CB Fry

Errr, gee fanks for the patronising stuff, again. I know you inferred it was me who would buy a holiday etc, etc. I can read. Shame you are incapable of seeing beyond anything other than a clunking literal response. It's that lack of perspective again, I think. The point was no one would buy a holiday in your sixth form analogy, except maybe you as you are the wally that came up with it. Hence why I wished you luck. Did you read that bit? Did you comprehend it? I am right, it is as simple as that - the football creditors rule will not make football more circumspect. Other things might make football more circumspect, but the abolition of the football creditors rule isn't one of them. And you can call for the FCR to be abolished, it's fairer on everyone, esp the butcher/baker/builder. Fine by me. But it won't make football clubs, players or agents "more circumspect" in any meaningful way. That's pie in the sky. You making up dopey analogies and getting all offended by name calling - like you've never had a pop at me - does not make you win the argument.

That's a pretty lame analogy, sunshine, especially as you had a go at me for extreme examples earlier on in the thread. What idiot would book a holiday with a company they knew or suspected was dodgy, just because ABTA existed. Yeah. Because I don't actually care about wasting my time, or not having a holiday at all, or being stranded in a hotel for three days when I should be back at work. Because I've got ABTA. So that safety net means I plough on regardless and ignore absolutely every other piece of information at my disposal. What a moron you are. The removal of the football creditors rule would not make football more circumspect, it would just shift the terms of reference and strategy of the contracts and the transfers. More money up front, shorter contracts. The more unscrupulous clubs would be prepared to gamble more because they now have a safety net that they don't actually have to pay everything if it comes to the crunch. And those clubs prepared to gamble, and the agents and players as greedy as ever, will take the bigger money on offer. The FCR is a pointless element in the wider process, apart from the benefit to non football creditors who get a fairer slice but that's a different argument. Good luck booking a holiday with a company you know is dodgy because you have ABTA. I tend to use more information because life is generally about the broader perspective. You should try it some time.

Clearly, I'm not confused. This takes us nicely back to where we started. The "selling clubs" example has been done, because the french clubs selling players to Pompey aren't covered by the FCR and they still sold players to Pompey. Nice try. Getting rid of the FCR is not going to make football more circumspect like you fantastists are making out. Anyway, lets get back to laughing at Pompey, because I've had enough fun laughing at you.

Well, no, not really. You're confusing the " removing the football creditors rule will make football more circumspect" silly argument with the evolving economic state of football. If loads of clubs go bust, there will be less money around. That's not about the football creditors rule. The fact that there is or will be less money about and more clubs going bust will not make agents and players more circumspect. They will be as greedy and cavalier as they are now. A wage cap tied to % turnover might change things. But removing the football creditors rule is not going to make clubs, players and agents "more circumspect". The clubs get a "nice little get out" because the football creditors rule currently means they have to pay every single penny of every contract back. Take that imposition away and they can be even bolder because the contracts are not as binding as they once were. So clubs can offer more, and this fantasy land you seem to be in where the football agents will be saying "are you sure you can afford this, old chap" is just laughable. The clubs will offer it, the players will take it and if it goes wrong in two years time, then the circus just moves on to the next club. I don't know about you but I would find a world where I am forced to pay only 20% of my obligations a little bit more liberating than one where I have to pay 100% of my obligations. That's a nice little get out in my eyes, much like all these wallies going bankrupt to get out of their credit card debts. There is nothing in removing the football creditors rule that will make clubs, players or agents "more circumspect". Football going skint and more clubs going skint might reduce the money and we may see wage deflation, but that is not the same as this thing that getting rid of the football creditors rule is some silver bullet that turns football into the Girl Guides. And the argument I make works just as well if club a is offering £45k and club b is offering £40k. Agent and player will take the most cash most immediately available. Correct. The players and agents will take jam today, not waft about being circumspect and fretting about who might go to the wall in two years time. Circumspect footballers and football agents. You lot are off your freaking heads.

Well, no. If a club can ask for more money up front, so can an agent and a player. Front load the contract with a hefty signing on fee. And fundementally, the rules would be the same for all clubs and the behaviour of the agents and players (and clubs) will adapt. But what they won't be is more circumspect, just more cavalier in a different way. Player A is offered £80k a week for four years from Fulham, and £40k a week from Birmingham City. Which is the most important question for the agent and the player at this point. Is it a) Which one of those two is more likely to be going into administration in two years time. or is it b) Which club is offering me the most money. How many players and agents go into negotiations thinking about the club they are signing for failing, and then going bust? 99.9% of players in the situation above are going to the £80k club. And guess what, the clubs, now released from the football creditors rule, can now offer even more knowing they have a nice little get out even if it does go tits up. This world of "circumspect" football players and agents you people are conjuring up is total pie in the sky.

Funny how foreign clubs weren't more circumspect in those exact circumstances though. Taking away the creditors rule would allow more speculation, not less, as the contracts offered can be even more pie in the sky. Pretty simple, but then you are pretty simple, aren't you.

What kind of nut job sits through that drivel? I know you live in your little computer game world, but here on planet earth the rest of us are far better served by journalists with a little knowledge, insight and perspective reporting on our club and team. I don't want to spend my life being spoon fed inanity on the glorified corporate brochure that is the official site.

Interesting, I didn't realise that. Also gives the lie to the b o llocks theory that has been knocking around on here that getting rid of the football creditors rule would somehow make clubs and football agents more circumspect and cautious in their dealings and their demands. This little fact proves it definitely wouldn't. Getting rid of the football creditors rule would makes things even more cavalier because it just allows clubs to aimlessly speculate more than they do already.

Quite right. Kind of makes the wallies whose tiresome and immature "who should we sign then who WHO WHO WHO WHO WHO answer me answer me answer me" routine on here look even more pathetic, doesn't it...... As Madruss says - Who knows, maybe Pardew might find players who are better, they might even be players no-one has ever heard of!

If it was £20 per month for both of them I'd have considered it mainly for the Christmas Ashes and the hope that a top of L1 Saints would be on TV a fair bit. But £23 for just SS1 is just silly money.

Nice try, but I'm not barracking you. You admitted yourself asking Alpine the same question three times on this thread, I've given you a reason why he isn't obliged to answer and why you might need to get over it. I'm not stopping you debating anything. But it hasn't stopped you deciding what I think and then challenging it. I missed the part where I was advocating signings for the sake of signings, or in fact, signing anyone. If anything I agree with you to be honest - Pardew is there to do the job. My opinions tend to come from the wider context. He has to deliver promotion this season or he's out of a job. He knows it, Cortese knows it, the players know it, the fans know it (except the delusional "managers must have five years before anyone can judge them" stuck-in-the-80s lunatics). This coming season is a promotion season or Pardew has failed. Much like you I leave it to him on who he picks, who he buys, who he sell, or where he plays them. His squad, his choices. But he has a target to deliver this season and he will be evaluated against it and quite rightly so. But at the end of the day people are allowed to say "I think we need a winger" without being tiresomely hounded by you to name names with your "who who WHO" routine.

Why should Alpine answer that question - especially from you who has said over and over again that you let the manager make the decisions. It's perfectly acceptable to say "I think we need someone creative" or "we need a wide man/attacker to replace Papa/Antonio" without being barracked by the likes of you to name names. Some of us, funnily enough, aren't scouting the leagues or the globe for footballers. We're just commenting on a forum. Get off your high horse and accept this is a football forum where we're allowed to debate the make up of the squad. Not "the manager decides, lock thread" like you seem to want.

Classy. Maybe you should have spent less time starting pant wettingly hilarious posts about how huge numbers of Saints fans were campaigning for Tommy to be made manager, or that he was about to take over at Middlesbrough or all the other gagtastic stuff you've posted on the man. Fair play for keeping it going and as I said, it has actually been amusing in a message board kind of way.

I'm in on the gag, I know it's your thing to go on about Widderington-for-Manager-honest-he's-dead-good-loads-of-people-want-him-he's-off-to-manage-Middlesboro-honest-oh-my-aching-sides, but at least get the skeleton facts right surrounding your hilarious wheeze. That said, it is a funny running gag. Keep it up.

ootball clubs become available for new ownership on a regular basis and with our expertise and contact base throughout the industry, we can act decisively on your behalf from enquiry to completion. Whether it is a Premiership club or a Conference team, we have the experience to provide a succesful outcome. We have particular expertise in the area of Clubs falling into administration. Currently Available 3 x Premiership Clubs (full information is available upon enquiry) 4 x Championship Clubs (full iformation is available upon enquiry) 12 x Div 1 clubs and below. Many of these opportunities have development and incremental value adds , we have investigated all of the additional opportunities and can supply information in full upon engagement. For further information please email mark@ibaseuk.com Exceptional, exceptional stuff. The man is a legend.

Brilliant post. Bought the paper today. Not one quote from any manager from any team in any division about their plans for the season. Not one. But, hey, don't let that put the nut jobs off their rantings. Sheesh.

Is it me, or have Saints not had a match for, like, weeks? A while ago we seemed to be playing games once, if not twice a week. What the hell is going on?

What has that list got to do with "Stupid PR" then? That is the point I am debating. How about a "fans charter" launched with great fanfare mid last season and then axed months later. Is that not "stupid PR"? What about the teeth aching teaser campaign for the new kit - harmless, but tedious and the dictionary definition of "stupid PR". As usual on this forum one can never debate a single point, because you just get sledgehammered by lists of irrelevance. I've not said a thing about the signings we've made or the support Pardew has had. I've picked up your point about "stupid PR". I am happy with the Cortese regime in the whole, but unlike you I don't think they can do nothing wrong. And their obsession with PR is at least as much, if not more, than any other regime we've had. By the way, I don't ever remember any previous regime signing a player to cheer us up after a disappointing England showing at a tournament. Or anything even resembling that. I wonder what you were thinking of.

Promotion from League One with the richest club in the division that season. And a play off finish in the CCC. Breathtaking. Move over Sir Alex, there's a new king in town..... Nige is a perfectly fine manager but he has achieved absolutely nothing to have any kind of reputation as "one of the best managers in English football" to "cement". Calm Down.

Stupid PR exercises, you say Arizona? What, like releasing key club news at quarter to midnight? For all the good they've done i'd say this regime leads the way on 'stupid PR exercises'.

Not entirely sure why you quoted me in your reply, but happy to make it clear I 100% agree with you. The club is being run in what seems like a rather petulant way at the moment, and this episode is a pretty stark example of that. The divs writing "diddums" are in the wrong, as are the people rolling out the "we should all stick together" stuff, unless that sticking together is firmly and aggressively against this pointless, childish and arrogant action.

So are you saying we should all be united in saying the club is wrong in taking this action, or united in saying the club is right in taking this action? You post doesn't make this clear, just vague "we should stick together" platitudes. You have to pick one side of the argument if you want everyone to stick together, or just accept that there are two sides to a debate, and people are allowed to have differing views.

Hodgson to be England boss by August. The only sensible option if this pans out the way it looks like it is going to, with an ignominious early exit.

They have had a points deduction. You're getting so carried away with your tiresome "they've got away with it" schtick that you are now making up them escaping punishments they have actually had.