alpine_saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Absolutely sickens me to see yet more completely buying the blameless Redknapp rubbish. Yes, there were already problems, but the fact is he guided a squad that had done well in previous seasons and had some decent players, and some money to spend, to bottom on the league. His signings were largely abysmal and he produced a disinterested, gutless team that folded every other week and threw away leads all the time. Wow, deja vu re the Burley Years and the Dutch Revolution..
ooohTerryHurlock Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Great - financial irregularities will mean more docked points, even if the guilty parties are long gone from the club. Conference south here we come! .... Relegation next year????
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 27 April, 2009 Author Posted 27 April, 2009 Absolutely sickens me to see yet more completely buying the blameless Redknapp rubbish. Yes, there were already problems, but the fact is he guided a squad that had done well in previous seasons and had some decent players, and some money to spend, to bottom on the league. His signings were largely abysmal and he produced a disinterested, gutless team that folded every other week and threw away leads all the time. Absolutely but from Day 1 of Redknapp's arrival here Lowe made it very obvious he was not wanted BY HIM and it was obvious that it would all end up in tears. Having heard the true inside story of Redknapp's arrival I can certainly understand why he soon lost interest and in turn so did his players. He is not blameless but the whole thing was disastrously handled from Day 1.
SaintRichmond Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 £40m ?? If the financial irregularity is to that extent then surely adminstrator Fry would have uncovered that by now ? Sensationalism ? 40m is far too much to hide with the transparency we are told exists in a PLC structure, even in a 10year period. Fry was appointed by ... ?????? ......... So no delving from him IMHO, a "lot" of serious money that came into the "Club" , mysteriously was syphoned off via the Leisure Holdings Financial Setup ....... ......... the FOOTBALL side of things got proportionately very little
Frank's cousin Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Frank - from someone who never spell checks his posts on here and then talks about junk journalism or lazy journalism I feel your remarks ever so slightly hypocrtical This piece in the Guardian was a well-written report of both the match and our position and although the sum seems ludicrously large I think it should at least provoke some sort of serious debate. FWIW I would not cast one glance in Lowe's direction (in case some think I am looking to get back at him -not intererested, he is history) but there were some pretty unscrupulous people i/c of our club at one stage if some are to be believed. Spellig wots you're ploblem? ;-) - seriously though Duncan, I was referring to the ONE line on this in what was as you say a good report, because the books on the surface dont show any misdoings - and the auditors would surely have picked up 40 mil?? IF and its a big IF anything was proven, then thankfully those responsible would be in need of legal advice followed by learning to shower with extreme caution!
Wade Garrett Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Absolutely but from Day 1 of Redknapp's arrival here Lowe made it very obvious he was not wanted BY HIM and it was obvious that it would all end up in tears. Having heard the true inside story of Redknapp's arrival I can certainly understand why he soon lost interest and in turn so did his players. He is not blameless but the whole thing was disastrously handled from Day 1. Redknapp has proved himself to be a quality manager at every club he's been at, bar Saints. I wonder why......
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 27 April, 2009 Author Posted 27 April, 2009 Spellig wots you're ploblem? ;-) - seriously though Duncan, I was referring to the ONE line on this in what was as you say a good report, because the books on the surface dont show any misdoings - and the auditors would surely have picked up 40 mil?? IF and its a big IF anything was proven, then thankfully those responsible would be in need of legal advice followed by learning to shower with extreme caution! Perhaps I will contact the Guardian journalist directly - because this remark is very strange - too busy trying to get through to the FA at present to complain about the ref at present.
Saint Billy Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Redknapp was not blameless but it was pretty apparent that he realised he made a mistake in joining us almost as soon as his feet touched our ground. His reaction must of been "What the hell have I let myself in for", and there was no way that Lowe/Woodward and Rednapp would ever forge a happy relationship. Rednapp is from the old school of management and will not react well to outside interference which is why his tenure here was destined to fail. I dont think he is the best manager on earth but nor do I think he is the worst.
Colinjb Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Forty million!? I have to say, I always found it slightly suspicious that we where always operating 'on the cheap' when clubs of an identical scale like Blackburn and Bolton where comparitively comfortable. It just didn't add up to me and if there has been money raided from our accounts under the banner of the PLC I would not be at all surprised.
dubai_phil Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Well, if someone could show me how or where 40mil has vanished from I'd be mighty impressed. www.saintsfc.co.uk home page, then type annual accounts and select search saintsfc. It comes up with 13 results, leading to the published figures going back to whenever. Try looking at last year's published ones Turn Over 23.2mil Operating Costs 27.2mil and where did it go? Cost of sales 21.5mil Of course you could argue the "mysterious" 3mil for goodwill amortisation, depreciation and revaluing of assets.. Simple figure picked up from a forum no doubt, the 40 mil wasn't nicked, it was wasted on useless players on fat wages
John B Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Forty million!? I have to say, I always found it slightly suspicious that we where always operating 'on the cheap' when clubs of an identical scale like Blackburn and Bolton where comparitively comfortable. It just didn't add up to me and if there has been money raided from our accounts under the banner of the PLC I would not be at all surprised. Yes but we were Ok in the Premiership from a financial point of view It is when you get relegated problems arise
Colinjb Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Yes but we were Ok in the Premiership from a financial point of view It is when you get relegated problems arise Even then our wage budget was pitifully small and the sums we spent on transfers where peanuts.
spyinthesky Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 When all this (hopefully) dies down it would be interesting to see if anyone is able to write an account of the 'Lowe years' I assume either David Jones, Andrew Cowans or Guy Askam would be the most informed people. Doubt whether latter two would fess up to where the bodies are buried but perhaps a disenchanted David Jones may want to help out, for a suitable consideration. Can't see he will be around if new owners do take over and may need a wedge. Graham Hiley might be ITK to some extent and as a journo could write the piece
John B Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Even then our wage budget was pitifully small and the sums we spent on transfers where peanuts. Sorry misunderstood your original post Yes what you are saying is right but It never occurred to me anything was done underhandly in the financial arena
Legod Third Coming Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 (edited) None whatsoever. New buyers will not be liable for this missing money. Its more of a criminal investigation (potentially). And if there has been some dodgy dealing, like Luton WE will get whacked with another points deduction. Marvellous... Edited 27 April, 2009 by Legod Third Coming
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 How can you write that? TNT, the original poster, attempts to absolve Redknapp of blame, how can he be ? If, as alleged, due to events off the pitch he lost interest very quickly after his appointment he should have done the right thing and f*cked off, instead he went through the motions which is unacceptable for a manager of a team in or near the relegation zone of the premiership, yet still, this period seems to be erased from his cv, even Saturday on Sky, in front of Southampton fans, the pundits/presenters were allowed to say "he's a fantastic manager and has done well everywhere he has been", others are equally to blame and noone should be absolved in the way some attempt to with Redknapp.
madsent Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Redknapp has proved himself to be a quality manager at every club he's been at, bar Saints. I wonder why...... His legacy is never good though. Saints are in administration, Bournemouth have been close to closure several times, West Ham's holding company are in dire straits (but not in administration yet) and Pompey have a huge amount of debt that their owner can barely afford to service let alone pay off.
John B Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Redknapp has proved himself to be a quality manager at every club he's been at, bar Saints. I wonder why...... Because he had some decent players perhaps?
alpine_saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 And if there has been some dodgy dealing, like Luton WE will get whacked with another points deduction. Marvellous... I am not familiar with the finer points of the Luton case. Is it really true that the club were clobbered with more points deduction because of dodgy financial transactions of people no longer at the club ?
Scummer Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I am not familiar with the finer points of the Luton case. Is it really true that the club were clobbered with more points deduction because of dodgy financial transactions of people no longer at the club ? Yes. And if I remember correctly, it was even the new board who brought the dodgy payments to the attention of the FA.
charlie saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 You missed out 'Arry's dig at Lowe though which was quality... "you need serious money men, not someone from the Fred Goodwin school of humanity" Re-read the article: the quote mark is after the word 'men' - the Fred Goodwin bit is the journalist's own.
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 [quote=Scummer;279220 And if I remember correctly, it was even the new board who brought the dodgy payments to the attention of the FA. True, as always its the club and its fans that experience the worst penalty
SaintRichmond Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 (edited) I'm not sure this counts as news. It may be true, I guess, but I'd be astonished if it is. You don't just syphon £40m off the books of a PLC without someone noticing. I'll wager this is sensationalism at its very best. Also, Redknapp took us down - no question about that. We weren't exactly dead and buried when he took over. In fact, I believe we weren't even in the relegation zone. I do NOT agree with that ........ Every season, Clubs in danger of Relegation BUY a few players in the January Transfer window, to try and off set that. The only exception to that is Saints, because Lowe REFUSED Funding of some players 'Arry Boy wanted, to launch our escape bid. Whatever you think of him, Saints are the only Club he "failed" to get out of trouble ...... and the reason for that was Rupert Lowe A season after Saints, from a WORSE position, he saved Pompey, with backing from Mandaric ..... this season he's done the same at Spurs Wheeler Dealer ??? ... Perhaps, but Pompey and Spurs are STILL IN THE PREMIERSHIP ........ Thanks to Lowe, Saints are NOT .... we are now in Division 1 . False "Business Economy" from Mr Know It All Edited 27 April, 2009 by SaintRichmond
scally Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I would love some one to take a look at the Delgardo deal, I heard along time ago that this was very dodgy. If he was a horse he would of been shot , how did he pass a medical?Unless of course it was in somebodies best interest that he did.
PaulSaint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Its not only a well written piece but a cracking photo. I particularly like the guy far left with the spiky hair & sunglasses, he's a really good lucking bloke and surely a really nice fella. Yes, it is me.
SaintDonkey Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I've got to admit that the Guardian piece does read like it was written by gesalt of several people on this forum. The repeated anti-Lowe jibes, the proportion of blame laid at Redknapp's feet, the dismay at the behavior of some of the pitch invading 'fans' on Saturday and the overblown 'where has all the money gone' conspiracies could have all been plucked straight from threads on here. Although obviously the Garudnia can run to a spell checker these days
Gingeletiss Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Great - financial irregularities will mean more docked points, even if the guilty parties are long gone from the club. Conference south here we come! So -10 for the so called administration, possibly more for the appeal!!!, a sh1t load for financial irregularities...........do we get any for trashing our own stadium?? How many's that?????? 30!!!!!!!!!
Frank's cousin Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Redknapp - quantity over quality? 140+ transfers in 4 years at West ham... and we think Saints wasted MOney... teh contracts he entered into for players at Pompey are crippling them financially, they would be worse than us but for Gaymandick's propping them - any wonder he was kept on a tight leash financially?
Big John Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Top drawer directors and chairmen don't come cheap you know..
Give it to Ron Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 And if there has been some dodgy dealing, like Luton WE will get whacked with another points deduction. Marvellous... Call it the paranoia in me but after that refereree display on Saturday I am wondering whether the league are just looking for any other excuse to do a Luton on us. Mawhinney could of hardly been more pleased with himself last week.
Colinjb Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Top drawer directors and chairmen don't come cheap you know.. How about dreadful ones?
miserableoldgit Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Redknapp was not blameless but it was pretty apparent that he realised he made a mistake in joining us almost as soon as his feet touched our ground. His reaction must of been "What the hell have I let myself in for", and there was no way that Lowe/Woodward and Rednapp would ever forge a happy relationship. Rednapp is from the old school of management and will not react well to outside interference which is why his tenure here was destined to fail. I dont think he is the best manager on earth but nor do I think he is the worst. I agree with everything you say here, but what I don`t quite understand, is why HR decided to stay on after we were relegated when he could have walked away at the end of the relegation season. It was painfully obvious that he never really wanted to be here. I even remember that on the day that he was unveiled as our manager, whilst he was being photographed with a Saints scarf above his head, the snapper said to him "come on Harry, you can smile!" but he couldn`t bring himself to do it.
buctootim Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 How about dreadful ones? Dreadful ones cost you more in the end.
Wade Garrett Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Redknapp - quantity over quality? 140+ transfers in 4 years at West ham... and we think Saints wasted MOney... teh contracts he entered into for players at Pompey are crippling them financially' date=' they would be worse than us but for Gaymandick's propping them - any wonder he was kept on a tight leash financially?[/quote'] See Peter Storrie about the contracts and big money signings. If he says to Harry - you can have Crouchie, Defoe and Glen Johnson, he's hardly going to turn around and say 'no thanks'.
lumpofshipperley Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 From today's Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/apr/27/southampton-burnley-championship-relegation The bit about the £40m is such a throwaway comment, it's unbelievable. Don't believe the papers - half the time they talk such cack it's untrue (literally!!).
the boy from saints Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 TNT, the original poster, attempts to absolve Redknapp of blame, how can he be ? If, as alleged, due to events off the pitch he lost interest very quickly after his appointment he should have done the right thing and f*cked off, instead he went through the motions which is unacceptable for a manager of a team in or near the relegation zone of the premiership, yet still, this period seems to be erased from his cv, even Saturday on Sky, in front of Southampton fans, the pundits/presenters were allowed to say "he's a fantastic manager and has done well everywhere he has been", others are equally to blame and noone should be absolved in the way some attempt to with Redknapp. I agree. For whatever reason he wasn't motivated enough and should of f*cked off, at the very least once we were relegated, leaving someone who was up for the job to give us a good chance of promotion in our first Championship season. What a wasted opportunity that was - he was quoted the other day that he didn't even know that Delap had a long throw!!!!! Shows how interested in the team he was - c**t!
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Peeps, can we put our thinking heads on before posting. Some of the posts have been very close to libellous and have had to be deleted. Please only post things as factual if you know them to be so. Any allegations or rumours should be indicated as just that. We are keen for this to be discussed sensibly but we don't want to attract the attention of Messrs Sue, Grabbitt and Run.
RinNY Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Had nothing to do with Redknapp as he took on a sunk ship in the same scenario as Mark Wotte. I would be amazed if £40 million went missing other than in players pockets. What? Talk about revisionist history! When Redknapp took over there was every chance of safety. When we were 2-0 up against Villa in the penultimate game of the season, we were all but safe: until we collapsed. Nothing to do with Redknapp indeed: you must be a new fan or have no memory at all!
Stirchleysaint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 The bit about the £40m is such a throwaway comment, it's unbelievable. Its not a throwaway line. The paragraph clearly connects Lowe to the £40m. That's deliberate. Whether its a pile of horse dung is another matter.
Give it to Ron Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 What? Talk about revisionist history! When Redknapp took over there was every chance of safety. When we were 2-0 up against Villa in the penultimate game of the season, we were all but safe: until we collapsed. Nothing to do with Redknapp indeed: you must be a new fan or have no memory at all! Its all history and gone now but when Angel went off injured they bought on Carlton Cole who then started to bully us but were OK whilst we had Jacobbsen there who then got injured. I couldnt believe it when we bought on powder puff Davenport instead of Higgy who would of matched him for muscle.....the rest is history but shocking Redknapp team change cost us that game IMO.
gordonToo Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 What? Talk about revisionist history! When Redknapp took over there was every chance of safety. When we were 2-0 up against Villa in the penultimate game of the season, we were all but safe: until we collapsed. Nothing to do with Redknapp indeed: you must be a new fan or have no memory at all! Were you at WBA for the match where Prutton could have made us safe when presented with an open goal with 5 mnutes remaining? It's far too simplistic just to blame HR when the underlying problems had been in place for more than a season, i.e. Lowe's unwillingness to accept that a succesful club depends on a good manager and a pool of talented players.
hamster Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Its all history and gone now but when Angel went off injured they bought on Carlton Cole who then started to bully us but were OK whilst we had Jacobbsen there who then got injured. I couldnt believe it when we bought on powder puff Davenport instead of Higgy who would of matched him for muscle.....the rest is history but shocking Redknapp team change cost us that game IMO. Strange isn't it Redknapp 'throwing' a 2-0 lead with a tactical change, and davenport being one of his loanees would have enjoyed spending his appearance money on top of any 'bonuses' he might have earnt along the way. Strictly unconnected , but does anyone know what the 'in running' odds would have been for Man U to have come back from 2-0 the other day? Wish I was on Arry's 'text to all' list.
KMondo Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 What? Talk about revisionist history! When Redknapp took over there was every chance of safety. When we were 2-0 up against Villa in the penultimate game of the season, we were all but safe: until we collapsed. Nothing to do with Redknapp indeed: you must be a new fan or have no memory at all! I think it might be you with the memory issues...
Legod Third Coming Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 I am not familiar with the finer points of the Luton case. Is it really true that the club were clobbered with more points deduction because of dodgy financial transactions of people no longer at the club ? Yep, as Scummer said, the club were whacked for 'irregular payments' - something about payments to agents which didn't go through the club's books. Let's hope the South American deals are all above board - I'm sure they are...
Window Cleaner Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 If anybody had an idea that there was money missing not shown in the books and I personally feel that unlikely, it's the fraud office not the FA/league that would be dealing with any investigation. The article is mysterious, the missing 40 million just seems to be tacked on at the end of a paragraph without any explanation whatsoever. Why 40 million is supposed to be missing just isn't explained, it's a sum magicked out of thin air with no coherent explanation. I mean why don't they write 50 million, or 50p, without justification the sum is immaterial.Or are we supposed to assume that because we were in the Prem for a long time we should have a lot of money and the fact that we don't means it's been embezzled. Manchester Utd are 650 million in debt as well, does that mean it's gone missing?
Gingeletiss Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 Strange isn't it Redknapp 'throwing' a 2-0 lead with a tactical change, and davenport being one of his loanees would have enjoyed spending his appearance money on top of any 'bonuses' he might have earnt along the way. Strictly unconnected , but does anyone know what the 'in running' odds would have been for Man U to have come back from 2-0 the other day? Wish I was on Arry's 'text to all' list. [-X[-X Naughty naughty;)
Window Cleaner Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 [-X[-X Naughty naughty;) Anyway another dodgy and non-existent penalty awarded to Utd at Old Trafford explains everything. Gomes took the ball with his hand, Carrick fell over him.
OldNick Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 If you look at the fixtures we had a really difficult run in, we lost or drew too many winnable home games under Wigley.We had 22 games to play and were 1 point from safety. you cannot hide behind the fact that the players underperformed and did not have the backbone to stay up.When HR took over Spurs they were in a worse position the same with Allardyce at Blackburn.
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 £40m ?? If the financial irregularity is to that extent then surely adminstrator Fry would have uncovered that by now ? Sensationalism ? 40m is far too much to hide with the transparency we are told exists in a PLC structure, even in a 10year period. Hope so because otherwise it equates to an awful lot of unpaid tax to HMRC!
scally Posted 27 April, 2009 Posted 27 April, 2009 We had 22 games to play and were 1 point from safety. you cannot hide behind the fact that the players underperformed and did not have the backbone to stay up.When HR took over Spurs they were in a worse position the same with Allardyce at Blackburn. Take a look at the home games we had under Wigley and the run in Redknapp had. Harry has never been a bad manager and if he didn't have to work with Lowe I think things would of been different. Maybe he shouldn't of come here after leaving the skates. FF has obviously heard some of the crap he had to put up, if we never had an egotistical chairman who thought he could rewrite how football clubs are run I doubt we would of been in that positition in the first place. Was Wigley given the job because he was the right man at the time or was it because Sir Clive was coming at the end of the season and Lowe thought he could wing it with a yes man untill then and then everything would be ok because the rugby man would then be in place? Lowe is a numpty and made numourous mistakes but to repeat the Stuart Gray fiasco beggers belief.
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