the clubs).

 

You only have to look at our own club who were probably an ideal exampe of how "old clubs" were set up and run. A few gentlemen shareholders doing their public service, but absolutley fck all supporter influence.

 

Yup agree with that Up. No need to call Johnny a dinlo tho'. He must get enough of that at home.:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[um pahars]

Yup agree with that Up. No need to call Johnny a dinlo tho'. He must get enough of that at home.:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

 

I don't normally go in for the abuse, but when he starts dishing it out then it's very easy to get drawn in to a slanging match.

 

Sadly, he has some good things to say, but at the same time it's very dangerous just to use the internet as your source of information and then pretend you know what you're on about.

 

Rule 34 has fck all to do with supporter ownership, influence or control (and I'm sure David Conn would put him right on that as well).

[Nineteen Canteen]

Now that the inevitable has happened, I wonder what people think, now that they reflect on the consequences. Many on this board have been campaigning for administration for a long time,as a way of ridding the club of a personality they disliked and reducing the debt in some way. Some, myself included, viewed it as the worst of all outcomes, demoralising for the players and employees, with uncertainty replacing hope.

 

The team look shattered to me, with their confidence destroyed. I can't see an alternative to relegation and a long, long fight to rebuild the club and a continual risk that the team will spend as long in Division One/Two as it did in the Premiership/Championship.

 

I wonder how many of the posters that wanted administration will say that the situation we are in now, is a good place to be. I also wonder what the true "surge" of support has been since Lowe has gone and the "fans" fighting for his removal flooded back to St. Marys. Cue replies of "It's too early to tell". That won't wash for me, because there is no way this course will ever be better than if the fans had kept going and administration had been avoided.

 

They say be careful what you wish for, as it may come true. Never has this been more apt...

 

Excellent post and being in charge of your own destiny was always 100% better than placing the club's future in the hands of bankers looking to protect the interests of their shareholders and operating under heavy scrutiny from the government, the BoE, the regulators, the media and the public. I don't care if Lowe and his cronies were in charge it could have the entire cast from the Magic Roundabout for all I care but without the unconditional support of those who attended last season but decided to walk away this season we were screwed whoever was in charge.

 

Thanks to Lowe's efforts we survived as long as we did and I'm convinced with that extra support we would have survived both financially and in the Champsionship and how good would that feel compared to now?

 

'Be careful when asking for what you would like as you may be forced to like what you get'. I sense there is going to be no spoonfuls of sugar with the doses of medicine we are about to be administered.

 

Since Lowe has gone and the Administrators moved in there is an increasingly sense of resigned apathy and downbeat air and probably more in fighting than ever especially from those desperately trying to convince themselves this is a good thing. Its not and anyone who listened to Fry's interview on Solent yesterday during half time will understand just how bad things really are. I would doubt there is an acceptable bid on the table at the moment.

 

It's clearly and understandably affected the players why shouldn't it many are approaching retirement and some young players maybe worried about their future should the club fold that they simply can't lift their heads and switch off and many probably already have other deals lined up and want to keep fit for medicals.

 

We will get the 10 point deduction but we don't have the will or belief to get out of the relegation zone. Therefore, next season we will start -10points and it will be more as I doubt all debts will be repaid so it could -17 -20 -27?. How much more I have no idea but hardly makes us attractive to new buyers does it? I think there is a no better than evens chance we will start 2010/11 in League 2.

 

Administration a good idea? All depends if you believe in the stupidity of mob rule.

[Nineteen Canteen]

 

 

Succinctly missing the point and failing to grasp that the fans not going to matches is not the issue. It's why they weren't going that is the key point.

 

.

 

Why were the average attendances higher last season when we missed out on relegation by 20 minutes and this season with it being well publicised the club was struggling to survive did we lose anything form 2,500 to 5,000+ fans from DAY 1. I repeat Day 1, before perfomance became an issue and it wasn't exactly great last season, worse when you consider how much of club funds we p1ssed on players on their last hurrah/take.

 

The differences in averages would have generated enough revenue about £1.3m to probably satisfy the bank. Fans decided to let their blind hatred for the chairman take precedent over their alledged unconditional support for the club.

[Wes Tender]

Thanks for demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge on what differentiates a true fan from a punter looking for a couple hours light entertainment.

TBH, you're just a fickle windbag, whom the club will be well rid of next season. I'm glad I don't have to read your self preening and false justification for your absence from St. Mary's next season, as some sort of boycott against Lowe. Me? I'll be with at St. Marys with the rest of the muppets. Enjoy the shopping trips with the missus. You will have lots of fun, complaining about the fruit and vegetables at M&S.

 

Thanks for demonstrating that although you appear at first sight to be an intelligent and educated person, the fact is that your lack of comprehension of the English language suggests otherwise.

 

It might well be, of course, that having had me on ignore allegedly, you missed some salient points that I had made regarding my position on the boycott. It also seems to have escaped your attention that Lowe is gone, so the reason for my boycott is also gone. Therefore, instead of going shopping with the Missus, I will in fact be watching the team playing football, regardless of which division we find ourselves, complete with my ST.

 

My boycott covered about 4 home matches this season, coinciding with the protest marches. On that basis, I attended more matches than the majority of others this season. That is four home matches missed through boycott in all the time that Lowe has been here and before. Previously, the boycott was purely of the ST and only for two seasons, but not for the home matches.

 

Ironic isn't it, that you could state that the club will be well rid of fans like me, while attempting to blame stay away fans for our predicament. But perhaps that didn't occur to you either.

[Wes Tender]

Why were the average attendances higher last season when we missed out on relegation by 20 minutes and this season with it being well publicised the club was struggling to survive did we lose anything form 2,500 to 5,000+ fans from DAY 1. I repeat Day 1, before perfomance became an issue and it wasn't exactly great last season, worse when you consider how much of club funds we p1ssed on players on their last hurrah/take.

 

The differences in averages would have generated enough revenue about £1.3m to probably satisfy the bank. Fans decided to let their blind hatred for the chairman take precedent over their alledged unconditional support for the club.

 

Yes. Regrettable that many thought that way, but Lowe and Wilde ought to have realised that it was a distinct possibility before they returned and dismissed a popular manager out of spite, loaned out the team's stars, replaced them with kids and appointed two clueless Dutchmen.

[Wes Tender]

So much depends on who the buyer is though and we could well find ourselves with someone who is more liked than Lowe but without the nous and cash to get us back to the Premiership. Only time will tell.

 

 

This infers that Lowe has the nous and the cash to get us up. It is because he had neither that we are in the position that we are. Even if those who take over are more liked than Lowe but don't have the cash, the probability is that they will either have the nous to at least make better footballing decisions than Lowe did, or at least have the humility to consult others with that nous. But somebody more liked than Lowe will attract more support than him, which will mean a better atmosphere at the club and a sense of unity that we have not had these past many years.

[Alain Perrin]

Jesus.

 

You lot would argue about who has the best pair of socks.

 

There are no facts only opinions, and the polls on here, whether they are used to support a Lowe Out case (I know you've done that Um) or to support administration, are worthless. They are a snapshot of opinion, often taken at times of emotion (post win/loss) with loaded questions. i.e. amusing but statistically irrelevant.

 

Would you:

 

a) Want Saints to go into administration.

b) Not want Saints to go into administration (and kill your Gran)

 

The sooner people stop dressing opinions up as facts then the sooner we can rebuild and start supporting Saints again (assuming that's what you want).

[trousers]

Grateful if you could post a list of the posters who were "campaigning" or "wished for" adminsitration so we know who we're talking about here. In the plethora of posts we've had about this I'm yet to see anyone able to quote more than a handful of 'suspects'.

 

Thanks.

 

Any chance of this list? Ta.

[Legod Third Coming]

In the original post, I simply said that it would have been better if the fans had kept going and administration had been avoided, nothing more.

 

Since you bought up the subject of elasticity of demand, however, and while you are welcome to demonstrate that you gained an HNC in business administration, where you did an homework assignment on market economics, in this case we are talking about a football club, FFS, not a branch of MFI.

 

As I have captured the attention of two Dragons' Den wannabes, how about you and your fellow intellectual, Steve "Saints Go Wilde" Godwin commenting on the data below and your wholly inappropriate application of the "Elasticity of Demand" to the economics of community based organisations such as football clubs?

 

1995-1996

F.A. Carling Premier League

Manchester City 27,941

 

1996-1997

Nationwide League Division One

Manchester City 26,710

 

1997-1998

Nationwide League Division One

Manchester City 28,197

 

1998-1999

Nationwide League Division Two

Manchester City 28,273

 

1999-2000

Nationwide League Division One

Manchester City 32,088

 

Carling Premiership

2000-2001

Manchester City 34.058

 

 

Perhaps if we appointed Kevin Keegan, invested in the side and showed the same belief and ambition in our future our gates would match...

[OldNick]

Thanks for highlighting nickh's ignorance LOL.

 

How the fck can you even think that that poll, with that question, in that context equates to people campaigning for administration I'll never know LMFAO.:smt119:rolleyes:

Where do i say I said they were campaigning? I pointed out that a lot of fans were in favour and used a poll as an example. You took it that i said/meant campaigned for it.Richmond has been calling for administration most of the season amongst the other examples you had given.

A couple of days ago after Jonah had yet again pulled you apart he suggested i called you Dumb Pahars, I stated that I didnt think that was apt, perhaps I was wrong in that.

If people vote in favour of something it is fair to suggest they believe that is their belief, they dont need to go on marches or wave banners. You obviously see things black and white and either can't or don't want to see where I was coming from.

No doubt the rolley eyes and all the other juvenile emotions are now going to be beaten to death on your computer keyboard in reply.

It is sad that somebody who comes across as bright and a good contributor has to add such things to try and give weight to an arguement.If you stood back and looked you might see what i mean but i doubt it, you obviously think your words or replies are not strong enough for that to be enough.

[um pahars]

Where do i say I said they were campaigning? I pointed out that a lot of fans were in favour and used a poll as an example.

 

Do yourself a favour and content yourself wth the pathetic notion of my enemies enemy etc etc etc as it just about sums you up.

[VectisSaint]

Administration can never be good. That said, we were effectively relegated before Christmas so Admin is not a factor in whether we get relegated. Assuming we do survive (and it is a big IF) then in the end it may be a bitter pill to swallow but it is the only way to get rid of the PLC Albatross that was preventing us being taken over. If you want to read that as "getting rid of Lowe" then so be it. Lowe created the albatross and Wilde fed it.

[Halo Stickman]

They say be careful what you wish for, as it may come true. Never has this been more apt...

 

I remember people on the previous incarnation of this forum welcoming our relegation to the Championship because ‘Saints will now be a big club in a small league, we’ll get to see them win more often, we’ll have a chance to visit new grounds with less plastics' ...blah, blah, blah!

[OldNick]

Do yourself a favour and content yourself wth the pathetic notion of my enemies enemy etc etc etc as it just about sums you up.

I dont see you as an enemy at all, I believe that you are as passionate about our football club , in fact probably more than me and that is saying something.We both want what is best and though we come from different ends it is because we care.

I cant imagine a period in time when it was more deprssing being a fan of this club and so we thrash about in frustration.

I appreciate you not adding the emotions on this occasion ,thankyou

[Junior Mullet]

It is a good thing. We were facing relegation regardless of the administration situation. Don't think that's changed things on the pitch.

 

So glad that we've finally got rid of the PLC structure and the main owners. Looking forward to the fresh start and the hope and optimism we can truly all gleen from that. Any hope whilst under Lowe was tempered by the fact that things were never going to be good enough and that the club would always perform within itself.

 

I'm not sure when the good days will return but I believe they will come back sooner than they ever would under the Lowe/PLC structure.

 

GM, I'm not sure many people are enjoying things the way they are here and now, but this is a transitional phase. I am excited by what the future may bring.

[Nineteen Canteen]

Yes. Regrettable that many thought that way, but Lowe and Wilde ought to have realised that it was a distinct possibility before they returned and dismissed a popular manager out of spite, loaned out the team's stars, replaced them with kids and appointed two clueless Dutchmen.

 

Bit harsh Wes, I would agree with 1 hapless dutchman and 1 who seems to show similar credentials to Pearson and has an endorsement from Martin Jol so maybe someone we should hang to, given money could be even tighter going forward.

[Nineteen Canteen]

Where do i say I said they were campaigning? I pointed out that a lot of fans were in favour and used a poll as an example. You took it that i said/meant campaigned for it.Richmond has been calling for administration most of the season amongst the other examples you had given.

A couple of days ago after Jonah had yet again pulled you apart he suggested i called you Dumb Pahars, I stated that I didnt think that was apt, perhaps I was wrong in that.

 

, you obviously think your words or replies are not strong enough for that to be enough.

 

That's gotta hurt

[Wes Tender]

Bit harsh Wes, I would agree with 1 hapless dutchman and 1 who seems to show similar credentials to Pearson and has an endorsement from Martin Jol so maybe someone we should hang to, given money could be even tighter going forward.

 

I was prepared to give Wotte a chance to prove his credentials once Poortvliet was dismissed. At first glance, he seemed to be OK, certainly better than JP and we even had three wins on the trot and it looked as if he was on to something. He even appeared to have listened to widespread opinions that we were better suited as a team with playing a 4-4-2 formation and a mixture of youth and more experienced players. But very strange team choices and some poor substitutions have caused me to revise my opinion of him.

[Verbal]

That's gotta hurt

 

Putting the petty bickering aside for a minute, here’s an idea…

 

In the absence of a generous (or stupid) benefactor, the consequences of administration will unravel for several seasons to come.

 

The immediate problem, which will make our situation much worse, is the reasonably high likelihood of a ten-point penalty. Mawhinney at the Football League has pulled the classic politician’s stunt of booting the problem into the long grass, and we may not know the outcome for some weeks, no matter how ‘urgently’ the ‘forensic accounting’ is carried out. But then he’s a politician – what did we or anyone else expect?

 

If we drop into League One and start the season on minus 10, we’d have to be as good as Leicester just to be reasonably sure of a play-off place. Anything less and we’re looking at two or more seasons struggling to ‘rebuild’ – which doesn’t describe half the pain…

 

So the question is: Lowe’s technicality aside, how to avoid the ten points? We haven’t really got that much ammunition.

 

In my view, the best argument is the future of the academy. Its running costs are about, or close to, £1m a year – clearly unsustainable for a club stuck for long in the League One quagmire of poor finances and mediocrity.

 

The only realistic thing to do, if the ten points are imposed, is to shut the academy. Does Mawhinney really want this? Does he want to be forever associated with closing what has been seen as one of the country’s best football academies? (And certainly as good as they get outside the Prem).

 

The whole penalty system is surely going to start looking utterly bankrupt (no pun…) if it destroys institutions designed – at great cost to the clubs that run them – to promote young, mostly British talent.

 

A quiet word in Mawhinney’s ear might at least help. He is, as I say, a politician – and not an especially talented one (I talk with direct experience).

 

Just a thought.

[Nineteen Canteen]

Putting the petty bickering aside for a minute, here’s an idea…

 

In the absence of a generous (or stupid) benefactor, the consequences of administration will unravel for several seasons to come.

 

The immediate problem, which will make our situation much worse, is the reasonably high likelihood of a ten-point penalty. Mawhinney at the Football League has pulled the classic politician’s stunt of booting the problem into the long grass, and we may not know the outcome for some weeks, no matter how ‘urgently’ the ‘forensic accounting’ is carried out. But then he’s a politician – what did we or anyone else expect?

 

If we drop into League One and start the season on minus 10, we’d have to be as good as Leicester just to be reasonably sure of a play-off place. Anything less and we’re looking at two or more seasons struggling to ‘rebuild’ – which doesn’t describe half the pain…

 

So the question is: Lowe’s technicality aside, how to avoid the ten points? We haven’t really got that much ammunition.

 

In my view, the best argument is the future of the academy. Its running costs are about, or close to, £1m a year – clearly unsustainable for a club stuck for long in the League One quagmire of poor finances and mediocrity.

 

The only realistic thing to do, if the ten points are imposed, is to shut the academy. Does Mawhinney really want this? Does he want to be forever associated with closing what has been seen as one of the country’s best football academies? (And certainly as good as they get outside the Prem).

 

The whole penalty system is surely going to start looking utterly bankrupt (no pun…) if it destroys institutions designed – at great cost to the clubs that run them – to promote young, mostly British talent.

 

A quiet word in Mawhinney’s ear might at least help. He is, as I say, a politician – and not an especially talented one (I talk with direct experience).

 

Just a thought.

 

Mawhinney has not kicked this into the long grass just merely passed the buck to the experts so he can make is decision backed by the gravitas of some forensic accountants. We all know what the decision will be and any impact on the Academy won't IMO be given a second thought.

 

I would agree the penalty system is ill thought out but not morally bankrupt as clubs deliberately going bust to avoid honouring their debts to start again paying ridiculously inflated salaries to footballers. Clubs cannot be allowed to go down that route without fear of drastic punishment.

 

Footballers a bit like houses have effectively priced themselves out of the market except maybe at the most elite clubs in Europe. Its unsustainable but Mawhinney won't tackle that will he?

[aintforever]

So the question is: Lowe’s technicality aside, how to avoid the ten points? We haven’t really got that much ammunition.

 

If Lowe had announced admin 6 days earlier than he did we would be starting next season on a level playing field.

 

His final act of spite or incompetence has really ****ed this club up.

[VectisSaint]

Why were the average attendances higher last season when we missed out on relegation by 20 minutes and this season with it being well publicised the club was struggling to survive did we lose anything form 2,500 to 5,000+ fans from DAY 1. I repeat Day 1, before perfomance became an issue and it wasn't exactly great last season, worse when you consider how much of club funds we p1ssed on players on their last hurrah/take.

 

The differences in averages would have generated enough revenue about £1.3m to probably satisfy the bank. Fans decided to let their blind hatred for the chairman take precedent over their alledged unconditional support for the club.

Actually 1st home league game this season was 18925, it was only AFTER this that the attendances dropped off steeply. And of course we had laready played Cardiff away before that, as well as numerous pre-season games where the evidence was there for all to see how things had turned out since Lowe had put Mr Nice But Dim and his mate in charge of a load of youngsters who were not ready for this level and loaned out some of best players. Difference last season with NP in charge was that people had HOPE, unlike after Wilde had brought his new cohort Lowe back in, when most rational people could see that most hope had been destroyed.

[Nineteen Canteen]

If Lowe had announced admin 6 days earlier than he did we would be starting next season on a level playing field.

 

His final act of spite or incompetence has really ****ed this club up.

 

My understanding is you don't put yourself in administration your creditors do that for you. I'm not sure we all know the facts but at this stage you may wish to direct your anger towards Barclays as it was perfectly feasible that 6 days earlier they had given no indication they were going to withdraw their support and Lowe at the time was I am told working very hard to secure extra funding or investment.

 

I am fairly certain the board would have notified Barclays of the football league impedning deadline and can only assume they received a satisfactory response.

 

So before you start acting as if you are in the know lets get some clarity as to what actually happened otherwise your post could be deemed as libellous.

[aintforever]

My understanding is you don't put yourself in administration your creditors do that for you. I'm not sure we all know the facts but at this stage you may wish to direct your anger towards Barclays as it was perfectly feasible that 6 days earlier they had given no indication they were going to withdraw their support and Lowe at the time was I am told working very hard to secure extra funding or investment.

 

I am fairly certain the board would have notified Barclays of the football league impedning deadline and can only assume they received a satisfactory response.

 

So before you start acting as if you are in the know lets get some clarity as to what actually happened otherwise your post could be deemed as libellous.

 

Lowe surely had to be aware of the overdraft facility, and of how much was going out in cheques? A simple meeting with the bank a couple of weeks before might have been a good idea - no?

 

As for extra funding, both lowe and Wilde are very wealthy men - maybe a short term interest free loan might have helped?

[Nineteen Canteen]

Actually 1st home league game this season was 18925, it was only AFTER this that the attendances dropped off steeply. And of course we had laready played Cardiff away before that, as well as numerous pre-season games where the evidence was there for all to see how things had turned out since Lowe had put Mr Nice But Dim and his mate in charge of a load of youngsters who were not ready for this level and loaned out some of best players. Difference last season with NP in charge was that people had HOPE, unlike after Wilde had brought his new cohort Lowe back in, when most rational people could see that most hope had been destroyed.

 

Trouble is Vectis the season before our 1st home game against Palace (from memory) was c25k and then dropped off around the 20k mark on average (exact figures have been posted on here b4). First match attendances are always high.

 

I don't think we had hope under NP anymore than we do now and the first two games this season were entertaining and full of promise and we were deemed to be very unlucky so your logic that attendances fell steeply off the back of two very promising performances is either flawed or bears witness to how unrealistics some fan's expectation had become.

 

Pity really and not much more I can say on the subject. Revenue - it does exactly what it says on the tin.

[Nineteen Canteen]

Lowe surely had to be aware of the overdraft facility, and of how much was going out in cheques? A simple meeting with the bank a couple of weeks before might have been a good idea - no?

 

As for extra funding, both lowe and Wilde are very wealthy men - maybe a short term interest free loan might have helped?

 

How do you know for a fact those meetings with Barclays did not take place? I suspect as FD, Jones would be making daily calls with the bank given the circumstances. As for the wealth of Lowe and Wilde I simply can't comment but Lowe's treatment by the fans was hardly conducive to him lending any money and Wilde? Seriously, who knows.

 

I would like to have seen Crouch make his offer of £2m without condition and offered the chairmanship of the FC Board and leave Wilde to play around with his fans parliament which in hindsight did look a ridiculous notion.

 

Its all ifs buts and maybes and no doubt in time the truth will come out.

[aintforever]

How do you know for a fact those meetings with Barclays did not take place? I suspect as FD, Jones would be making daily calls with the bank given the circumstances. As for the wealth of Lowe and Wilde I simply can't comment but Lowe's treatment by the fans was hardly conducive to him lending any money and Wilde? Seriously, who knows.

 

I would like to have seen Crouch make his offer of £2m without condition and offered the chairmanship of the FC Board and leave Wilde to play around with his fans parliament which in hindsight did look a ridiculous notion.

 

Its all ifs buts and maybes and no doubt in time the truth will come out.

 

I can't see what Barclay's would have to gain by misleading Lowe about the overdraft facility, or if in fact they can say one thing and do another?

 

Our financial state couldn't have been much different a few days earlier, we all knew the deadline was the last Thursday in March, I find it incredible that all this happened a few days later.

 

Clubs previously have been able to time going into admin during the half time break of the final league game to avoid a deduction the next season. Why were we incapable of even hitting an obvious deadline!

 

When we get the deduction we will be a far less attractive buy, 2 years in League 1 minimum. It will certainly reduce the value of the club, I will be very suspicious if Lowe attempts to buy the thing.

 

Also it is my understanding that the creditors didn't put us in admin, Lowe did it when some cheques bounced - I think.

Edited 12 April, 2009 by aintforever

[benjii]

Lowe surely had to be aware of the overdraft facility, and of how much was going out in cheques? A simple meeting with the bank a couple of weeks before might have been a good idea - no?

 

As for extra funding, both lowe and Wilde are very wealthy men - maybe a short term interest free loan might have helped?

 

This is a valid question.

 

Whatever did or didn't happen, to have to enter administration just a few days after the deadline due to a couple of bounced cheques smacks of a major ****-up by someone.

[MarkSFC]

I can't see what Barclay's would have to gain by misleading Lowe about the overdraft facility, or if in fact they can say one thing and do another?

 

Our financial state couldn't have been much different a few days earlier, we all knew the deadline was the last Thursday in March, I find it incredible that all this happened a few days later.

 

Clubs previously have been able to time going into admin during the half time break of the final league game to avoid a deduction the next season. Why were we incapable of even hitting an obvious deadline!

 

When we get the deduction we will be a far less attractive buy, 2 years in League 1 minimum. It will certainly reduce the value of the club, I will be very suspicious if Lowe attempts to buy the thing.

 

Also it is my understanding that the creditors didn't put us in admin, Lowe did it when some cheques bounced - I think.

 

My understanding (from an accountant mate) is that the creditors would create Administration when it suits them. He atually predicted this might happen in January - if only "the great businessman" RL and his Fd could have had the forsight back then. If we (SFC) need "only" £500,000 or so to get to the end of the season, why didnt we sell a player or two, to guarantee solvency or put other plans in place as there is now with the fundraising activity. They could then have put SLH/The Club up for sale with no 10 point concerns.

And surely its not really forsight to understand and plan your budget for the next 6 months. Lowe cannot pass the blame for this mess soley on to others, even if they created alot of it. His errors in the early 00's ended up in others taking a gamble to get us back to the promised land and the £30-40million jackpot!!

He chose to come back, and would surely have taken the glory had things turned out positively. They didn't so Mr Hubris should take the rap and move on!

 

He makes my blood boil!!!:smt086

[ottery st mary]

Rupert and Michael You pair really gave it to the fans ....Piiisss Up in a brewery comes to mind....Business men, Football men....You should both become politicians....

No but lets blame everyone else and as if Barclays didn't warn you at all.

[Verbal]

If Lowe had announced admin 6 days earlier than he did we would be starting next season on a level playing field.

 

His final act of spite or incompetence has really ****ed this club up.

 

Exactly. either way, he's left the club with a poisoned pill. I'm sure he didn't plan it that way...

[benjii]

I forgot to mention that we fecked up majorly with respect to not selling any players in January.

[Window Cleaner]

I forgot to mention that we fecked up majorly with respect to not selling any players in January.

 

No-one wanted to buy them;it's as easy as that.

In fact I suspect that Watford have recently indicated to us that they don't consider taking Rasiak off our hands as a viable option, hence very soon we'll be landed with another 3 months of his inflated salary. Probably drove us into administration,the prospect of getting 750K from Watford in the near future might have kept the bank at bay. Pure speculation of course but I can see it going down like that.

[um pahars]

No-one wanted to buy them;it's as easy as that.

 

I agree that to sell you have to have a willing buyer, but I can't believe we couldn't have raised some money had we really decided to bite the bullet.

 

Accept Swansea's low offer for Dyer???

 

Let it be known Lallana, Surman & anyone else was available, even if it started a firestorm???

 

Anythign had to be better than Administration and I can't help but think we slept walked towards it by assuming Barclay's would never pull the plug.

[SW11_Saint]

Now that the inevitable has happened, I wonder what people think, now that they reflect on the consequences. Many on this board have been campaigning for administration for a long time,as a way of ridding the club of a personality they disliked and reducing the debt in some way. Some, myself included, viewed it as the worst of all outcomes, demoralising for the players and employees, with uncertainty replacing hope.

 

The team look shattered to me, with their confidence destroyed. I can't see an alternative to relegation and a long, long fight to rebuild the club and a continual risk that the team will spend as long in Division One/Two as it did in the Premiership/Championship.

 

I wonder how many of the posters that wanted administration will say that the situation we are in now, is a good place to be. I also wonder what the true "surge" of support has been since Lowe has gone and the "fans" fighting for his removal flooded back to St. Marys. Cue replies of "It's too early to tell". That won't wash for me, because there is no way this course will ever be better than if the fans had kept going and administration had been avoided.

 

They say be careful what you wish for, as it may come true. Never has this been more apt...

I don't think anyone has been "campaigning" for administration - even if they were, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference, it's down to the incompetence of successive boards that we have arrived at this event.

 

Implicitly you seem to be turning the spotlight/blame on the fans for "wishing" it to happen, which is nonesense. Most just understood it would happen at some point in time and merely pointed that out.

 

To my mind the appointment of the duddly Dutch duo made poor performance and the resulting economic fallout inevitable: appoint clowns to run the team; farm out experience players, play kids; get bad results; players demoralised; management clueless; customers/fans p*ssed off; less money. Simple, and sadly another classic example of Lowe's ego getting in the way of common sense.

[SW11_Saint]

Now that the inevitable has happened, I wonder what people think, now that they reflect on the consequences. Many on this board ...

 

They say be careful what you wish for, as it may come true. Never has this been more apt...

Excellent post and being in charge of your own destiny was always 100% better ...

 

Administration a good idea? All depends if you believe in the stupidity of mob rule.

Hey GM/19C - you know they say it's the first sign of madness don't you...?

Edited 12 April, 2009 by SW11_Saint

[Window Cleaner]

I agree that to sell you have to have a willing buyer, but I can't believe we couldn't have raised some money had we really decided to bite the bullet.

 

Accept Swansea's low offer for Dyer???

 

Let it be known Lallana, Surman & anyone else was available, even if it started a firestorm???

 

Anythign had to be better than Administration and I can't help but think we slept walked towards it by assuming Barclay's would never pull the plug.

 

 

I believe we actually had offers for players but they were laughable, not surprising when there are so many players available for loan in January.

why would say Fulham want ot pay more than peanuts for Lallana when they can get a seasoned pro like Olivier Dacourt on loan from Inter Milan?

Eventually loans have to be stopped, otherwise the Prem and the CCC will just become a parking space for every Italian,French and Portuguese player that's out of favour at his parent club.Financed by Sky Television

[benjii]

Wotte himself confirmed that we had bids for Surman and Lallana and Swansea went public stating they wanted to sign Dyer.

 

Even if we did get "peanuts" I'm sure it would have covered the £500k we apparently desparately need and it may well have convinced Barclays to relax a little.

[alpine_saint]

This is a valid question.

 

Whatever did or didn't happen, to have to enter administration just a few days after the deadline due to a couple of bounced cheques smacks of a major ****-up by someone.

 

Yep.

 

And Lowe could easily have forced the banks hand to call in the debt prior to the cut off date.

 

As you said, a f**k-up - of colossal proportions, caused by unbelievable ego and arrogance.

[alpine_saint]

Rupert and Michael You pair really gave it to the fans ....Piiisss Up in a brewery comes to mind....Business men, Football men....You should both become politicians....

No but lets blame everyone else and as if Barclays didn't warn you at all.

 

I made the point a few days ago - to fall on the wrong side of the cut-off date for admin by SIX F**KING DAYS smacks of some serious communication issues between bank and club.......

[brmbrm]

My understanding (from an accountant mate) is that the creditors would create Administration when it suits them. .........

 

Yes, creditors can force a company into admin if they choose. However, the directors can also choose admin if necessary. So why Lowe didn't do it a week earlier beats me, unless it was revenge/spite/malice.

 

If only quislings like 19C etc had boycotted Lowe earlier we could have forced Barclays to put us into admin earlier, or, better still, get some action from the shareholders to oust lowe before he drives the club into the ground: but no, the quisling stuffs a few more shillings into Lowe's pockets and spin out the agony.

[aintforever]

I made the point a few days ago - to fall on the wrong side of the cut-off date for admin by SIX F**KING DAYS smacks of some serious communication issues between bank and club.......

 

I refuse to believe it's just the incompetence of Lowe that led to this, they would have known what Barclays plans were, they would have known exactly when we were to go over our overdraft.

 

IMO Lowe put the club into admin a few days after the deadline either out of spite, or for some other reason.

 

Can anypne else offer a logical explanation as to why we would enter administration just a few days after the critcal deadline?