alpine_saint Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 ...and a big thankyou to Mr. Barclays for preventing us for taking Jamie Scowcroft on loan and possibly saving us from relegation with a few goals... I hope you get 10p in the pound, you tw*ts..
skintsaint Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 Looking at Scowcrofts record that wasnt much of a loss...although he always scored against us.
Barry the Badger Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 Jamie Scowcroft was going to save us? I sometimes forget how bad things have gotten, then something like this brings me crashing back down to earth. :-(
OldNick Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 If it was as Alpine has made out then he might have got 2 or 3 goals that may have made the difference.A different setting and he may have clicked, he would have definitely put himself about and may have created chances through that.
alpine_saint Posted 8 May, 2009 Author Posted 8 May, 2009 If it was as Alpine has made out then he might have got 2 or 3 goals that may have made the difference.A different setting and he may have clicked, he would have definitely put himself about and may have created chances through that. Yep, all the things we were missing. I do wonder about bankers and City people...have they never heard of "false economies" ? Seems the British middle-management is rife with it..
bungle Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 Yep, all the things we were missing. I do wonder about bankers and City people...have they never heard of "false economies" ? Seems the British middle-management is rife with it.. You mean "spending money you haven't got" - isn't that the whole reason we are in this mess? You are mad.
Mowgli Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 You mean "spending money you haven't got" - isn't that the whole reason we are in this mess? You are mad. Well said but to be fair - if there were astute business heads about would they really be spending time tapping away on a bulletin board? There are a few on here that seems to be surgically attached to their keyboard and although some of their comments are niaive in the extreme I don't think you can doubt that they love the Saints.
Nineteen Canteen Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 You mean "spending money you haven't got" - isn't that the whole reason we are in this mess? You are mad. Well said, there is a big difference between a false economy and necessity.
Nineteen Canteen Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 Go away, you sad obsessed little shrub.... Interesting argument you put up Alpine.
alpine_saint Posted 8 May, 2009 Author Posted 8 May, 2009 Well said, there is a big difference between a false economy and necessity. As big a difference as there is between survival and administration-cum-liquidation... No wonder you are a luvvie.
Rebel Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 Blackstock would have made a difference though - look at what's he's done for Forest! An undoubtedly we would have finished a lot highger up the table under Crouch and Pearson and not have gone into administration thank you Mr Lowe and Wilde!
skintsaint Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 actually thinking about it, Scowcroft would of had to earn us 18 extra points to have been any use. Not sure he was THAT good.
Judge_B Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 I thought Warnock wanted rid of Scowcroft after he'd said he didn't want to go out on loan anywhere. I thought we didn't get Scowcroft on loan because he refused to move, not because of money issues
notnowcato Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 Go away, you sad obsessed little shrub.... Bungle has a point. The major false economy of last season was the "championship busting" 2 for 1 offering. BOGOF
alpine_saint Posted 8 May, 2009 Author Posted 8 May, 2009 Bungle has a point. The major false economy of last season was the "championship busting" 2 for 1 offering. BOGOF bungle is talking out of his arse. We got rid of 3 strikers and a decent defender at the behest of Lowe and Barclays, shipped goals at a ridiculous rate, failed to score enough, and as a result attendances PLUMMETED, massively cutting the club's revenue. That is the "false economy" that has killed us. Oh, that and the d**khead decision to go into administration 6 days after the league's cut-off date... Anyone who thought the clubs revenue would hold up in the light of p*ss-poor football is a complete clown.
aintforever Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 Oh, that and the d**khead decision to go into administration 6 days after the league's cut-off date... That's the worst decision of the lot. Hiring a crap manager, buying **** players - excuses can be made for those, but stitching us up by a matter of days is an unforgivable "mistake" by Lowe.
notnowcato Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 bungle is talking out of his arse. We got rid of 3 strikers and a decent defender at the behest of Lowe and Barclays, shipped goals at a ridiculous rate, failed to score enough, and as a result attendances PLUMMETED, massively cutting the club's revenue. That is the "false economy" that has killed us. Oh, that and the d**khead decision to go into administration 6 days after the league's cut-off date... Anyone who thought the clubs revenue would hold up in the light of p*ss-poor football is a complete clown. ....but Jamie Scowcroft would have sorted it. You are East Ham
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 I don't think you get it Alpine. Barclays pulled the plug before we got relegated, so admin would have come anyway. And Scowcroft was not worth 18 points in anyones money. So what difference would it have made?
alpine_saint Posted 8 May, 2009 Author Posted 8 May, 2009 I don't think you get it Alpine. Barclays pulled the plug before we got relegated, so admin would have come anyway. And Scowcroft was not worth 18 points in anyones money. So what difference would it have made? Nope, it is you who doesnt get it. If we had better results with better (or more suited) players, the attendances would ahve gone up and possibly admin wouldnt have happened. You dont know at what point the block of the Scowcroft move happened. How many times did the team respond with attempted increased attendance with a sh*t performance ? If the teams performances had been better and got better results, increased attendances would have snowballed
notnowcato Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 Nope, it is you who doesnt get it. If we had better results with better (or more suited) players, the attendances would ahve gone up and possibly admin wouldnt have happened. You dont know at what point the block of the Scowcroft move happened. How many times did the team respond with attempted increased attendance with a sh*t performance ? If the teams performances had been better and got better results, increased attendances would have snowballed The players were / are good enough. The management and the board have to take the bulk if not all of the blame, simple as.
SaintBobby Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 I don't think you get it Alpine. Barclays pulled the plug before we got relegated, so admin would have come anyway. And Scowcroft was not worth 18 points in anyones money. So what difference would it have made? I think Barclays actually pulled the plug before relegation was certain! There is some sense to Alpine's case - if by spending, say, £500,000 on a striker's wages, you fend off relegationa dn boost crowds, then the new striker's costs are outweighed by the benefits. However, the problem is that at some point you have to cease speculating to accumulate. The £6m debt, and the high % of turnover dedicated to player salaries, indicated we had basically reached that limit. You can't forever keep adding "one more key player" to the squad. I doubt Braclays foreclosing on us was as big a bolt from the blue as Lowe would ahev us believe. We had been given tiem to get our house in order and failed lamentably.
Block 18 Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 It's all pretty much academic now, what has happened has happened, it's history, no point in getting worked up about it. It's the future that is the important issue now, who's going to be the new owner, will he/she have enough to get us back up the leagues, these should be the main topics of conversation, not ripping each other apart over a mute point. The future is bright, it's Red and White :smt041:smt041:smt041:smt041
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 Nope, it is you who doesnt get it. If we had better results with better (or more suited) players, the attendances would ahve gone up and possibly admin wouldnt have happened. You dont know at what point the block of the Scowcroft move happened. How many times did the team respond with attempted increased attendance with a sh*t performance ? If the teams performances had been better and got better results, increased attendances would have snowballed And you don't know how good he would have been. If you've ever seen Scowcroft play other than at St Mary's Twhich I doubt you have in your secret lair in Austria) you'll realise the guy is utter crap. He is certainly no better than Euell, and probably no better than Pericard (great loan signing that was). Watch some football, pick out decent players we could have had on loan, and then come on here, you'll sound far more credible if you did that.
alpine_saint Posted 8 May, 2009 Author Posted 8 May, 2009 And you don't know how good he would have been. If you've ever seen Scowcroft play other than at St Mary's Twhich I doubt you have in your secret lair in Austria) you'll realise the guy is utter crap. He is certainly no better than Euell, and probably no better than Pericard (great loan signing that was). Watch some football, pick out decent players we could have had on loan, and then come on here, you'll sound far more credible if you did that. You demonstrate AGAIN that you dont get it. Whether it was Scowcroft or not is irrelevant. Barclays prevented us strengthening the team in whichever way the manager felt was most urgent, on the basis of short-term financial issues.
Wiltshire Saint Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 If only we hadn't sold James Beattie, Wayne Bridge, Kenwyne Jones, Peter Crouch, David Prutton, Andrew Davies, Alan Shearer, Dean Richards, Rod and Ray Wallace and so on.
Frank's cousin Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 ...and a big thankyou to Mr. Barclays for preventing us for taking Jamie Scowcroft on loan and possibly saving us from relegation with a few goals... I hope you get 10p in the pound, you tw*ts.. I hope they get more and agree a CVA - because if they only get 10p in the pound we are looking at further poiints deductions....
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 You demonstrate AGAIN that you dont get it. Whether it was Scowcroft or not is irrelevant. Barclays prevented us strengthening the team in whichever way the manager felt was most urgent, on the basis of short-term financial issues. But it's not their job to speculate to accumulate, especially in the current financial climate. To be quite honest with you I'd assume they did that at the beginning of the season with signings like Schneiderlin etc, considering that we signed him when the overdraft was at it's peak. The fact that they went back on their deal when we had paid off 2.3 million of it was the big problem.
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 I hope they get more and agree a CVA - because if they only get 10p in the pound we are looking at further poiints deductions.... I thought a CVA was only needed for football related creditors.
alpine_saint Posted 8 May, 2009 Author Posted 8 May, 2009 But it's not their job to speculate to accumulate, especially in the current financial climate. To be quite honest with you I'd assume they did that at the beginning of the season with signings like Schneiderlin etc, considering that we signed him when the overdraft was at it's peak. The fact that they went back on their deal when we had paid off 2.3 million of it was the big problem. That is far too superficial a perspective. Allowing the club to build up its business (in terms of providing a quality of product or service to attract custom) is what banks are supposed to do. Whats the point in them otherwise ? What they did was nothing less than financially asphxyiating the club. They shoved a pillow over the face of SFC.
norwaysaint Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 If only we hadn't sold James Beattie, Wayne Bridge, Kenwyne Jones, Peter Crouch, David Prutton, Andrew Davies, Alan Shearer, Dean Richards, Rod and Ray Wallace and so on. This is what I said at the time, but it seems like we have now become a selling club when we should've pushed onto the next level and bought Jamie Scowcroft and Clinton Morrisson.
Legod Third Coming Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 Oh do let's give this a rest. We could have played Iniesta in our line-up and he wouldn't have scored the way we were p!ssing about with the ball. We were undone not by a banker but something very similar sounding who appointed Coco the Amsterdam Clown, loaned out all our best players and then set about upsetting every right-thinking fan this side of Pluto... Barclays just happened to be in the wrong place and funding a business run by a cretin.
SaintRichmond Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 That's the worst decision of the lot. Hiring a crap manager, buying **** players - excuses can be made for those, but stitching us up by a matter of days is an unforgivable "mistake" by Lowe. No mistake ... a calculated move to ensure that the Club ended up in a lower Division, relatively worthless, and therefore can be "obtained" for peanuts, by an "astute" Businessman
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 That is far too superficial a perspective. Allowing the club to build up its business (in terms of providing a quality of product or service to attract custom) is what banks are supposed to do. Whats the point in them otherwise ? What they did was nothing less than financially asphxyiating the club. They shoved a pillow over the face of SFC. But what's to say that the summer signings were the only ones that they would support? They're not going to just constantly throw money at an insolvent club at the off-chance that attendances may increase if they do. It would have taken some massive signings to bring back enough supporters.
SaintRichmond Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 It's all pretty much academic now, what has happened has happened, it's history, no point in getting worked up about it. It's the future that is the important issue now, who's going to be the new owner, will he/she have enough to get us back up the leagues, these should be the main topics of conversation, not ripping each other apart over a mute point. The future is bright, it's Red and White :smt041:smt041:smt041:smt041 Kindly define "future"
Toadhall Saint Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 But what's to say that the summer signings were the only ones that they would support? They're not going to just constantly throw money at an insolvent club at the off-chance that attendances may increase if they do. It would have taken some massive signings to bring back enough supporters. Winning more at home would have sufficed.
Frank's cousin Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 I thought a CVA was only needed for football related creditors. NOt as far as I am aware... its all creditors, and I think all football related debts need to be settles in FULL.
SFC Forever Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 If we wanted Scowcroft and couldn't get him bacuse of the cost all we had to do was return a couple of loanies that were never going to work out with this team. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to work that out surely.
Frank's cousin Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 If we wanted Scowcroft and couldn't get him bacuse of the cost all we had to do was return a couple of loanies that were never going to work out with this team. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to work that out surely. Depends on the loan contracts really - sorry but when in the ****e financially, cant say I blam eBarclays for this - when in a hole - stop digging springs to mind...
Clapham Saint Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 (edited) I thought a CVA was only needed for football related creditors. I'm not 100% on the football league rules but the football league require the CVA in order to protect football related creditors and prevent clubs gaining an unfair advantage by clearing away a significant proportion of their debts (or words to that effect, I'm sure somebody can correct any error). Insolvency law prevents a CVA which is weighted to screw over the over the non football related creditors in preference to football related ones. As far as I can see the FL has placed itself in direct oposition to Insolvency law resulting in significant the confusion. Edited 8 May, 2009 by Clapham Saint
samoakley Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 we should of tried to signed a defender scoring goals hasnt been the problem.
SFC Forever Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 But what's to say that the summer signings were the only ones that they would support? They're not going to just constantly throw money at an insolvent club at the off-chance that attendances may increase if they do. It would have taken some massive signings to bring back enough supporters. I don't entirely agree. The crowd would also return to see to see a winning team. Or at least a team that we felt had a chance of winning.
70's Mike Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 winning more at home would have sufficed. in a nutshell
alpine_saint Posted 8 May, 2009 Author Posted 8 May, 2009 But what's to say that the summer signings were the only ones that they would support? They're not going to just constantly throw money at an insolvent club at the off-chance that attendances may increase if they do. It would have taken some massive signings to bring back enough supporters. No it wouldnt have. I am talking about results bringing them back, not celebritiy transfers. In fact, that would have been the last thing we needed, imo. We needed a TEAM playing with decent TACTICS and MOTIVATION, not 11 bloody Maradonnas...
SFC Forever Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 No it wouldnt have. I am talking about results bringing them back, not celebritiy transfers. In fact, that would have been the last thing we needed, imo. We needed a TEAM playing with decent TACTICS and MOTIVATION, not 11 bloody Maradonnas... Referees did allow Maradonna to play with three legs though
alpine_saint Posted 8 May, 2009 Author Posted 8 May, 2009 Referees did allow Maradonna to play with three legs though heheheh
redorwhitelion Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 Crazy thread - the shambles at St Mary's as nothing to do with the bank. At some point a creditor is going to ask for their money back, or at least the interest payments, rather than dishing out extra capital. somewhere along the line the level of risk pasted the tipping point and Barclays called in the debt. Sounds like fairly standard practise to me. They couldn't allow Lowe to keep running the club on the never-never throwing good money after bad. They had to draw the line somewhere, whether we like it not.
St. Jason Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 Yep, all the things we were missing. I do wonder about bankers and City people...have they never heard of "false economies" ? Seems the British middle-management is rife with it.. To be honest Alpine, instead of blaming Barclays for not signing a loan player maybe we should be looking at Lowe, Jan & Wotte for wsting all the money that Barclays allowed us to spend on loan/permanent signings on- Gasmi, Pekhart, Robertson, Forecast, Pulis, Schneriden, Smith, Molyneax etc. Matbe Barclays just thought enough was enough??
alpine_saint Posted 8 May, 2009 Author Posted 8 May, 2009 To be honest Alpine, instead of blaming Barclays for not signing a loan player maybe we should be looking at Lowe, Jan & Wotte for wsting all the money that Barclays allowed us to spend on loan/permanent signings on- Gasmi, Pekhart, Robertson, Forecast, Pulis, Schneriden, Smith, Molyneax etc. Matbe Barclays just thought enough was enough?? So why didnt they say to Lowe "F**k off out of it or we pull the plug". It seems they were running the show indirectly anyway.. OR DID THEY and our ex-Chairman reacted with his usual unique brand of stubborness mixed with spite ? After all, it seems he thought he could bluff the FL with the holding company going into admin. It seems he was capable of anything..
SaintRichmond Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 So why didnt they say to Lowe "F**k off out of it or we pull the plug". It seems they were running the show indirectly anyway.. OR DID THEY and our ex-Chairman reacted with his usual unique brand of stubborness mixed with spite ? After all, it seems he thought he could bluff the FL with the holding company going into admin. It seems he was capable of anything.. Pretty close .... No way was Lowe going to lose HIS Club...
VectisSaint Posted 8 May, 2009 Posted 8 May, 2009 we should of tried to signed a defender scoring goals hasnt been the problem. Really, only Donny, Barnsley and Plymouth scored less
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