aintforever

That's rubbish IMO, Football club chairmen up and down the country did into their own pockets to help out their clubs, many work for nothing, some put millions in. Lowe never missed an opportunity to line his pockets at the club's expense - we deserve better than that IMO.

That is obscene considering the position we were in, I expect his expenses make the MP's look like small change as well.

It's easy to understand why people are reluctant to cough up for a friendly like this, it all seems a bit odd being asked to put your £20 towards saving the club when the amounts of debt being talked about in the press run into the tens of millions and you have prospective buyers banging on about getting us in the Prem in 5 years. Me spending £20 on a ticket is just like having a lash in the Atlantic, what's the point, just sell the ****ing club FFS.

I don't want someone from Woolston buying us out.

I would be more worried about Ince being a rubbish manager, getting MK Dons out of League 2 was not that great an achievement considering the financial backing they have. What Tisdale has done at Exeter is much more of an achievement.

My mate from Bournemouth reckons most League 1 sides try to play decent footie.

I heard exactly the same from someone who works at the club. He was a complete time waster, a ****ing liability.

Well funny, would be funnier if it wasn't our administrator's time he was wasting.

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.

That's got to be bull****.

To be fair, who gives a toss about the Derby directors.

A chairman can be fan-friendly without making decisions based on popularity with the fans. They just have to make their decision, give the fans an honest reason behind it and treat them with respect. Not alienate them, insult them and feed them a pack of lies.

Exactly how bad does it need to get for Saints before you change your mind about the SISU deal? We face possible extinction, at the moment the club is being sold to the highest bidder, wether that's a property developer who wants to build flats on SMS or a billionaire - the administrators wont care one bit as long as the banks get their money. I said at the time that turning SISU down was like a drowning man turning down a life boat because he didn't like the colour of the seats. We were not in Coventry's situation but we were so obviously just a year or so way from being there with the club losing 1000's a week and with shareholders not willing to invest a penny.

History has proved you wrong on that one, if the 3 main shareholders had taken that offer we wouldn't be facing possible extinction.

We've collapsed

I think that's complete ******, SISU were after the best deal possible, wether it's Saints or Coventry IMO. Unless they have some weird fetish for clubs with a Sky Blue kit there is no reason why Coventry is more attractive than Saints. Our main shareholders turned it down because their own selfish greedy reasons and SFC face possible extinction as a result. Whatever Ranson and co put into Coventry, their situation is a million times better than ours.

I think I've lost the ability to get my hopes up, I've been left neurologically stunted by the past 5 years of torture.

What are the chances of Saints not agreeing a CVA? If we don't then the most likely outcome is a -15 penalty on top of the -10. Starting on -25 would be a bit of a *****.

I agree the rules are a mess but Leeds didn't break any rules when they did what they did and Saints didn't when the holding company went into admin. Stockport's loophole is no different.

I think we all know that's rubbish, I expect leeds and Boston said the same thing. Hopefully Stockport don't get a CVA and start on -15, we will need all the help we can get to stay up next season. Stockport getting their deserved punishment could be of massive importance to us.

A bunch of ITKs on here cannot establish **** all, if any of the ITK crowd were to be believed we would be Paul Allen's Champions League play thing right now.

With regards to the creditors, is it just a simple case of accept the most cash for the club, or could a bidder put forward a deal which means they get more if the club is successful in the future? What I'm getting at is would the future of the club AFTER the sale be of any interest to the creditors? Because if it did then surely any MLT bid would have an advantage over any Lowe offer.

The issue with Stockport is that they strategically timed their administration to avoid any effect punishment - exactly what Leeds did. With leeds they had their points taken off that season but the FL threw the kitchen sink at them the next so hopefully they will do the same to Stockport.

The administrator will pick whoever gives the most cash to the creditors - it's pointless debating which bid is best for the club - it wont matter a bit to Mr Fry, he's just doing a job for the bank. In a way, whoever can/is willing to stump up enough cash is the best bid anyway.

I'm just relieved an offer has been put in. With my limited knowledge on this sort of stuff, I would imagine the creditors would have to accept it unless there is a better offer or they think they can get more through liquidation? Is that how it works? And if the offer is accepted are we off the hook with regards to the CVA?