Player sales and budget cuts to continue at Saints (From Daily Echo)

Well i think Dave Jones should be sacked for incompetence on a huge scale. I mean what the hell does he do for his paid role ? Has he ever said 'NO' to more spending ?

Can someone also explain why the bank where happier with leon Crouch running the club !!!





Whats that i hear because he was going to put money into the coffers with others..........

This makes sad reading but, it is the reality. Our more attractive players are going to be sold for reduced fees in January given the recession at a time when perhaps a successful playing formula has been unearthed. A number of the first team will also be returning to their own clubs so, effectively, Jan will be starting again. I don't envy him.

Hopefully we can keep Cork for the season, he is the only loanee that really makes a difference for us. If we lucky we will be able to maybe sell our loaned out players (Rasiak, John, Dyer and Saga) we might be able to keep some of our more promising players from going until at least the summer.

UTS, if you really believed that the Bank was far happier having Crouch in charge, with wages at 81% of turnover and an overdraft at £6.3M then you will believe anything.

Poor attendance because of a poor team performances last season.

Extremely poor attendance this year,losing at least 10k paying customers because of a certain Mr Lowe!

Sell the youngsters in Jan, gates will full below 10k.

That will be 14k paying customers lost because of one individual.

Mr Lowe is just one big LIABILITY and he will continue to lose my club the finance it so desperately needs,because of his involment.

Work out how much he has already cost SFC in lost revenue, because customers will not return to SMS until he leaves.

And instead of selling the future of SFC,get so money in by selling the three international players currently out on loan.

Well if this hasnt alerted clubs to our players avaiabilty then maybe we should fax them their CV's just to be on the safe side. It wouldnt shock me in the slightest if Lowe trade them for magic beans and a talking cow. Ok we may have over spent last year but whose responsibility was it for the ten year previous before we were even in this division? Funny Lowe seems to have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to that isnt it?

Sorry guys but lets just support our team. I am sick to death of the anti this and anti that. I AM PRO SAINTS full stop. I will go to every Southampton FC game whatever league they are in, whoever is in charge until the day I die.

COYR

For years RL was accused of not being interested in the club, just for his own business purposes. When he came back, he was accused of only doing so to look after his own investments.

You know what? With the position we are in, I am glad the person in charge is an out-and-out business-man who stands to lose personally if the club fails.

Satellite wrote:
UTS, if you really believed that the Bank was far happier having Crouch in charge, with wages at 81% of turnover and an overdraft at £6.3M then you will believe anything.

Ahh as i have pointed out many times Mr Crouch had nothing to do with anything until late December 2007. So you should be looking at Wildes executives for that issue.

I think a good talking point is also why the bank allowed further spending ? They would of only allowed it from guaranteed future income.

So going back to your point the bank was indeed happier with the previous Dec-May board. Mainly because there was going to be investment if Lowe/Wilde sold their shares.

Barclays btw have now reeled in the slack due to Lowes arrogance.

Talking about overdrafts im sure you will be delighted to know that Lowe actually extended the overdraft in May of this year.

UTS so, we sack Dave Jones and get rid of Wilde and Lowe. Let's not stop here - lets us get rid of the management team and the reserve team set up, and oh should not the Academy be stopped as this was something that Lowe majored on. Then we should close down the Echo (because they are just spin merchants for Lowe) and then the Saints web site should go. Have I missed anything?

Don't suppose you wish to divulge who your mole is at Barclays do you.

I have a cunning plan, lets just wait until ther next home match and bomb the bloody place.

Keep keeping the faith man, with supporters like you we don't have a care in the world

UTS wrote:
Well i think Dave Jones should be sacked for incompetence on a huge scale. I mean what the hell does he do for his paid role ? Has he ever said 'NO' to more spending ? Can someone also explain why the bank where happier with leon Crouch running the club !!! Whats that i hear because he was going to put money into the coffers with others..........

UTS. It's snowing in Dubai, keep it a secret though.

UTS wrote:

Satellite wrote: UTS, if you really believed that the Bank was far happier having Crouch in charge, with wages at 81% of turnover and an overdraft at £6.3M then you will believe anything.

Ahh as i have pointed out many times Mr Crouch had nothing to do with anything until late December 2007. So you should be looking at Wildes executives for that issue. I think a good talking point is also why the bank allowed further spending ? They would of only allowed it from guaranteed future income. So going back to your point the bank was indeed happier with the previous Dec-May board. Mainly because there was going to be investment if Lowe/Wilde sold their shares. Barclays btw have now reeled in the slack due to Lowes arrogance. Talking about overdrafts im sure you will be delighted to know that Lowe actually extended the overdraft in May of this year.

Poor old UTS. So Barclays also hate RL, funny that, they did agree to extend the overdraft (according to UTS)so they cant hate him that much.

Who cares about lowe support our youngsters, it was a good win on sat cos of the support they had, lets keep behind them

UTS wrote:
Well i think Dave Jones should be sacked for incompetence on a huge scale. I mean what the hell does he do for his paid role ? Has he ever said 'NO' to more spending ? Can someone also explain why the bank where happier with leon Crouch running the club !!! Whats that i hear because he was going to put money into the coffers with others..........

Dave Jones may well have said no to spending more but has it not occured to you that the CEO over ruled him?

When did the bank say its was happier when Crouch was chairman?

UTS wrote:

Satellite wrote: UTS, if you really believed that the Bank was far happier having Crouch in charge, with wages at 81% of turnover and an overdraft at £6.3M then you will believe anything.

Ahh as i have pointed out many times Mr Crouch had nothing to do with anything until late December 2007. So you should be looking at Wildes executives for that issue. I think a good talking point is also why the bank allowed further spending ? They would of only allowed it from guaranteed future income. So going back to your point the bank was indeed happier with the previous Dec-May board. Mainly because there was going to be investment if Lowe/Wilde sold their shares. Barclays btw have now reeled in the slack due to Lowes arrogance. Talking about overdrafts im sure you will be delighted to know that Lowe actually extended the overdraft in May of this year.

Of course Crouch had nothing to do with anything untill December 2007, he was only a member of a company board that made decissions...hmm...m
aybe Crouch stepped out of the room when the decissions had to be made?

Barclays gave support for one more year, what would happen after that?

Which investment are you talking about exactly? Fulthorpe failed to demonstrate he and his consortium had the funds and how many people here shouted down SISUs interest?

Captain's Log
Stardate 24/11/2008
Spock and me beamed down to SMS for a **** but some guy called Lowe had crapped all over the place already. Beamed back up to Enterprise.

Traceyf wrote:

UTS wrote:

Satellite wrote: UTS, if you really believed that the Bank was far happier having Crouch in charge, with wages at 81% of turnover and an overdraft at £6.3M then you will believe anything.

Ahh as i have pointed out many times Mr Crouch had nothing to do with anything until late December 2007. So you should be looking at Wildes executives for that issue. I think a good talking point is also why the bank allowed further spending ? They would of only allowed it from guaranteed future income. So going back to your point the bank was indeed happier with the previous Dec-May board. Mainly because there was going to be investment if Lowe/Wilde sold their shares. Barclays btw have now reeled in the slack due to Lowes arrogance. Talking about overdrafts im sure you will be delighted to know that Lowe actually extended the overdraft in May of this year.

Of course Crouch had nothing to do with anything untill December 2007, he was only a member of a company board that made decissions...hmm...m aybe Crouch stepped out of the room when the decissions had to be made? Barclays gave support for one more year, what would happen after that? Which investment are you talking about exactly? Fulthorpe failed to demonstrate he and his consortium had the funds and how many people here shouted down SISUs interest?

Sorry Tracey you obviously do not know how executive status works in a company. Michael Wilde handed the keys over to a load of strangers and gave them exec status. Namely Dulieu, Hone, Hoos, Oldknow. They dictated what went on for most of last year and before. They basically hijacked the club and no other board member had any say.

Barclays where giving one further year to anyone in the boardoom. They where happier with Crouch as he offered investment.

Forget Fulthorpe as that was local media trying to make something out of nothing.

Another party where happy to come in with 'some' investment on the basis of Lowe/Wilde selling their shares. They would not do so and thus we now see further debts.

SISU was a waste of space and showed no organised plans. It was purely Wildes execs clinging on to something to further drag on their hijacking.

The key thing from what ive said though is who had 'executive' status in the boardroom.

Now we have Lowe as the only executive and he has final say on everything.

Traceyf wrote:

UTS wrote: Well i think Dave Jones should be sacked for incompetence on a huge scale. I mean what the hell does he do for his paid role ? Has he ever said 'NO' to more spending ? Can someone also explain why the bank where happier with leon Crouch running the club !!! Whats that i hear because he was going to put money into the coffers with others..........

Dave Jones may well have said no to spending more but has it not occured to you that the CEO over ruled him? When did the bank say its was happier when Crouch was chairman?

Well if he was over ruled then why did he not saying anything about it ? Any other person would make it known. Especially when their mate is Lowe loving load of gossip being fed to him.

miltonarchers wrote:

UTS wrote:

Satellite wrote: UTS, if you really believed that the Bank was far happier having Crouch in charge, with wages at 81% of turnover and an overdraft at £6.3M then you will believe anything.

Ahh as i have pointed out many times Mr Crouch had nothing to do with anything until late December 2007. So you should be looking at Wildes executives for that issue. I think a good talking point is also why the bank allowed further spending ? They would of only allowed it from guaranteed future income. So going back to your point the bank was indeed happier with the previous Dec-May board. Mainly because there was going to be investment if Lowe/Wilde sold their shares. Barclays btw have now reeled in the slack due to Lowes arrogance. Talking about overdrafts im sure you will be delighted to know that Lowe actually extended the overdraft in May of this year.

Poor old UTS. So Barclays also hate RL, funny that, they did agree to extend the overdraft (according to UTS)so they cant hate him that much.

Where have i said barclays 'hate' Lowe LOL !! doh

Not me saying the overdraft was extended it was in fact in todays financial assessment. The overdraft limit is £5m. This summer whilst Lowe came to office it was increased to £6.4m.


As per norm if people believe all the pompous twisted PR spin from Lowe then wake up.

Lets ask Lowe to justify the £700,000 he spent on Clive Woodward who did sweet fa !

Fully knowing we are cash strapped why did Lowe take £400,000 out of Saints in 2006 to leave the building ?

Indeed in 2006 the financial year ended in a £3.3m debt. Which would of been three times that if it wasnt for the sale of Walcott.

UTS - stop now please, you are making me a nervous wreck. There are so many nasty, horrible people out there.

It seems everyone at SMS are moneygrabbing, nasty, lying spin merchants, and they have so much clout over everyone it seems.

The media just print lies and are in the pockets of Mr Lowe. Bankers are very silly people who aren't very nice.

Our manager is a slimy little gay chap and his lads are crap.

Crikey.

As an aside - do you like anyone? Have you ever been to a football match? Do you know where SMS is? Can you look into your crystal ball and let me have this Friday's lottery numbers. If you do I promise to buy the club and get rid of all those useless deadbeats and let you run it properly.

Keep keeping the faith everbody else