slickmick Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Something to do with administration and the rally call that followed. Add to that, its the end of the season with a lot at stake, generally always produces bigger gates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red and White Army Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Frank - you may think it "outrageous" but there are vast swathes of genuine Saints fans who were prepared to take the gamble of administration if it meant the removal of Lowe. . Vast swathes of people thought the earth was flat - doesn't mean they were right either. Plenty of us have been saying administration would be a disaster and we're sadly being proved right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Add to that, its the end of the season with a lot at stake, generally always produces bigger gates. Another good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Frank - you may think it "outrageous" but there are vast swathes of genuine Saints fans who were prepared to take the gamble of administration if it meant the removal of Lowe. Perhaps they know not what they wish for, but for many the club under Lowe was barely worth supporting anymore. (Certainly Barclays were of that opinion.) Bizarre? Maybe, but I do think you - in your efforts to be balanced - lose sight of the sheer distaste there is/was for Lowe's continued involvement in SFC. Sure there are plenty of others who have contributed to our downfall but whether you like it or not he will always (quite rightly imo) be seen as the main catalyst. Hi Duncan I think for me the main issue, and ultimately the reason why I end up with the label I have is its things like 'distaste' and 'hate' and all the other emotions that follow LOwe like a bad smell that I cant get my head around. The reason being that I dont believe the mistakes, errors of judgement and often risky appiointments were done with malice or in some deluded way to ruin the club, and the way some folk do go on its as if he was caught in the swing park with his trousers around his ankles! I confess that never having met or spoken to him I cant vouch fro his personality and as you have and are not known for hysteria, vcan quite believe he is probably not someone I would particularly like given his reactions to qyuite genuine fan concerns or comments - but for me it was never relevent, provided he did what was necessary - and was IMHO prepared to make the difficult decisons - I was always and will continue to be an advocate of clubs liviung within their means and being prudent with spending - so from that perspective he was preferable to Wilde's risky strategy which Crouch really could have stopped as FC Chair had he recognised the dangers of failure - So it was never about personality, or about one being better than another but about what was being done - I guess those like me who have tried to be supportive of this, do so because we are of the opinion that in this modern age of perilous financial tightrope walking that football has become, we always put that ahead of the 'ambition' approach seen at many other clubs of borrowings for potential success - which perhaps the majority of fans feel is more important - as someone said - many Leeds fans still think their CL run was worh the risk and their current pain - but for how many years? I think wher we stand on that 'risk' v 'ambition' v prudence goes along way to how we viewed Lowes approach. The football stuff, eg manager choices is another matter - thats just good old fashioned debate about strategies, pros and cons of various approaches etc - cant argue that Lowes **** ups here have seriously outweighed his successes, but I also simply enjoyed looking into 'why' certain strategies may have been adopted and what the pros and cons were - as you know, i have alwyas been a fan of doing things a bit differently - maybe going against the 'traditional' grain so that was always going to influence my opinion. As a result of all this, I find it very difficult to understand why there has been and is SUCH a strong emotional dislike for one man, given that the club is what matters, that some have put this ahead of anything else, and were even prepared to risk the clubs very existence - Lowe would have gone eventually anyway - walking into retirement to reflect on his tenure, but advocating administration and the risk associated with it to the clubs existence seems odd and bizzare to me even with what has befallen teh club these last 5 years. Now as time runs out, everything is up in the air, relegation battle against a backdrop of administration against a Football league points deduction that could make any last grasp survival miracle irrelevent anyway... sorry, but i just cant see how anyone could want this. So will someone come in and sort this out? The longer it goes without a clear front runner, it suggests to me we dont have any clear winner with proof of funds significant enough for teh administrator to seriously - OK perhaps they are waiting for teh FL decison and also the outcome of teh relegation battle, but positive news on that front NOW woudl surely be a big boost for fans and the squad - so genuine fans interested would surely step up to the plate now for the sake of a couple of mil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 HI Frank I think it is quite hard to put into words why Lowe attracted such strong emotions. I guess it is for a variety of reasons. Speaking totally personally now, on the one occasion we communicated I found him pompous, arrogant, ill-mannered and a bully. He refused to budge an inch in debate and never admitted he was wrong. He literally had no redeeming qualities. Now I admit he didn't like my views or the way I challenged him but he was unable to discuss our differences civilly. In fact his debate involved talking over me and then calling me a name. It is little wonder after this exchange I didn't like the man. However I think I could have lived with all this if he had stuck to being a Chairman in the old fashioned sense of the word ie not having the FINAL say in football matters. Unfortunately he started getting too involved in footballing decisions and although he may have got a few right, he got a lot more wrong and hence the beginning of the end. I think had he not gone the first time we would not now be in administration because no doubt the actions of the execs contributed massively to that but Lowe's mis management post Cardiff had already embarked SFC down the rocky road and because so many of us were desperate to see him go (understandable) we did not check the lifeboat too carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
washsaint Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Re. attendances..................... Gates have gone up because: Prices were heavily reduced for Charlton game Kids for a quid for Palace game End of season relegation battle We're in administration (yeah great thing that is) How utteryl ridiculous to say gates have gone up (in the 2 games) beacuse Lowe has gone. So the large gates we had for Forest and Man U were because Lowe was here? And FF - how any reasonable Saints fan could ever wish for/accept administration just to get rid of one person is beyond belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Re. attendances..................... Gates have gone up because: Prices were heavily reduced for Charlton game Kids for a quid for Palace game End of season relegation battle We're in administration (yeah great thing that is) How utteryl ridiculous to say gates have gone up (in the 2 games) beacuse Lowe has gone. So the large gates we had for Forest and Man U were because Lowe was here? And FF - how any reasonable Saints fan could ever wish for/accept administration just to get rid of one person is beyond belief. I accept it is bizarre. Probably because not everyone understands the implications but Wash Saint, I think it a case of seeing how other clubs have emerged out of the ashes of administration and gone on to better things. If it happens to us (BIG IF) then those fans who you label as being "beyond belief" will be vindicated. I guess we will just have to wait and see which way (to use an American term) "the cookie crumbles". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 HI Frank I think it is quite hard to put into words why Lowe attracted such strong emotions. I guess it is for a variety of reasons. Speaking totally personally now, on the one occasion we communicated I found him pompous, arrogant, ill-mannered and a bully. He refused to budge an inch in debate and never admitted he was wrong. He literally had no redeeming qualities. Now I admit he didn't like my views or the way I challenged him but he was unable to discuss our differences civilly. In fact his debate involved talking over me and then calling me a name. It is little wonder after this exchange I didn't like the man. However I think I could have lived with all this if he had stuck to being a Chairman in the old fashioned sense of the word ie not having the FINAL say in football matters. Unfortunately he started getting too involved in footballing decisions and although he may have got a few right, he got a lot more wrong and hence the beginning of the end. I think had he not gone the first time we would not now be in administration because no doubt the actions of the execs contributed massively to that but Lowe's mis management post Cardiff had already embarked SFC down the rocky road and because so many of us were desperate to see him go (understandable) we did not check the lifeboat too carefully. Yes I think that pretty well sums up the situation unfortunately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Re. attendances..................... Gates have gone up because: Prices were heavily reduced for Charlton game Kids for a quid for Palace game End of season relegation battle We're in administration (yeah great thing that is) How utteryl ridiculous to say gates have gone up (in the 2 games) beacuse Lowe has gone. Gates have indeed gone up for a myriad of reasons (some of which you have highlighted above), but you cannot simply dismiss Lowe leaving a being one of those reasons. It is impossible to quantify what affect each one of these reasons has on attendances, but Lowe leaving is as valid as some of the others you have mentioned. So the large gates we had for Forest and Man U were because Lowe was here? But they were linked and had more to do with "Premiership Football Fans" coming to see United than supporting Saints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
washsaint Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Like Leeds, Darlington, Leicester, Bournemouth, Rotheram. It worked a treat for all of them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Like Leeds, Darlington, Leicester, Bournemouth, Rotheram. It worked a treat for all of them! Leicester and quite possibly Leeds will probably be playing in a higher division than us plus of course Leeds had the "fun" bit beforehand - something Lowe's prudence (not knocking him here) denied us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Leicester and quite possibly Leeds will probably be playing in a higher division than us plus of course Leeds had the "fun" bit beforehand - something Lowe's prudence (not knocking him here) denied us. I think this is one of the most interesting points because I do think how we perceived Lowe or his board etc v the other possibles will have been greatly influence by our own thoughts on what consitutes a 'worthwhile risk' - as I mentioned above many Leeds fans to this day still feel the punsihment was worth it because they touched glory, others dont etc. I would suggest that how we felt about LOwe was often governed by his approach to spending - seen as lacking ambition by many, but as prudent by others - two sides of the same coin? I just wonder how we would feel about Lowe had he gone mad spent 40 mil in 2003, finished 4th in 2005, got to the CL quarters at least and then finishing on only 5th under stachan in 2005 menat we had a fire sale and got relegated twice in succession that way? would we hate him as much had he tried to live the dream? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 I think this is one of the most interesting points because I do think how we perceived Lowe or his board etc v the other possibles will have been greatly influence by our own thoughts on what consitutes a 'worthwhile risk' - as I mentioned above many Leeds fans to this day still feel the punsihment was worth it because they touched glory, others dont etc. I would suggest that how we felt about LOwe was often governed by his approach to spending - seen as lacking ambition by many, but as prudent by others - two sides of the same coin? I just wonder how we would feel about Lowe had he gone mad spent 40 mil in 2003, finished 4th in 2005, got to the CL quarters at least and then finishing on only 5th under stachan in 2005 menat we had a fire sale and got relegated twice in succession that way? would we hate him as much had he tried to live the dream? ;-) But no-one expected us to go mad and spend anywhere near that.....WGS wanted 11m to spend on Saha and Malbranque but Rupert felt it was wrong to give another club in th same division that much money as it strengthened them...ignoring the fact it would also strengthen us. We then sold Bridge etc and the rest is history. Had we of given WGS the money would he of stayed, would we of kicked on to the next level? No-one knows just like that nut job Dalek never knows whether his Messiah would of been any better here than he did elsewhere like Wolves. But one thing is certain what RL did since has been a catastrophe in alliance with many others but he started the ball rolling IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 I think this is one of the most interesting points because I do think how we perceived Lowe or his board etc v the other possibles will have been greatly influence by our own thoughts on what consitutes a 'worthwhile risk' - as I mentioned above many Leeds fans to this day still feel the punsihment was worth it because they touched glory, others dont etc. I would suggest that how we felt about LOwe was often governed by his approach to spending - seen as lacking ambition by many, but as prudent by others - two sides of the same coin? I just wonder how we would feel about Lowe had he gone mad spent 40 mil in 2003, finished 4th in 2005, got to the CL quarters at least and then finishing on only 5th under stachan in 2005 menat we had a fire sale and got relegated twice in succession that way? would we hate him as much had he tried to live the dream? ;-) Ask them their opinion of Peter Ridsdale. That might give us a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 But no-one expected us to go mad and spend anywhere near that.....WGS wanted 11m to spend on Saha and Malbranque but Rupert felt it was wrong to give another club in th same division that much money as it strengthened them...ignoring the fact it would also strengthen us. We then sold Bridge etc and the rest is history. Had we of given WGS the money would he of stayed, would we of kicked on to the next level? No-one knows just like that nut job Dalek never knows whether his Messiah would of been any better here than he did elsewhere like Wolves. But one thing is certain what RL did since has been a catastrophe in alliance with many others but he started the ball rolling IMO. Sorry Ron, but that old chestnut is well past its sell by date - Its pretty obvious that the 'not giving money to our competitors' was a crap smokescreen - afterall who ever heard of that in football? THe ONLY reason we did not get Saha and Malbranque was money - both in the transfer fee itself and more importantntly because lOwe did not want to break the wage structure we had in place - to believe it was some bull about not giving Fulham 11 mil was rubbish. We simply did not have the 20mil or so it would have cost in fees , wages and top ups to existing player contracts at that time... and Bridge wanted to go as soon as he was offered double wages - how can you hang on to that? Strachan may well have stayed, but I did lose some of the respect I had for Strachan that he in effect threw his toys out the pram because of this - the very best managers work with what they have and improve things - he did that, sure, then had a bit of a hissy one when bridge went and spent 7 mil of that on most a load of crap - was that out of spite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Sorry Ron, but that old chestnut is well past its sell by date - Its pretty obvious that the 'not giving money to our competitors' was a crap smokescreen - afterall who ever heard of that in football? THe ONLY reason we did not get Saha and Malbranque was money - both in the transfer fee itself and more importantntly because lOwe did not want to break the wage structure we had in place - to believe it was some bull about not giving Fulham 11 mil was rubbish. We simply did not have the 20mil or so it would have cost in fees , wages and top ups to existing player contracts at that time... and Bridge wanted to go as soon as he was offered double wages - how can you hang on to that? Strachan may well have stayed, but I did lose some of the respect I had for Strachan that he in effect threw his toys out the pram because of this - the very best managers work with what they have and improve things - he did that, sure, then had a bit of a hissy one when bridge went and spent 7 mil of that on most a load of crap - was that out of spite? Superb piece of Lowe apologia there from Fence's cousin...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Superb piece of Lowe apologia there from Fence's cousin...... Pure genius, no really, I am astounded as to how you do it... Here in the UK 17 years + of education means we tend to have learned to a)read and b) comprehend. I am sorry that you never had such an opportunity.... Jeez... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Pure genius' date=' no really, I am astounded as to how you do it... Here in the UK 17 years + of education means we tend to have learned to a)read and b) comprehend. I am sorry that you never had such an opportunity.... Jeez...[/quote'] Yep, anyone who thinks you write comfy fence sitting banal bolllocks must lack intelligence.... Says it all really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Yep, anyone who thinks you write comfy fence sitting banal bolllocks must lack intelligence.... Says it all really... You really are a nasty piece of work - who just does not get it at all - what does your lonely neuron do for a friend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 (edited) Sorry Ron, but that old chestnut is well past its sell by date - Its pretty obvious that the 'not giving money to our competitors' was a crap smokescreen - afterall who ever heard of that in football? THe ONLY reason we did not get Saha and Malbranque was money - both in the transfer fee itself and more importantntly because lOwe did not want to break the wage structure we had in place - to believe it was some bull about not giving Fulham 11 mil was rubbish. We simply did not have the 20mil or so it would have cost in fees , wages and top ups to existing player contracts at that time... and Bridge wanted to go as soon as he was offered double wages - how can you hang on to that? Strachan may well have stayed, but I did lose some of the respect I had for Strachan that he in effect threw his toys out the pram because of this - the very best managers work with what they have and improve things - he did that, sure, then had a bit of a hissy one when bridge went and spent 7 mil of that on most a load of crap - was that out of spite? Of course Frank that must be the biggest load of horsepoo you have ever posted. Why did Strachan feel the need to put that in his book he didnt need to pad it out. If there was a choice between believeing WGS who didnt need to write it or believe someone who spends his life apologising and feeling the need to defend Lowe then I know where I sit. WGS didnt want to do another Coventry and he knew the squad we had was poor and Lowes policy then inflated it to 41 quantity of quality that broke the wage budget not structure...brilliant businessman my arse Edited 16 April, 2009 by Give it to Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SP Saint Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 You really are a nasty piece of work - who just does not get it at all - what does your lonely neuron do for a friend? He's certainly very odd. A fan who I bet hasn't been to more than 5 games in as many years, even when he lived in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 i know some will say it was a smoke screen or red herring but Lowe just gained a reputation , fairly or not, of spending money on things other than the first team. People just believed he could find money for dividends, share buybacks , Wilkinson, Clifford, radio stations etc but could not up the wage ceiling slightly. imo his whole era was littered with wrong choices of how to spend what we had rather than not spending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Of course Frank that must be the biggest load of horsepoo you have ever posted. Why did Strachan feel the need to put that in his book he didnt need to pad it out. If there was a choice between believeing WGS who didnt need to write it or believe someone who spends his life apologising and feeling the need to defend Lowe then I know where I sit. WGS didnt want to do another Coventry and he knew the squad we had was poor and Lowes policy then inflated it to 41 quantity of quality that broke the wage budget not structure...brilliant businessman my arse NO one has said Strachan was not told that, but i do find it hard to believe that he believed it. If you review the accounts that year it wa sthe year we made a 1.75 mil profit after teh cup run, so where was the 25-20 mil coming from that we would have needed, thats what no one has yet clearly and rationally defined - that has nothing to do with Lowe. Stachan is perfectly reasonable in saying he took us as far as he could with the resources he had, but why did he go and spend 8 mil on McCann, Cranie the like...these were HIS decisions. Dont get me worng Strachan is a great manager who we should have done everything to hang on to, but he did leave because he did not get cash - and that is the easy option whichever way you look at it. As to 'spending his life apologising and defending lowe' - thats a cheap shot and frankly irrelevent to the point being made about wher the cash was going to come from - not wanting your club to take excessive risk and borrow beyond it means when it had already borrowed heavily for SMS is a POV that is perfectly valid - its purecoincidence that it was also Lowes approach - what you and some dont seem to recognise is that having that POV does not mean you support LOwe, but obviously you share the same POV on that issue - there is a big feckin difference , somthing that Alps cant grasp.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 As to 'spending his life apologising and defending lowe' - thats a cheap shot and frankly irrelevent to the point being made about wher the cash was going to come from - not wanting your club to take excessive risk and borrow beyond it means when it had already borrowed heavily for SMS is a POV that is perfectly valid - its purecoincidence that it was also Lowes approach - what you and some dont seem to recognise is that having that POV does not mean you support LOwe, but obviously you share the same POV on that issue - there is a big feckin difference , somthing that Alps cant grasp.... Frank you have me wrong here....I totally accept others are not Luvvies when they stick up for Lowe. I have on many occasions given loveable old rosey cheeks credit for the academy without which we would of been sunk ages ago. I felt and still do that the wage structure did not need to be broken but other enticements were there to be used - whats the difference between having 22 quality players on minimum wage plus decent enticements or 41 players like we had at the set wage? I think with the SCC help Rupert got the stadium up and running that gives me a tingle still when I walk up the steps - I will never forget that Espanyol game at first sight. No what you dont recognise amidst all your rants on Alpine is that YOU dont treat those antis with the same respect you expect afforded to you with your point of view on Lowe thats the reason for my rant at you. I think thats enough for me on this as we will never agree but respect we all have this forum as a release and all post crap at times.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 i know some will say it was a smoke screen or red herring but Lowe just gained a reputation , fairly or not, of spending money on things other than the first team. People just believed he could find money for dividends, share buybacks , Wilkinson, Clifford, radio stations etc but could not up the wage ceiling slightly. imo his whole era was littered with wrong choices of how to spend what we had rather than not spending I can agree that that is the perception and indeed the reality - you cant argue against facts and yes he chose to use cash on dividends and share buy backs....and yes when you add them up over the 7 or 8 years its a tidy some that could have bought a decent player .... but when looked at on an annual basis are relatively small - But like any club a budget is set and approve by the baord at the satrt of each financial year - in our case it had wages at over 50% of gros turnover, which was above what could be considered an appropriate ceiling - some 26 mil. Some have rightly argued that there should have been more flexibility available in how this was spent - fair enough, but is there not a danger that contract renewals for key players would then have become even more difficult as agents make direct comparisons ? and what happens then is a wage spiral so you can surely see that is some logic in having such a system? The Radio station, iNsurance etc... both of these were designed to generate revenue - and ANY company should look to other revenue sources - in both case these services could be of benefit to fans, but were under utilised or badly marketed etc - so did not generate any revenues... its not the idea, but the execution if you like. I do think its oversimplistic to just assume that had we the will we wouldhave found the way to do as WGS wanted - Sure teh banks may have leant us the money, but that would not have been a wise choice in MHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Frank you have me wrong here....I totally accept others are not Luvvies when they stick up for Lowe. I have on many occasions given loveable old rosey cheeks credit for the academy without which we would of been sunk ages ago. I felt and still do that the wage structure did not need to be broken but other enticements were there to be used - whats the difference between having 22 quality players on minimum wage plus decent enticements or 41 players like we had at the set wage? I think with the SCC help Rupert got the stadium up and running that gives me a tingle still when I walk up the steps - I will never forget that Espanyol game at first sight. No what you dont recognise amidst all your rants on Alpine is that YOU dont treat those antis with the same respect you expect afforded to you with your point of view on Lowe thats the reason for my rant at you. I think thats enough for me on this as we will never agree but respect we all have this forum as a release and all post crap at times.. I agree that 25 say (22 is a bit of a small squad) of a higher standard and also perhap on abetter basic is better trhan 41 on lower, but TBH that was more a result of the vicious circle we got into re the excessive managers all buying their own players - strachan included. But how would we have greated LOwes board if he had said to strachan at the start, OK you have 26 mil a year on wages, but in order to buy new players you have to ship out 15 first up? Its a tricky one and quite common at clubs that have seen more managers than is healthy - for which Lowe rightly gets the blame for some, but also we have to acknowledge the bad luck we had here as well - the influence beyond our control - spometimes it was as if teh Saints managaers job was like the drummer in Spinal Tap! I have no grip with Alps having an opinion, he is entitled to one, I just wish he would base it on accummulated knowledge rather than ignorance now and again. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Frank you have me wrong here....I totally accept others are not Luvvies when they stick up for Lowe. I have on many occasions given loveable old rosey cheeks credit for the academy without which we would of been sunk ages ago. I felt and still do that the wage structure did not need to be broken but other enticements were there to be used - whats the difference between having 22 quality players on minimum wage plus decent enticements or 41 players like we had at the set wage? I think with the SCC help Rupert got the stadium up and running that gives me a tingle still when I walk up the steps - I will never forget that Espanyol game at first sight. No what you dont recognise amidst all your rants on Alpine is that YOU dont treat those antis with the same respect you expect afforded to you with your point of view on Lowe thats the reason for my rant at you. I think thats enough for me on this as we will never agree but respect we all have this forum as a release and all post crap at times.. There are a couple of points I would like to raise in this debate. Firstly I think spending money on the Academy was a good idea as one of the reasons we had to buy lots of second rate players was that Apart from Bridge none of our home produced players were coming through like they were in the past are were perceived as likely to be more loyal. The second point is how do we know Saha and Malbranque wanted to come to SFC anyway and how were their wages to be paid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 (edited) There are a couple of points I would like to raise in this debate. Firstly I think spending money on the Academy was a good idea as one of the reasons we had to buy lots of second rate players was that Apart from Bridge none of our home produced players were coming through like they were in the past are were perceived as likely to be more loyal. The second point is how do we know Saha and Malbranque wanted to come to SFC anyway and how were their wages to be paid In answer to the second point....we had just qualified for Europe, 8th in the Premiership, had WGS as manager, why wouldn't they come? 99.9% of footballers are mercenaries and would go anywhere if the price is right look at Skacel for example. Wages were to be paid from either a) trimming down of squad b) cutting lose the big losses from the radio station/insurance arm c) Bridge was never, ever going to stay with Chelsea throwimg megabucks at him Edited 16 April, 2009 by Give it to Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 In answer to the second point....we had just qualified for Europe, 8th in the Premiership, had WGS as manager, why wouldn't they come? 99.9% of footballers are mercenaries and would go anywhere if the price is right look at Skacel for example. Wages were to be paid from either a) trimming down of squad b) cutting lose the big losses from the radio station/insurance arm c) Bridge was never, ever going to stay with Chelsea throwimg megabucks at him Absolutely right but I think they would of priced themselves out of a move imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 (edited) In answer to the second point....we had just qualified for Europe, 8th in the Premiership, had WGS as manager, why wouldn't they come? 99.9% of footballers are mercenaries and would go anywhere if the price is right look at Skacel for example. Fulham may have paid them more I dont know but surely it was not a foregone conclusion that would come as their wage demands may have caused serious problems within the Squad. To non Saint's Fans it was unlikely that the club would be in Europe regularly as it was our first venture in over twenty years Edited 16 April, 2009 by John B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 I can agree that that is the perception and indeed the reality - you cant argue against facts and yes he chose to use cash on dividends and share buy backs....and yes when you add them up over the 7 or 8 years its a tidy some that could have bought a decent player .... but when looked at on an annual basis are relatively small - But like any club a budget is set and approve by the baord at the satrt of each financial year - in our case it had wages at over 50% of gros turnover, which was above what could be considered an appropriate ceiling - some 26 mil. Some have rightly argued that there should have been more flexibility available in how this was spent - fair enough, but is there not a danger that contract renewals for key players would then have become even more difficult as agents make direct comparisons ? and what happens then is a wage spiral so you can surely see that is some logic in having such a system? The Radio station, iNsurance etc... both of these were designed to generate revenue - and ANY company should look to other revenue sources - in both case these services could be of benefit to fans, but were under utilised or badly marketed etc - so did not generate any revenues... its not the idea, but the execution if you like. I do think its oversimplistic to just assume that had we the will we wouldhave found the way to do as WGS wanted - Sure teh banks may have leant us the money, but that would not have been a wise choice in MHO. I don't think too many would have any problem of living within our means (although I think many took exception to someone claiming we wanted to do a Leeds or we wanted to sign Henry, which was Lowe at his best in succinctly missing the point). But the point in hand is just like this season with a finite (nad perhaps limited) budget, we made the wrong decisions about what, who and where to spend the little money we had. I'm sure Lowe never intended for it all to go tts up and I'm sure he thought he had the clubs best interests at heart, but just like this season, that final season or two under Lowe last time around was all about poor execution of a poor strategy. As for where would the money come from, well the suggestion many on here have already said is what money we had should have been spent in a much more wiser manner. Our transfer & wage policy back then seems comparable to the scattergun approach we adopted last summer where we went for quantity over quality. I remember going through the amounts of monies spent on transfer in in those years and you would be amazed at how much we spent. Money spent by a succession of managers all buying their own players to play their own style, only for the managerial merry go round to put everything back to square one. We ended up with a bloated squad of mediocrity, which cost quite a bit to compile (along with wages and other costs) instead of a much more targeted and focussed squad. Although the numbers probably had 1 digit less last summer, it doesn't escape my notice that there were so many similarities between last summer and it's disastrous effects on the Club and the end of Lowe's tenure first time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 I have no grip with Alps having an opinion, he is entitled to one, I just wish he would base it on accummulated knowledge rather than ignorance now and again. ;-) What fantastic arrogance. Anyone who doesnt agree with you must be ignorant. You dont respect my right to an opinon, you sneer at it at every opportunity. As for you, you masquerade as not having an opinion, as a result you've done nothing to engender respect apart from you ability to fill up gigabytes server space whilst saying nothing at all. Of course, we all know what your opinion is, it comes through in every post like a fat arsed womans VPL. Ask yourself, have you EVER gone to such great lenghts to defend Leon Crouch from abuse, to see the positives in what Crouch as done for the club, or appeal for balance in the way Crouch is viewed, the way you have for Lowe ? Nope, didnt think so. *cue abuse without answering the direct question* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 16 April, 2009 Share Posted 16 April, 2009 Well I'm very confident Regards Morph Still very confident Morph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 (edited) I don't think too many would have any problem of living within our means (although I think many took exception to someone claiming we wanted to do a Leeds or we wanted to sign Henry, which was Lowe at his best in succinctly missing the point). But the point in hand is just like this season with a finite (nad perhaps limited) budget, we made the wrong decisions about what, who and where to spend the little money we had. I'm sure Lowe never intended for it all to go tts up and I'm sure he thought he had the clubs best interests at heart, but just like this season, that final season or two under Lowe last time around was all about poor execution of a poor strategy. As for where would the money come from, well the suggestion many on here have already said is what money we had should have been spent in a much more wiser manner. Our transfer & wage policy back then seems comparable to the scattergun approach we adopted last summer where we went for quantity over quality. I remember going through the amounts of monies spent on transfer in in those years and you would be amazed at how much we spent. Money spent by a succession of managers all buying their own players to play their own style, only for the managerial merry go round to put everything back to square one. We ended up with a bloated squad of mediocrity, which cost quite a bit to compile (along with wages and other costs) instead of a much more targeted and focussed squad. Although the numbers probably had 1 digit less last summer, it doesn't escape my notice that there were so many similarities between last summer and it's disastrous effects on the Club and the end of Lowe's tenure first time around. Thats all fair enough. But are our expectations of the 'hit rate' set appropriately? Sure we can see numerous mistakes made in the way the money was spent - almost at times it seemed a scattergun approach to try an unearth a few Gems - Neimi, Mazza, Killer etc were hardly household names that we could have had any confidence about, yet proved successful, others that didnt we know about - yet this was never a phenomenon unique to saints - most other clubs would consider a 50% transfer success rate a success - afterall even 'arry the footballing genius (tongue firmly in cheek on that one) transferred some 140 players during 4 years at West ham!!! (Tom Bowers)... I think because of the stories of 'interference' and lets be honest a general attitude that was always looking for Lowe to make mistakes to jump upon, we did tend to treat the error perhaps in a harsher way? Yet teh same thing happens at many clubs - Robbie Keane at Liverppol is a recent good example - I am not trying to defend Lowe here, but just put it in perspective against the backdrop of something that is perhaps more common that we realise. The bloated squad - this is well known and yes its without doubt the result of the manager merry-go-round, but if you remove the obvious mistakes of gray, wigley and Redknapp and JP, you could argue that the rest leaving were a combination of circumstances and not all just about Lowe's attitude - I would suggest its alos possible that Lowe probably felt because managers were in his view becomming as disloyal as players, that they should not have that very control they demand - eg they spend 6-8 mil opn players they insist they need and then bugger off, only for the new man wnating to do the same thing - You can see how that must have annoyed the 'prudent' Lowe - Again not defending him (I point this out because too often any kind of attempt at offering teh alternative POV or discussing how it could have looked from another perspective is jumped on as some sort of Luvvie dom - I find it difficult to reconcile how some on here dont want anyone to provide the alternative PoVs or perspectives and shout them down as Luvvies - its almost over defensive - a case of 'protest to much') For my my part its simple - the more we understand about the complexities and reasons why decisions were made, the mistakes made both obvious and only known after the fact, the better informed we are and hopefully the more likely we are to recognise the real dangers and maybe do our bit to prevent the same again - but to understand it all properly, you do need to get away from teh over emotive and irrational 'he was just a ****' oppinion and be open to discussing it ALL. Sure its boring, repetitive and no longer important to some - and thats fair enough, no one is forcing anyone to join a thread - there are plenty of others that dont go near this angle, but those that do join in should at least be prepared to make a valid point rather than just a one line aggressive dismissive. Edited 17 April, 2009 by Frank's cousin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 (edited) What fantastic arrogance. Anyone who doesnt agree with you must be ignorant. You dont respect my right to an opinon, you sneer at it at every opportunity. As for you, you masquerade as not having an opinion, as a result you've done nothing to engender respect apart from you ability to fill up gigabytes server space whilst saying nothing at all. Of course, we all know what your opinion is, it comes through in every post like a fat arsed womans VPL. Ask yourself, have you EVER gone to such great lenghts to defend Leon Crouch from abuse, to see the positives in what Crouch as done for the club, or appeal for balance in the way Crouch is viewed, the way you have for Lowe ? Nope, didnt think so. *cue abuse without answering the direct question* I'll get to your question shortly - Firstly, not agreeing with me is not what makes you ignorant, its the fact that you never provide any support for your opinion, never look to detail or try and differentiate between fact and rumour in forming it. You may well have done so, but you never share that here, so opinion on this is based on what you post, not what you know. I respect everyones right to an opinion, but opinions are formed on the basis of the information to hand - the more you learn the better informed you become and your opinion changes with the evidence - For the record, you assumeyou know my opinion and its that i have a problem with, your constant 'luvvie' or lowe apologist jibes simply highlight that you dont. I come on here to discuss these things because I WANT to know more to either substantiate what I presume already or be educated and maybe CHANGE my perspective on things - but I wont do that based on gossip, rumour or speculation, but only on hard evidence - for me thats all that will change my opinions - yet 95% of what appears on here is gossip - and thats great too because its enteratining and can be fun - but it also needs putting in perspective. If you bothered to read my posts properly you woudl see I dont ofetn agree with every thing UP or Duncan or many of the opther respected posters say - all of whom have been quite strongly opposed to Lowe and the previous regime - But that disagreement and debate is about an attempt to dig deeper and discuss ALL perspectives in an effort to gain a better understanding - sure it has and no doubt again spills over into spats - we all do it when we get wound up - football is an emotive issue no matter how much we know we should avoid that if looking to discuss things in detail and despite waht has been said and what UP may think - I do respect his POV on most things and Duncan is held in uber esteem - because he has genuine knowledge and shares this (mostly ;-)) without too much bias. All you seem to respond with is one line rhetoric - why not join the debate and ADD your perspective and be more open to accepting maybe its not all as balck and white as many make out? So to anwer your question: You are right, i have not 'defended' Crouch from some of the obvious attacks that wer perhaps unfounded or unjust - why? Beacsue to be honest the level of 'abuse' he has recieved has been pretty minor in comparison and yup I am just one of those that feels compelled at tims to defend the underdog more than the populist approach - BUt I have and do acknowledge what CRouch did and his positives - I liek his passion and genuine committments to fans - he has worked hard for fans from his support of the Statue to dipping into his pocket re players... all commenable - but for me these are great things that any rich FAN could do and to date he has not really shown IMHO the strength to make teh harder choices necssary to run a football club in dire financial straits... he could for example as FC chair have vetoed teh 7 mil spend under Burley - an unpopular decison that would ahve been the right one IMHO - we could not afford it and if it as based on waiting for Wildes 'investors in the wings' then it was naive at best - I think thats a fairly balanced view on Leon, and am happy to adjust that view either more pro or against as I learn more about him and what he has done - I do think he also has an ego issue though - he made a big play for holding the balance of power between Lowe and Wilde and was naive in not reconciling the situation with Wilde - someone who obviously jump straight back into bed with Lowe to serve his on interests. NOw if you have further FACTS about Leon that are positive taht should make me more receptive to him, I would love to hear them...but I suspect I will just get another 'oververbsoe, boring drivel' type response that you traditioanlly apply to ANYTHING I say - I would love to be proved wrong. Edited 17 April, 2009 by Frank's cousin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 ' date=' but if you remove the obvious mistakes of gray, wigley and Redknapp and JP, [/quote'] Really can't be bothered to carry on this morning as I've woken up feeling rather concerned for the Club's future, but you have missed out the removal of Pearson, the coming and going of Sturrock (and I would argue being complicit in WGS going). He was not all bad by any stretch of the imagination, and I think deep down most people will admit he did some good and some bad. How that balances out will be each individuals perception of his tenure. Problem is that IMHO he will ultimately be judged by how he left this Club and first time aroud that was a Club that had been relegated and then torn apart in it's first season down. Second time around it was administration of the PLC, potential administration of the Football Club and firmly in the relegation zone. And as Matty said last night, his recent media rounds have just hammered home why so many people have very little time for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 Problem is that IMHO he will ultimately be judged by how he left this Club and first time aroud that was a Club that had been relegated and then torn apart in it's first season down. Second time around it was administration of the PLC, potential administration of the Football Club and firmly in the relegation zone. A Grim legacy when vied like that for sure. And as Matty said last night, his recent media rounds have just hammered home why so many people have very little time for him. It was odd certainly, but if you genuinely felt you had been misunderstood, would you not want to try and address the balance - is it really that much different from when we end up in spats on here because we feel we have been misinterpreted? PS. I must have said something right as you only manged one line this time! ;-) (A genuine ;-) this time too!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 It was odd certainly' date=' but if you genuinely felt you had been misunderstood, would you not want to try and address the balance - is it really that much different from when we end up in spats on here because we feel we have been misinterpreted?[/quote'] Please don't tell me you're comparing this noddy board with doing the media rounds on some high profile TV and Radio shows coming out with the stuff Lowe did??? There are times when people should stand up for Lowe as not everything he has done was bad, but the way he has handled himself in the aftermath of taking this Club to the brink is not one of those times. I always had Matty down as a fairly placid and reflective person and his reaction to Lowe's media circus founs a resonance with me. He was scathing of the way he handled himself in those interviews and the line and tone he took in them. PS. I must have said something right as you only manged one line this time! ;-) (A genuine ;-) this time too!) Like I said, everything has been said and done on here (although I'm sure I'll keep posting) and I fear for our future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 Please don't tell me you're comparing this noddy board with doing the media rounds on some high profile TV and Radio shows coming out with the stuff Lowe did??? LOL of course not, but he was merely using what was at his disposal to try and justify his position and part in it all - not saying I agree with it, but can understnad why he might feel that way - hense the noddy board example thats all... ; Noddy board' that is actuall quite funny ;-) and no I dont have big ears Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 try and justify his position and part in it all The very fact he thought he had to justify his position coupled with the fact he thinks he should take no part of the blame for the situation we find ourselves in says it all really. PS Matty apparently has an autbiography out later tis year and he made reference that Lowe might not like what it says in there!!!!!!! Hopefully we will be reading it on an away day to either Burnley or Leeds, and not Hamworthy!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 Matty's book was due a few years back but got shelved he said when his Sky committments went up - should be an interesting read. Maybe justify was the wrong word... more IN HIS VIEW (Note, not mine) to try and put his SIDE as lets be fair the media were going around asking every Tom, Mac and Noddy, ex players, managers etc for their opinion on it all, yet none of these would have given the boards perspective and is that not what we should be expecting from our media - allowing both sides to plead their case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 Alps, no reply? I know you are lurking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 Alps' date=' no reply? I know you are lurking?[/quote'] Sorry, I drifted off in the middle of your server - filler. To answer your first point, you are being damned arrogant again. You seem to believe that only one conclusion can be drawn from close anaylsis of the facts in the public domain - yours. Anyone who draws a different or opposing conclusion clearly is acting under ignorance and should be ridiculed. Who the hell are you to judge exactly HOW I have formulated my opinion ? And the bit about coming on here to be educated to change your opinion is utterly laughable - I doubt anyone, including regal-you, has changed their opinion on anything based on the quality of discussion on here. You say you disregard my posts as one line rhetoric, well, that is your interpretation of them. How do you know that I am not coming out with smart-arse provocative comments rather allowing emotion to overtake the expressions of opinion, and that I simply am a bit short-tempered ? You assume to much about others, yet perpetually whine about the accusations of being a Lowe Luvvie you receive (and from more sources than just me, btw). Have you ever considered the material you write and how it can be interpreted ? You come across a Luvvie half the time, and someone who would argue the sky is green in the name of balance the other half... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 (edited) Sorry, I drifted off in the middle of your server - filler. To answer your first point, you are being damned arrogant again. You seem to believe that only one conclusion can be drawn from close anaylsis of the facts in the public domain - yours. Anyone who draws a different or opposing conclusion clearly is acting under ignorance and should be ridiculed. Who the hell are you to judge exactly HOW I have formulated my opinion ? And the bit about coming on here to be educated to change your opinion is utterly laughable - I doubt anyone, including regal-you, has changed their opinion on anything based on the quality of discussion on here. You say you disregard my posts as one line rhetoric, well, that is your interpretation of them. How do you know that I am not coming out with smart-arse provocative comments rather allowing emotion to overtake the expressions of opinion, and that I simply am a bit short-tempered ? You assume to much about others, yet perpetually whine about the accusations of being a Lowe Luvvie you receive (and from more sources than just me, btw). Have you ever considered the material you write and how it can be interpreted ? You come across a Luvvie half the time, and someone who would argue the sky is green in the name of balance the other half... Have you ever tried anger management? 'perpetually whine' - now I hate using cliches but that sure as hell is a clasisc case of pots/black and kettles. Alpine, you never seem able to explain your opinions with underpinned facts or rational for why you have them, they are aggressive, negative and old windbag whinging ****** - now if you could present a reasonable case to back up why you are an old whinging windbag women then I would be able to respect it - but the post above and your reposne to the humourous thread following the 'blame thing' gives the perception that you have a) no sense of humour, b) no sense of irony, c) no sense of self awareness (one of your favourite accusations) d) no sense of satire/black humour etc but just keep going - You come accross as someone who after they have kicked the door down keeps kicking the door for no logical reason, when the fact reamins you never even tried the handle to begin with.... ...BUt I'd still meet you for a pint of that quality Austrian Pilsner brewed by naked monks that you must be enjoying...;-) PS. its not arrogance or patronizing its called **** take! ;-) you agian em to made up stuff that is not in my post - you claim 'You seem to believe that only one conclusion can be drawn from close anaylsis of the facts in the public domain - yours. Anyone who draws a different or opposing conclusion clearly is acting under ignorance and should be ridiculed.' NO ... I will say this slowly... I am merely hoping that the opinions are based on these facts ...not that they are the same as mine - even if i dont agree - because surprise surprise we can all look atr the SAME facts, the SAME outcomes and depending on which perspectives you apply draw DIFFERENT conclusions and thus form different opinions, Thats is teh nature of debate and why this should be fun - I have merely spend a fair amount of time taking the same facts but providing a different perspective to counter the very one sided view on here - that should help the debate, not hinder it - it can aslo strengthen your argument , yes the anti Lowe view' because argumenst stnd up to far graeter scrutiny if absed on more solid foundations and and understanding that ALL perspectives have already been alaysed and thought through... rather than simple 'Lowe' a c***, Crouch is Brilliant'.... Edited 17 April, 2009 by Frank's cousin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 Have you ever tried anger management? 'perpetually whine' - now I hate using cliches but that sure as hell is a clasisc case of pots/black and kettles. Alpine, you never seem able to explain your opinions with underpinned facts or rational for why you have them, they are aggressive, negative and old windbag whinging ****** - now if you could present a reasonable case to back up why you are an old whinging windbag women then I would be able to respect it - but the post above and your reposne to the humourous thread following the 'blame thing' gives the perception that you have a) no sense of humour, b) no sense of irony, c) no sense of self awareness (one of your favourite accusations) d) no sense of satire/black humour etc but just keep going - You come accross as someone who after they have kicked the door down keeps kicking the door for no logical reason, when the fact reamins you never even tried the handle to begin with.... ...BUt I'd still meet you for a pint of that quality Austrian Pilsner brewed by naked monks that you must be enjoying...;-) PS. its not arrogance or patronizing its called **** take! ;-) you agian em to made up stuff that is not in my post - you claim 'You seem to believe that only one conclusion can be drawn from close anaylsis of the facts in the public domain - yours. Anyone who draws a different or opposing conclusion clearly is acting under ignorance and should be ridiculed.' NO ... I will say this slowly... I am merely hoping that the opinions are based on these facts ...not that they are the same as mine - even if i dont agree - because surprise surprise we can all look atr the SAME facts, the SAME outcomes and depending on which perspectives you apply draw DIFFERENT conclusions and thus form different opinions, Thats is teh nature of debate and why this should be fun - I have merely spend a fair amount of time taking the same facts but providing a different perspective to counter the very one sided view on here - that should help the debate, not hinder it - it can aslo strengthen your argument , yes the anti Lowe view' because argumenst stnd up to far graeter scrutiny if absed on more solid foundations and and understanding that ALL perspectives have already been alaysed and thought through... rather than simple 'Lowe' a c***, Crouch is Brilliant'.... Yeah, but Lowe is a c***, Crouch is Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St_Tel49 Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 Yep, anyone who thinks you write comfy fence sitting banal bolllocks must lack intelligence.... Says it all really... People who continually insult other people's intelligence clearly lack the intelligence to form a coherent argument that other people can understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 Yeah, but Lowe is a c***, Crouch is Brilliant. LOL ;-) feck just fell of my chair - done the cruciate - out for the season.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 Is its now wrong to bate Alps? Seriously Alpine, if you are out there 'milking goats' in those wonderful mountains, I extend the peace pipe - lifes too short to be grumpy and miserable or so my wife keeps telling me - (let me start smoking again then I respond) All I ask is that you have a read...a proper one not a skim, of what UP has said, Duncan and myself and hopefully it would be clear how this is not some big issue to get all miserable and mean over - there is room for diverse opinion, but there is importantly room for all perspectives to be presented ....and challenged. As a wiseman probably said 'the road to find truth and enlightenment, is long rocky and littered with skates on wind ups, but when you reach your destination its like commming back from 0-4 down at half time to snatch a win in the dying seconds' ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 Calling in the administrators now for a Club that was bound to attract alot of interest was a wise move. The reason? It should allow Fry to process the plethora of applications and accept a new owner in time to hit the summer transfer window. If we are still in a position of having no buyer before the end of July I would argue we start to have problems as our new manager will not be able to attract in players. It isnt July yet. Start the panic then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 Calling in the administrators now for a Club that was bound to attract alot of interest was a wise move. The reason? It should allow Fry to process the plethora of applications and accept a new owner in time to hit the summer transfer window. If we are still in a position of having no buyer before the end of July I would argue we start to have problems as our new manager will not be able to attract in players. It isnt July yet. Start the panic then. If we havent by June there is no club ..period. Do you not understand the gravity of the situation we are in.Do you really believe that SFC is so important to people not connected with it they care a damn. You may believe we are the best thing since sliced bread but people who will be putting their hard earned cash in wil want to make sure it is a bargain that will not ruin them. The club was losing 40k a week (some say more ). There are not that many people out there who after seeing how much problem it caused RL to cut costs and still have big losses, will then take the risk. Yes the stadium repayments may be gone but whoever then owns it will want a decent rent, any players of value may be sold if we dont find a buyer very quickly, the administrators fees are rising by the minute and all those people who have shown an interest whether they be contributors to Pompey on line or whereever are costing the club money as fees are raked up as they are sorted to see if they are real or fantasists. We havent got til July as far as i can see, we have got about a month or 5 weeks. You may think its fun but to me it is a rolercoaster i dont wish to be on. We now have no choice who takes the club on, none of the custodians have a say and so whether it be Pol Pot or mary poppins we have to wait and hope. 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