alpine_saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 What has to be remembered is that any offer for the club that is short of what is owed to the creditors will require them (ie Barclays, Norwich Union and HMRC) agreeing to accept less, because if the offer is less than the break up value of the club, then these guys will have no, and I mean, no hesitation in forcing Fry into simply liquidating the assets. This leads me on to the possibility that selling the players to the vultures and St. Mary's to Southampton City Council, may be the contingency plan that Fry is faced with. IMHO an offer that takes the p!$$ may be worse than no offer at all and push us into the unthinkable. Southampton Speedway all over again. Top Dogs one season and Top Rank the next... What assets ? The players are shiite to a man and worth f**k all. SMS probably has a covenant on it barring use of the land for anything else. Pompey could hire out a hundred flat-beds and try moving it down the M27, I suppose... Jacksons Farm is STILL green-belt Staplewood is about the only bankable asset we've got, and that isnt going to cancel out the debts. Why dont you give it a rest with the scaremongering BS ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 They will indeed vote against any CVA as they are no longer preferred creditors and therefore object to all footballing debts being in the queue ahead of them. But doesn't their £2m mean that they do not represent enough votes at the CVA to reject it (of course that's assuming Barclays and Aviva as the major creditors being owed more than 75% of the total debt approve one)???? I believe that the operative phrase is '75% by value' so, if I am correct, the simple thing is to keep Aviva happy and Bob's your Mother's brother? Although, in reality, life is never that simple for Saints. We'll somehow contrive, yet again, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 What assets ? The players are shiite to a man and worth f**k all. SMS probably has a covenant on it barring use of the land for anything else. Pompey could hire out a hundred flat-beds and try moving it down the M27, I suppose... Jacksons Farm is STILL green-belt Staplewood is about the only bankable asset we've got, and that isnt going to cancel out the debts. Why dont you give it a rest with the scaremongering BS ??? As we only own part of Staplewood its value is very limited Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Don't think that the fact that most people agreeing with you makes it right. Most of the brainless posters on here thought Wilde was the best thing that ever happened to Saints and that includes your bum chum Um Pahars. Pretty unnecessary GM, particularly when quite a few of my contributions on this thread have been posing scenarios and asking questions. I don't think there is a definitive answer here, so you're bound to get differing opinions. On matters of fact, the players are employees, although at the same time the very fact that their registrations can be "bought and sold" make them different to that extent. I was just offering up a different opinion to the value that breaking up the Club would bring, and IMHO it would be am absolute last choice for everyone concerned due to the low realisation values. My main issue is with regards players. If we really got to that stage then as others have pointed out I very much doubt we would raise much because either: (a) they would walk away due to breach of contract if their contract terms are breached, (b) other clubs would be offering a pittance as they would clearly know our circumstances and © it would depend on finding a willing buyer and players accepting this transfer which has loads of unknowns in it (e.g. any balance of the contract would have to be paid up and offset against income, players have the right to refuse transfers, savvy players would wait until they could walk away as free agents and then command bigger signing on fees in lieu of transfer fees). So I just have a difference of opinion with regards the break up value of the Club (and of course you may be right), I haven't insulted you and I thought you had turned over a new leaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 (edited) My understanding (although I have been wrong about F.A. rules in the past) is that there is an additional points deduction should administration not be exited via a CVA. Usually clubs are unable to exit via a CVA becuase HMRC block them. If SLH does not owe any money to HMRC then they will not be able to block and SLH will be able to exit Administration via a CVA thereby avoiding the points deduction regardless of the FA considering the holding co and company to be linked. That was my take on it, but I have to admit that is only by reading snippets here and there. The impression I got was that it was when HMRC was a larger creditor than 25% and therefore able to reject the CVA which has caught many clubs out. So as others have pointed out it is probably down to keeping Aviva and Barclays happy that is the key as at £25m+, they are far and away the biggest creditors and so probably command 75%+ of the creditors on their own. (although something at the back of my mind says leads got a CVA approved, but still sufferd further points, or was that because a dnother technicality???). Here it shows Leeds get 75% approval for the initial CVA (HMRC voted aginst it), http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2191320/leeds-cva-approval-squeezed Bt then a short while later it appears this CVA wasn't approved (because the HMRC objected) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2318163/Taxmans-demands-deepen-Leeds-crisis.html Edited 6 May, 2009 by um pahars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 As we only own part of Staplewood its value is very limited Thanks for the info. Imo, the highest value to be achieved for the creditors is to sell the whole thing as a going concern. The whole being greater than the sum of its parts. If that means that Fry cant get very much in the current economic climate, well that's Barclays's and Aviva's tough sh*t - I am sure they have lost a lot more money than this on projects elsewhere, and their own fault for allowing things to get to this point. Maybe Barclays should have thought ahead and not bounced those cheques.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Apologies if this has been said befor, but to pose the question.... surely its in Avivas best interests to renegotiate with the new owners (if and when)? Asset liquidation, will realise them at best 25-30p in the pound against the 24 mil owed. New owners renegotiating a deal a more affordable rate over a longer term, will see them regain the 24 mil + interest. The key is obviously the credibilty and effectiveness of the potential bidders - those that inspire confidence. And naturally this would allow the potential new bidders the luxury of paying off a greater percentage of the remaining creditors - something we need to do to ensure no further points deductions. To date the NDAs are holding firm and we have no real official info on any of the potential bidders. Its speculated that they are consortia - in which case there is no single bidder with enough spondooolies individually - so we should not expect windfalls but further cost cutting and belt tightening, so the need to ensure that teh FIRST priority should be clearing and agreeing new payments on ALL debts seems vital to me, as well as ethically the right thing to do - Its no different from all those companies going bust owing customers monety, that spring up again a few months later, same folk in charge and a slightly different name leaving the creditors with feck all - just ebcuiase its our club, I cant change my view on those bastards - NO lets hope they do this right, long term plan, beginning with clearing debt and building... I hope the fans have the patience for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Thanks for the info. Imo, the highest value to be achieved for the creditors is to sell the whole thing as a going concern. The whole being greater than the sum of its parts. If that means that Fry cant get very much in the current economic climate, well that's Barclays's and Aviva's tough sh*t - I am sure they have lost a lot more money than this on projects elsewhere, and their own fault for allowing things to get to this point. Maybe Barclays should have thought ahead and not bounced those cheques.. Completely agree. The differene between acheiving a going concern sale and a "break up" is also likely to be huge, making it in EVERYBODY'S best interest to acheive a sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Thanks for the info. Imo, the highest value to be achieved for the creditors is to sell the whole thing as a going concern. The whole being greater than the sum of its parts. If that means that Fry cant get very much in the current economic climate, well that's Barclays's and Aviva's tough sh*t - I am sure they have lost a lot more money than this on projects elsewhere, and their own fault for allowing things to get to this point. Maybe Barclays should have thought ahead and not bounced those cheques.. Thing is Alpine, it may be their 'tough ****' but it agreement is not reached on the monies owed, or as a result we have avoided paying a the lions share of the debt, the FL can and will add to our poits deduction as they have that descretion as awell.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Charteris Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 This is relavent to all fans-not just saints, and only started yesterday. Please have a look and spread the word! http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/football-fans-message-to-the-fa.html Good shout for a first post. More signatures needed though - there are only 33 as of 8:30 a.m. Weds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Thing is Alpine' date=' it may be their 'tough ****' but it agreement is not reached on the monies owed, or as a result we have avoided paying a the lions share of the debt, the FL can and will add to our poits deduction as they have that descretion as awell....[/quote'] What is it you dont understand ? If they go for a break-up, they are going to get LESS. If they only have a single offer, they have no choice but to accept it and agree the CVA eventually, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 6 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 May, 2009 So I just have a difference of opinion with regards the break up value of the Club (and of course you may be right), I haven't insulted you and I thought you had turned over a new leaf. Sorry about that, Steve. My increasingly bizzarre posts last night were in direct proportion to my Courvoisier intake. Sorry to Clapham, as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Thing is Alpine' date=' it may be their 'tough ****' but it agreement is not reached on the monies owed, or as a result we have avoided paying a the lions share of the debt, the FL can and will add to our poits deduction as they have that descretion as awell....[/quote'] Surely introducing a rule imposing a 17 point penalty for exiting Administration other than by way of a CVA and then, after a club successfully does so, subsequently imposing a penalty anyway just because the F.A. have that discretion would be too a little farfetched? I can't beleive that even the F.A. would be that malicious. Or have I missed you point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Surely introducing a rule imposing a 17 point penalty for exiting Administration other than by way of a CVA and then, after a club successfully does so, subsequently imposing a penalty anyway just because the F.A. have that discretion would be too a little farfetched? I can't beleive that even the F.A. would be that malicious. Or have I missed you point? Not the FA but the FL. Basically if CVAs not agreed its standard more points - but they can also as I understand inflict further deductions if as a result of the agreed CVAs the club has written off a large percentage of the debt - might be wrong on this, but its what I heard recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Good shout for a first post. More signatures needed though - there are only 33 as of 8:30 a.m. Weds. Done mine. Come on folks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 6 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 May, 2009 If they go for a break-up, they are going to get LESS. If they only have a single offer, they have no choice but to accept it and agree the CVA eventually, imo. There is no guarantee that the offer they receive is going to be more than the realised asset value on liquidation. The creditors also have a choice as to whether they accept any sum less than they are owed and in fact, if I was Norwich Union and the offer is much less than £10M for the Stadium, I'd be tempted to lease it out to, say, Southampton City Council for community and entertainment events , for £500K a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 My increasingly bizzarre posts last night were in direct proportion to my Courvoisier intake. Were you drinking it chilled? I hear that's very much the done thing these days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 There is no guarantee that the offer they receive is going to be more than the realised asset value on liquidation. The creditors also have a choice as to whether they accept any sum less than they are owed and in fact, if I was Norwich Union and the offer is much less than £10M for the Stadium, I'd be tempted to lease it out to, say, Southampton City Council for community and entertainment events , for £500K a year. What are Aviva going to do with it if they reject the only offer on the table and no further offers are forthcoming ? They will get NO money then, and if they kill the company running and maintaining the site, its value will plummet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddings and Monkeys Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 HMRC is not a problem at present. Listen to this man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 6 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 May, 2009 What are Aviva going to do with it if they reject the only offer on the table and no further offers are forthcoming ? They will get NO money then, and if they kill the company running and maintaining the site, its value will plummet. There may be only one offer on the table for a loss making division one football club, but if that goes out of existence, who's to say that there wouldn't be plenty of buyers for the Stadium. If the City council in the absence of football games, be persuaded to allow 10, rather than 4, concerts every year, I reckon an entertainment venue could work and the stadium would definitely have a value. That value may be more than the offer being tabled for the going concern. You only have to see the success that the Dome (O2 Arena) has become when someone with a bit of business ability comes along to run it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Which is exactly why those who led us into Administration this season with some utterly crass decisions should be ashamed of themselves. Um 90% of the damage had been done before in the previous two seasons and if you and others can start to at least acknowledge that fact we can all move forward together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 This owing £2M to IR/HMRC has come up over the last day or so but WS says there is no problem. Where did the £2M rumour come from? Alastair Darling is a Saints fan - why not? Everyone else involved at a high level in this sorry mess is alleged to be one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Um 90% of the damage had been done before in the previous two seasons and if you and others can start to at least acknowledge that fact we can all move forward together. That is your opinion. Most would state that 90% of the damage had been completed the moment that the referee blew his whistle at the end of the match against Manchester United that sealed our relegation from the Premiership. Regardless of whether people hold that opinion or any other opinion as to where blame can be apportioned, we can now move forward together anyway, provided that somebody buys us and that consortium does not include any of the protagonists responsible for our demise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 That is your opinion. Most would state that 90% of the damage had been completed the moment that the referee blew his whistle at the end of the match against Manchester United that sealed our relegation from the Premiership. Regardless of whether people hold that opinion or any other opinion as to where blame can be apportioned, we can now move forward together anyway, provided that somebody buys us and that consortium does not include any of the protagonists responsible for our demise. Agreed Wes there are two schools of reasonable opinion but a third opinion seems to suggest that last season was the sole reason for administration and that is pure lunacy IMO. As far as a working budget went from the start of this season all you can say it's impossible to keep your shoes on if the shoestrings have been taken away. This past season and administration was undisputably a result of went before not a result of impossible decisions made in an impossible situation whilst trying to mainain an impossible positive vibe for the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insertfunnyname Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Isn't that what happened at Weymouth? They all agreed to not play and then most of them walked away into another club forcing the owners to field a team of youth players. Gretna as well I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoswellSaint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Sorry about that, Steve. My increasingly bizzarre posts last night were in direct proportion to my Courvoisier intake. Sorry to Clapham, as well... Credit for apologizing! They did seem bizarre and antagonistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Sorry about that, Steve. My increasingly bizzarre posts last night were in direct proportion to my Courvoisier intake. Sorry to Clapham, as well... No worries fella. I probably wasn't in the best of moods either as after batting in the nets for about an hour and seeing it like a football, I went in at number 3 and scored an earth shattering 0!!!!!! Bowled off my pads trying a cheeky flick third ball didn't put me in the best of moods!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lets B Avenue Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 No worries fella. I probably wasn't in the best of moods either as after batting in the nets for about an hour and seeing it like a football, I went in at number 3 and scored an earth shattering 0!!!!!! Bowled off my pads trying a cheeky flick third ball didn't put me in the best of moods!!!!!! Who for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Um 90% of the damage had been done before in the previous two seasons and if you and others can start to at least acknowledge that fact we can all move forward together. why stop at the last two seasons ? imo decisions taken over the last 6 years have led us to here, in fact the whole business was built on sand from 1997 with Sky being the only income source and fall back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 why stop at the last two seasons ? imo decisions taken over the last 6 years have led us to here, in fact the whole business was built on sand from 1997 with Sky being the only income source and fall back Mike there are elements I would agree with you on but this season we started up to our necks in quicksand and I personally am convinced the greatest business brains and football brains (we could have afforded) would not have saved us. Pin the first relegation on Lowe and I agree but the way some people are pinning this season's failures on him are ridiculous and had Crouch remained in charge it just would have happened a bit quicker IMO and likewise anyone else. In hindsight perhaps they should have stopped trying to service the debt from last August. I think to move forward sensibly we need a reality check on the past 3 years and obviously before that there are poor, debatable and correct decisions that will never be amicably resolved. One thing for sure is Wilde should join the armed services as he seems to be able to slip off any radar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Mike there are elements I would agree with you on but this season we started up to our necks in quicksand and I personally am convinced the greatest business brains and football brains (we could have afforded) would not have saved us. Pin the first relegation on Lowe and I agree but the way some people are pinning this season's failures on him are ridiculous and had Crouch remained in charge it just would have happened a bit quicker IMO and likewise anyone else. In hindsight perhaps they should have stopped trying to service the debt from last August. I think to move forward sensibly we need a reality check on the past 3 years and obviously before that there are poor, debatable and correct decisions that will never be amicably resolved. One thing for sure is Wilde should join the armed services as he seems to be able to slip off any radar. 19C (yes it was a bit of banter in my post yesterday btw), can you tell me, in your opinon, how Lowe cannot or should not be blamed for this season's relegation ? He sent out all 3 recognised goalscorers for the first half of the season, and guess what ? We couldnt score. We bought in inferior loan players who never made the first team with anything like regularity - Gasmi, Pekhart, Robertson, Liptak to name but 4 (2 of those were supposed centre forwards) and, instead of keeping a manager who was prepared to take a pay cut, had numerous contacts throughout the game in England and had formed a list of freebies and loan players we could have picked up (many of whom did so well at Leicester for him), he goes for a Dutch duo who knew about 4 people in England and had no contacts and no idea who to sign, so much so that a boy playing for Millwall Res against our reserves was cherry picked as the next big hope, a "world class" player. False economy 19C, getting in all those loanees who never bothered the first team sheet and all he had to do was keep 1, not all but 1 of the three main strikers and a manager who had the team fit, cos I dont know if you noticed how many games they ran out of steam in the last quarter of the match. So how can false economy and some baffling decisions not be Lowe's fault ? I will be interested to hear your opinion on that please ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 the way some people are pinning this season's failures on him are ridiculous Really??? LMFAO. Only last summer you were salivating over how Lowe had orchestrated the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up;) and how you had great hope for this season. And who do you think has sown the seeds for hope this season. Did Poortvliet and the determination to rely on youth to support the culling of expensive journeyman happen by pure chance? You're looking forward to the new season? Good but try and recognise who has orchestrated that Now when it's all gone tts up, then all of a sudden the conductor has gone AWOL:D Poor Lowe, he never stood a chance LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 And who do you think has sown the seeds for hope this season. Did Poortvliet and the determination to rely on youth to support the culling of expensive journeyman happen by pure chance? You're looking forward to the new season? Good but try and recognise who has orchestrated that. ha ha ha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Really??? LMFAO. Only last summer you were salivating over how Lowe had orchestrated the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up;) and how you had great hope for this season. Now when it's all gone tts up, then all of a sudden the conductor has gone AWOL:D Poor Lowe, he never stood a chance LOL. Um, by digging up old posts, you've just GM'd NC! (On GM's thread):smt041:smt041 Love it.:D:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Sorry about that, Steve. My increasingly bizzarre posts last night were in direct proportion to my Courvoisier intake. Sorry to Clapham, as well... Wasn't expecting that. Fair enough. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Um, by digging up old posts, you've just GM'd NC! (On GM's thread):smt041:smt041 Love it.:D:D It gets better: Absolutely Bungle, but he (Billy Davies) is still one rung higher than the plank Pearson who is one rung off the bottom from those who decided to employ him. We may be in the bottom 3 but we've not been put there by JP after 12 games in charge and with only 2 games to get ourselves out of it. They were dark days lest we forget. There's loads of 'em out there LMFAO. Lowe was his golden boy delivering us from Crouch & Pearson last summer. Jan was showing he was better than Pearson and Lowe was the chief architect of all this (although of course now it's all gone tts up, he had nothing to do with this season;)). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 There's loads of 'em out there LMFAO. Lowe was his golden boy delivering us from Crouch & Pearson last summer. Jan was showing he was better than Pearson and Lowe was the chief architect of all this (although of course now it's all gone tts up, he had nothing to do with this season;)). Double shocker in that he cannot respond to my polite request for an answer to football related issues !! Oh my ; - ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Double shocker in that he cannot respond to my polite request for an answer to football related issues !! Oh my ; - ) I don't really go in for "told you so's", but in this instance considering he/she/it is now going in for the "It's got nothing to do with Lowe" line, then I thought it was apt to show how last summer he/she/it was crediting Lowe for orchestrating the new strategy and the implementation of the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 19C (yes it was a bit of banter in my post yesterday btw), can you tell me, in your opinon, how Lowe cannot or should not be blamed for this season's relegation ? He sent out all 3 recognised goalscorers for the first half of the season, and guess what ? We couldnt score. We bought in inferior loan players who never made the first team with anything like regularity - Gasmi, Pekhart, Robertson, Liptak to name but 4 (2 of those were supposed centre forwards) and, instead of keeping a manager who was prepared to take a pay cut, had numerous contacts throughout the game in England and had formed a list of freebies and loan players we could have picked up (many of whom did so well at Leicester for him), he goes for a Dutch duo who knew about 4 people in England and had no contacts and no idea who to sign, so much so that a boy playing for Millwall Res against our reserves was cherry picked as the next big hope, a "world class" player. False economy 19C, getting in all those loanees who never bothered the first team sheet and all he had to do was keep 1, not all but 1 of the three main strikers and a manager who had the team fit, cos I dont know if you noticed how many games they ran out of steam in the last quarter of the match. So how can false economy and some baffling decisions not be Lowe's fault ? I will be interested to hear your opinion on that please ! Morning BS, firstly my humble apologies for not replying last night but I had a date with Eva Longoria, she pops in most Wednesday's at 10pm. Firstly, my stance is that this club was all but finished financially at the start of the season IMO and so in that scenario any decisions were going to be high risk but do nothing or limit change was the riskiest of them all. Pearson's record from the previous season was not screaming out hire me. OK to be wise after the event but assuming Lowe doesn't have your crystal ball seems a reasonable decision to have made based on the facts. When you cannot compete with nearly all of the other clubs in the league because of money and have to sell/loan your highest earners that effectively resulted in a youth policy and I believe it was right to try and be creative in an attempt to maximise their potential. Bringing in the Dutch duo from a country considered a blueprint by many for youth development and a manager willing to take it on for £60k pa then that to me seems a reasonable gamble given the circumstances. Again lets not forget how many (not just me) were excited by the youth policy and the promise we showed in those early games it was far better than watching an overpaid bunch of expensive journeyman that had helped precipitate our fall although of couse one or two remained. The whole season was led by finances and we sent out better players and brought in inferior ones because of the economics of the situation. No different to a man who has lost his job and has to sell his nearly new car for a much older less reliable model so he can make efforts to keep a roof over his family's head whilst still being able to get about. Not a false economy a necessity and necessities I think shaped the decisions. The issue with Pearson is simple had he done better at Saints as I've said before with say a 50% win ration we may have been able to retain him but if he was so important to the club why didn't Crouch put him on a 3 year contract in line with their plans as queried I think by NickH recently. Also, you cannot compare how players perform in League 1 with that of the CCC and just because they did well at Leicester we cannot assume they would have had the same success in the CCC and I guess it will be interesting to see how many players Pearson retains for next season. IMO Pearson has proved nothing and it is somewhat altruistic to look at his success and blame Lowe and the Dutch for our failure this season. There was of course some hype about the new Dutch regime and the signing of some players such as Smith but Lowe can hardly be criticised for that when the previous 6 months we had the master of hype, false promises and rhetoric at the helm. For every Vincent Pericard we can point to a Jack Cork who admitted he would have stayed at Saints if anyone other than his academy mentor hadn't come knocking. Boothroyd has a lot to answer for. You cannot have a false economy when there is barely any cloth left to make yourself a new pocket. In that environment there were some baffling decisions but my point all along has been whether Rupert Lowe, Sir Alan Sugar or Theo Paphities , Leon Crouch etc etc was in charge, many decisions would appear to be odd to those of us on the outside We are not privvy the drivers of some decisions except maybe people like Um Pahars who act like they are afforded inside information but IMO simply feed off little titbits probably fed to them on purpose and hence at times we have this rabid imbalance on the forum courtesy of some of the more condescending, school teacher types and self important 'in the knowers'. So yes Lowe made some baffling decisions and had they been made during a period of financial stability they would be hard to explain but you cannot take the decisions out of context. I'm surprised you don't pick up on the purchase of Pulis but my understanding is from a lifelong Stoke City S/T holder is that Stole would not buy Davies if we didn't take Pulis and there wouldn't be a Stoke fan in the land who was glad to see the back of him. However, if Stoke were the only buyers in for Davies and we got Pulis on cheap wages it wasn't a false economy but I suspect a necessary one. The failure to offload Skacel was a disaster but the player was not going to go to move for a 50% pay cut so Lowe was saddled with him and an alleged wage bill for him alone of £500k. Good value for money? JP was kept on in his position for too long and IMO the away result at Reading saved his bacon for a few weeks after a run of poor results save the Preston fightback and selection decisions and subs as bizarre as Burley's finest. Gobern probably his most notable who after his first game IMO needed more time to develop in the reserves. At that time I was advocating some help for JP from an out of work CCC manager but agan i was not privvy to the financial state of the club and perhaps moves were already in place to install Wotte but clearly they were too late. That said I respect JP for making the effort and giving his time on a salary not commensurate with his role and responsibilities and not many would have done it that cheap. It's easy to forget in this sea of negativity some of the good things and lets hope we can retain Saejis with Perry as they will be effective in L1 and a defensive foundation on which to build. We were unlucky with injury to Lee Holmes who IMO has looked like our best wide player by far and McLaggon showed promise. Gillett and James have come on really well expecially second half of the season and even if we can't retain them a couple of lumps of coal are beginning to at least look like rough diamonds. So, IMO we can blame Lowe for relegation from the Premiership and Wilde and Crouch for the intervening years but this season the writing was on the wall from day 1 and there are a few more culpable indiviudals and issues other than Lowe that bought about the collapse of this club but you didn't ask about them and anyway my views on that subject are well known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Morning BS, firstly my humble apologies for not replying last night but I had a date with Eva Longoria, she pops in most Wednesday's at 10pm. Firstly, my stance is that this club was all but finished financially at the start of the season IMO and so in that scenario any decisions were going to be high risk but do nothing or limit change was the riskiest of them all. Pearson's record from the previous season was not screaming out hire me. OK to be wise after the event but assuming Lowe doesn't have your crystal ball seems a reasonable decision to have made based on the facts. When you cannot compete with nearly all of the other clubs in the league because of money and have to sell/loan your highest earners that effectively resulted in a youth policy and I believe it was right to try and be creative in an attempt to maximise their potential. Bringing in the Dutch duo from a country considered a blueprint by many for youth development and a manager willing to take it on for £60k pa then that to me seems a reasonable gamble given the circumstances. Again lets not forget how many (not just me) were excited by the youth policy and the promise we showed in those early games it was far better than watching an overpaid bunch of expensive journeyman that had helped precipitate our fall although of couse one or two remained. The whole season was led by finances and we sent out better players and brought in inferior ones because of the economics of the situation. No different to a man who has lost his job and has to sell his nearly new car for a much older less reliable model so he can make efforts to keep a roof over his family's head whilst still being able to get about. Not a false economy a necessity and necessities I think shaped the decisions. The issue with Pearson is simple had he done better at Saints as I've said before with say a 50% win ration we may have been able to retain him but if he was so important to the club why didn't Crouch put him on a 3 year contract in line with their plans as queried I think by NickH recently. Also, you cannot compare how players perform in League 1 with that of the CCC and just because they did well at Leicester we cannot assume they would have had the same success in the CCC and I guess it will be interesting to see how many players Pearson retains for next season. IMO Pearson has proved nothing and it is somewhat altruistic to look at his success and blame Lowe and the Dutch for our failure this season. There was of course some hype about the new Dutch regime and the signing of some players such as Smith but Lowe can hardly be criticised for that when the previous 6 months we had the master of hype, false promises and rhetoric at the helm. For every Vincent Pericard we can point to a Jack Cork who admitted he would have stayed at Saints if anyone other than his academy mentor hadn't come knocking. Boothroyd has a lot to answer for. You cannot have a false economy when there is barely any cloth left to make yourself a new pocket. In that environment there were some baffling decisions but my point all along has been whether Rupert Lowe, Sir Alan Sugar or Theo Paphities , Leon Crouch etc etc was in charge, many decisions would appear to be odd to those of us on the outside We are not privvy the drivers of some decisions except maybe people like Um Pahars who act like they are afforded inside information but IMO simply feed off little titbits probably fed to them on purpose and hence at times we have this rabid imbalance on the forum courtesy of some of the more condescending, school teacher types and self important 'in the knowers'. So yes Lowe made some baffling decisions and had they been made during a period of financial stability they would be hard to explain but you cannot take the decisions out of context. I'm surprised you don't pick up on the purchase of Pulis but my understanding is from a lifelong Stoke City S/T holder is that Stole would not buy Davies if we didn't take Pulis and there wouldn't be a Stoke fan in the land who was glad to see the back of him. However, if Stoke were the only buyers in for Davies and we got Pulis on cheap wages it wasn't a false economy but I suspect a necessary one. The failure to offload Skacel was a disaster but the player was not going to go to move for a 50% pay cut so Lowe was saddled with him and an alleged wage bill for him alone of £500k. Good value for money? JP was kept on in his position for too long and IMO the away result at Reading saved his bacon for a few weeks after a run of poor results save the Preston fightback and selection decisions and subs as bizarre as Burley's finest. Gobern probably his most notable who after his first game IMO needed more time to develop in the reserves. At that time I was advocating some help for JP from an out of work CCC manager but agan i was not privvy to the financial state of the club and perhaps moves were already in place to install Wotte but clearly they were too late. That said I respect JP for making the effort and giving his time on a salary not commensurate with his role and responsibilities and not many would have done it that cheap. It's easy to forget in this sea of negativity some of the good things and lets hope we can retain Saejis with Perry as they will be effective in L1 and a defensive foundation on which to build. We were unlucky with injury to Lee Holmes who IMO has looked like our best wide player by far and McLaggon showed promise. Gillett and James have come on really well expecially second half of the season and even if we can't retain them a couple of lumps of coal are beginning to at least look like rough diamonds. So, IMO we can blame Lowe for relegation from the Premiership and Wilde and Crouch for the intervening years but this season the writing was on the wall from day 1 and there are a few more culpable indiviudals and issues other than Lowe that bought about the collapse of this club but you didn't ask about them and anyway my views on that subject are well known. Congratulations on a very lucid and reasonable post 19C. Most I agree with some I don't, but it was a good read nevertheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Congratulations on a very lucid and reasonable post 19C. Most I agree with some I don't, but it was a good read nevertheless. A good read?? Like C.S. Lewis?? No matter how you dress it the Dutch duo turned out to be a disaster. Lowe appointed them as he had Gray, Wigley, Sturrock yada yada. Pearson will prove next season that the "empty" success 19C makes out Leicester's season to be was not actually the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 I agree with Foxstone that Nineteen's reply is lucid and reasonable. On the other hand, it does not absolve the blame for the resulting failure from Lowe's shoulders. Yes, there were extenuating financial circumstances that dictated the restraints under which the club was run, but to suggest that the path chosen by Lowe was the only one is untrue. Looked at in the cold light of day, what occurred has been proven to be a bizarre experiment, not an expedient and balanced approach. The reasonable approach was to appoint somebody who knew their way around this division, had useful contacts and some measure of experience of working with youngsters, although a team balanced between youthful exuberance but with a spine of older experienced players was obviously more sensible than a team comprising mostly youngsters. We actually had such a manager in situ, but let him go. Nineteen admits that Poortvliet should have been dismissed earlier, but doesn't seem to be able to accept that he should not have been appointed in the first place. That appointment was purely down to Lowe and will count as one of his biggest misjudgements alongside the appointments of Gray and Wigley. Stating that the baffling decisions cannot be taken out of the context of the financial restraints imposed on us is not true. At least Nineteen has admitted that the decisions were baffling, which is a start. But for the reasons I have given, those decisions that Lowe made were not the only options open to him and because he went down that particular route instead of others, the responsibility for the destination reached is mostly down to him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 A good read?? Like C.S. Lewis?? No matter how you dress it the Dutch duo turned out to be a disaster. Lowe appointed them as he had Gray, Wigley, Sturrock yada yada. Pearson will prove next season that the "empty" success 19C makes out Leicester's season to be was not actually the case. And I totally agree with that and disagree with 19C on that point specifically. From the moment i turned up to that Plymouth home game ( NP had arrived earlier in the day of course), and watched him as he supervised the warm-up and then saw his very proactive manner in the technical area during the game- I was certain that we had recruited a manager of talent and standing who had such a commanding prescence, that the lack of discipline and focus all too noticable during the time of that gibbering idiot Burley would be consigned to the past and we could build for the future. I was incandescent when he was not retained by Lowe and as you say the Dutch experiement was a disaster. However 19C did make some good points and it was a well put post. Something I welcome reading on this site rather than the all too frequent infantile outbursts we have seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 A good read?? Like C.S. Lewis?? No matter how you dress it the Dutch duo turned out to be a disaster. Lowe appointed them as he had Gray, Wigley, Sturrock yada yada. Pearson will prove next season that the "empty" success 19C makes out Leicester's season to be was not actually the case. Pearson may well go on to prove he has LEARNED his trade well in League one - does not mean he would have some how performed miracles with teh resources we had this season - a subtle but important point. Why is it that some fans think that you cant have an opinion on the positive aspects of approaches (despite the outcomes being not as planned) without it being seen as somehow endorsing EVERYTHING someone stands for? Its simply not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Bates Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 What has to be remembered is that any offer for the club that is short of what is owed to the creditors will require them (ie Barclays, Norwich Union and HMRC) agreeing to accept less, because if the offer is less than the break up value of the club, then these guys will have no, and I mean, no hesitation in forcing Fry into simply liquidating the assets. This leads me on to the possibility that selling the players to the vultures and St. Mary's to Southampton City Council, may be the contingency plan that Fry is faced with. IMHO an offer that takes the p!$$ may be worse than no offer at all and push us into the unthinkable. Southampton Speedway all over again. Top Dogs one season and Top Rank the next... I have lost faith and feel that this may be the end product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Thinking about it 19...you might be right about Pulis....being a makeweight etc as part of a deal......We had this with Ali Dia..thrown in as part of The George Weah transfer thast did not quite happen....Let us pray that when Pulis does play this coming season that he can at least run or take throw ins....It will be interesting to see who we get fro Dorchester when we transfer Gasmi to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 From the moment i turned up to that Plymouth home game ( NP had arrived earlier in the day of course), and watched him as he supervised the warm-up and then saw his very proactive manner in the technical area during the game- I was certain that we had recruited a manager of talent and standing who had such a commanding prescence, that the lack of discipline and focus all too noticable during the time of that gibbering idiot Burley would be consigned to the past and we could build for the future. I was incandescent when he was not retained by Lowe and as you say the Dutch experiement was a disaster. Funny really that you were able to surmise something solid about the guy that reassured you from watching how he behaved with the players. I arrived at a similar conclusion from watching his first televised interview. It was so cogently and eloquently expressed, completely fluent, devoid of the usual cliches that most managers employ. I instinctively made a judgement on his character and personality based on that. Probably like you, I have not had any cause to revise my initial judgement of him since then. If anything, he has gone up further in my estimation for the quiet dignity in which he goes about things, never blowing his own trumpet or making waves. It seems that his players have great respect for the man and that he has the ability to inspire them to play beyond themselves. What a contrast with Poortvliet and Wotte. Although purely speculative, assessing what he might have achieved with us under the same circumstances that governed this season, I bet most of us would believe that we might have survived relegation under him and even with greater crowds generated without Lowe's presence and with a few more home wins under our belt, we probably would have survived financially too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 So, IMO we can blame Lowe for relegation from the Premiership and Wilde and Crouch for the intervening years but this season the writing was on the wall from day 1 The writing was on the wall the moment Lowe did not renew Pearson's contract at the end of last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Funny really that you were able to surmise something solid about the guy that reassured you from watching how he behaved with the players. I arrived at a similar conclusion from watching his first televised interview. It was so cogently and eloquently expressed, completely fluent, devoid of the usual cliches that most managers employ. I instinctively made a judgement on his character and personality based on that. Probably like you, I have not had any cause to revise my initial judgement of him since then. If anything, he has gone up further in my estimation for the quiet dignity in which he goes about things, never blowing his own trumpet or making waves. It seems that his players have great respect for the man and that he has the ability to inspire them to play beyond themselves. What a contrast with Poortvliet and Wotte. Although purely speculative, assessing what he might have achieved with us under the same circumstances that governed this season, I bet most of us would believe that we might have survived relegation under him and even with greater crowds generated without Lowe's presence and with a few more home wins under our belt, we probably would have survived financially too. I could not agree more Wes ! I am certain we really did let a diamond slip through our hands there and as you conclude, NP the Manager alongside the bigger gates that his fondness and support from the supporters would have offered him ( Lowe or not at the helm) might well have made a significant difference. In my opinion, this was a decision more crass than the Wigley appointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Pearson may well go on to prove he has LEARNED his trade well in League one - does not mean he would have some how performed miracles with teh resources we had this season - a subtle but important point. Why is it that some fans think that you cant have an opinion on the positive aspects of approaches (despite the outcomes being not as planned) without it being seen as somehow endorsing EVERYTHING someone stands for? Its simply not the case. I'm not certain miracles were actually required. We had an excellent candidate in place at the end of last season, who had already shown enough competancy to halt the decline sufficiently to survive. Nigel had also brought in some decent loan deals. His manner and approach were there to be admired, many were very impressed by his leadership qualities, these qualities still shine in the dugout and in the media in general. Compare that to the background of Jan and Mark. Neither had significant experience of English football, or could demonstrate success to any great extent in their own country. It would seem that their major qualification was that Rupert was employing 2 for the price of 1 and that they were Dutch. Jan and Mark would had to significantly improve to keep Southampton up. Would Nigel Pearson have had to perform miracles to keep us in the Championship? Furthermore you could ask would a better home performing team been good for the gate receipts and all attached revenue? 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