um pahars

Why shouldn't the Trust cease to exist? Without going in to the merits or not of it existing, the very fact that the PLC is no more and a new company has been set up to own the Club will have no bearing on the status of the trust. It is a totally seperate entity. Of course the Trust will have no shares in "newco", but that is not a pre-requisite of being a Trust (and of course there could always be an aspiration for shars to made available to supporters, or the trust itself at some point in the future). Some of the points you mention about how the trust runs itself have some merit in them, but you obviously don't have much of an idea about the structure of Trusts themselves and their ownership model etc etc etc.

Was he in the D.U.M.???:rolleyes:

So hardly a shocker then:rolleyes:

You should go easy there, I'm currently reading Elizabeth by Starkey (Edward VI is currently on his way out with consumption and is trying to alter the line of succession to skip mary and Liz). This S.C.U.M. acronym is La La land stuff, up there with KFC rearing four legged chickens, RIchard Gere and his gerbils and Snowball the giant mutant cat. I don't who are the biggest dinlos, those who felt the need to start it off, or those that feel the need to believe it:rolleyes:

Feel free to let us know when you find a Union called the Democratic Union Of Mineworkers (you'll find the Nottinghamshire offshoot was the UDM, Union of Democratic Mineworkers or UDM as they knew the acornym DUM would be a bit too obvious!!!!!).:smt046 Afraid not, the story arose as an urban myth in the 90's in some ridiculous crusade to try and justify a fairly common insult. In a way we should be rather flattered that some weirdo's have gone to all this effort. From the London Dock strike of 1889, the Southampton Dock strike of 1890, the formation of the radical BSU in 1911, the 1912 Strike beatings,the 1926 General Strike, the 1945 Dock strike, the formation of the NDLB etc etc etc through to it's abolition in the 1980's, Southampton has always been at the forefront of strikes and union activism, but not ne record of S.C.U.M. anywhere:rolleyes::rolleyes: except for some saddos inventing it in the 1990's :smt046

LMFAO From the same shelf as the works of Conan Doyle and Charles Dickens.:smt046 Cringeably desperate trying to justify a rather generic form of abuse.

In the two months prior to Pearson's arrival, we sat 23rd in the table over that period having accumulated 7 points from 10 games, a points per game ratio that would have seen us relegated. And of course that dark period finished with the embarrassing defeat at Bristol Rovers. By comparison, over Pearson's 13 game tenure we were 13th in that "league" with a points per game ratio that was safely mid table. Particularly when compared to what went before him, I really don't think he had a stinker here. Mid table with that squad and the current form he inherited was a decent performance, nothing exceptional, but definitely not a stinker.

I have always found the lengths that people have gone to justify the "Scummer" tag to be rather cringeworthy. The imaginary dock strike is up there with King Arthur and Avalon. Nothing wrong with a bit of rivalry, but reinventing history in order to justify a rather run of the mill insult is a tad embarassing, although as you say they probably get some originality over adding "er" to the end and for using it so widely, (but then again that widespread use was borne out of their jealousy throughout the 60's 70's, 80's & 90's when we were in the ascendancy).

But how was the decision to go with Poortvliet over Pearson dictated by the financial position??? Pearson was more than happy to go with the "youth approach" as was shown by his words whilst he was here and by his deeds at Leicester last season. And he was more than happy to work under the new regime's parameters. Pearson has shown by his deeds that he is not averse to playing youngsters, nor wheeling and dealing on a small budget. It was pretty obvious that he would be up for such a strategy, particularly when you look back to see he said the following not long after taking over: On youth: "A lot of my background is working with youngsters. I worked with the England youth teams for three years and I see the Academy as a massive part of the club. On working with limited funds "It will be a combination. The reality is there will be comings and goings, there is no doubt about that. Economics will play a part and there will be some natural wastage as players come to the end of their contracts. Then it will be a case of finding players who fit the bill. We need a side capable of getting success but which fits in with the financial situation. But we are not going to be splashing fortunes on players. Even in the short time I have been here, I have been looking to see if we can get players on loan. Short-term is the immediate priority but I am looking long-term too." On youth again, but how the relegation fight must be a priority It cannot be my priority at the moment but it will get my total support in terms of fitting in with the philosophy of the club. I have worked at clubs where the academy and first-team are separate entities and not integrated at all and those clubs are the poorer for it. If you put the right effort into recruiting and developing the right players then it can save the club a lot of money on transfer fees." If you're alluding to the salary saving for going for Pearson/Wotte against Pearson, then that has shown to be one of the most ridiculous false economies ever witnessed at this Club. They however thought they knew better and went for a coach who they thought could deliver. The sad thing was that I doubt Poortvliet could deliver the De Groene Amsterdammer. It is totally impossible to say whether Pearson would have achieved better than Poortvliet and Wotte, but I think you're in the minority if you honestly think Pearson couldn't have delivered better than the tripe we saw last season. Going with Poortvliet over Pearson was not a forced decision, nor was it one dictated by finances, it was merely a footballing decision that ended up as one of the most disastrous and costly decisions in recent history.

Why was it a forced decision?? There was nothing forced about it whatsoever. We had a manager in situ who was willing to stay on and who was quite clear and open to the reality that next year would see a reliance on youth along with being financially tight (a reliance on youth that he had experienced previously with the U-21's and demonstrated last season with Leicester). It was a conscious decision to go with Poortvliet and one taken for footballing reasons, but a decision which was shown to be one of the worst decisions ever made. It was never forced.

Before we get on to crucifying Steve, my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I suggested he should be a target for abuse (I can just imagine Ponty wanting to infract me for inciting abuse on Granty LOL). The Echo carried the following from Steve: Steve Grant, however, the administrator of fans forum Saints Web, believes the cub has been too quick to change managers in the past and now may be the time to give one a chance. "One thing we have always had a problem with is chopping and changing managers" he said. "In the last few years Gere Burley had two and a half years but apart from him I don't think we have given people enough time to settle in the role." "We are starting next season on minus ten points, so for somebody else coming in the job is already difficult.So it would be good to have somebody who knows what he has to work with already." "The players are due back soon and if they have not completed the takeover by the, then i t might be slightly foolish to appoint a new manager and give him less time over the summer to mould things the way he wants." "I think it may come down to the fact that it may be more unsettling than we need it to be to bring in a new man." I don't agree with it, but there's nothing wrong with Steve espousing his own opinion, nor with the Echo ringing round various contacts asking them for their view. How the Echo frame it and how others perceive it is the problem here. Just because they started with Granty being the administrator of this site, didn't mean I had a hissy fit saying he is out of touch with me and others on here, as that is his own valid opinion. I'm positive if you got in touch with the Echo and wrote some erudite comment or opinion then they would happily start to use your copy and quotes if they felt you would be a reliable contributor.

And I think that is what the OP was alluding to, in that the issue is more with how the Echo interpret these quotes and how they frame them, as opposed to what is actually being said. I bet the majority of those who have posted on this thread haven't even read what the full article says in The Echo. If they had, then surely the biggest target for abuse should be whoever Steve Grant is, as he is suggesting keeping Wotte, something that 96% who took part in the poll on here are in disagreement with!!!!! The Echo have got a list of people and they occasionally ring them asking for their personal opinion and on this occasion that is what the contributors have done. Methinks the issue is probably more with the reader of the contributions than the contributions themselves.

Bump it as much as you like. As one of those who responded to your first post I should also be one of those to respond and say I appreciate your response. Cheers Ron.

And therein lies the problem, as I don't see many at the top table wanting a change. We were no different when we were up there looking down at Leicester, Wrexham et al almost going to the wall. I may be wrong, but I certainly don't remember many threads up here seeking to change the distribution of football's wealth and how it organises itself when we riding high. As you say, I don't think this can be done unilaterally, but I also don't hold out much hope for a multilateral approach either as there are too many vested interests now involved. Not that it probably means anything, but Andy Burnham spoke some sense last year when he said the following "We risk the game losing touch with its traditional fan-base. The time has come for football to reassess its relationship with money and with its supporters." "Despite the levels of money in the game, football must be a sporting competition run like a business and not vice versa. "The game makes money because of the way it began - because of the fierce rivalry between fans and the history of civic pride and local allegiance forged over a century or more. "The game is becoming increasingly polarised. The top clubs who build on global success are in danger of becoming detached from the communities that build them. We need to ensure the flow of finance furthers football's interests as a sport." "Having strong competition as a primary goal is the way to ensure commercial success. Football clubs do not exist to be pure businesses. They do not exist to put each other out of business. The product is the competition. "Football has special characteristics and a fundamental role in our community."

Have to say that given some of our recent opponents this is a pretty decent fixture. Up there with the coup of Bayern Munich a few years back. Would have thought a decent crowd for the regime's first home game (fingers crossed) could be expected.

And when the League interpreted their rules they deemed the football club to also effectively be in administration and therefore we will start with -10. The previous regime also took legal advice. That is my hope, in that whilst HMRC will probably vote against any CVA relating to a football club (as they don't agrre with football debts being preferential as a principle), hopefully their debt and that of any other dissenters will be Many football clubes still sell players when they are in administration http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/luton_town/7181317.stm and the mechanics of the payments still operate in exactly the same way (i.e. via the authorities). Quite simply if you do not abide by FA/FL rules relating to financial issues (including transfer payments), then you do not get to play in the League, which when you're trying to sell a club as a going concern is a rather major factor. Expulsion from the League would somewhat impinge on a Administrator's ability to sell a club as a going concern. Whilst I admire your optimism, I have to say I feel it is misplaced. We are not dealing with a black and white legal issue here, we are dealing with the rules, and interpretation of them, within a "members club". IMHO, in this case substance over form will be the order of the day and as with Leeds, the League can easily use their exceptional circumstances clause as a catch all to cover our PLC/Ltd smoke and mirrors attempt. They already have done so and I don't think any appeal will be successful (that's even if it is entertained).

If we couldn't afford to pay out our net wages to players and staff then I very much doubt we would be able to pay the 10% NIC's and the 25%-40% PAYE deductions!!!!! Of course, now the wages have been paid, we're hoping we also have the money to settle with HMRC, but IMHO the payments to HMRC would be just as much of a problem to pay as our other costs have been in recent months.

Companies always owe something to HMRC (NIC, PAYE, VAT etc), it's whether we can afford to pay it on time, and if not, whether the sum is sufficient for it to help derail a CVA that will be our problem, but hopefully with the big creditors seeming happy, it will be OK. I personally wouldn't believe anyone on here who says we are up to date with regards HMRC until someone from the Club tells us officially!!!!

Well hopefully we will come out of it with most of the creditor's agreement (certainly Barclays & Aviva seem to be making the right noises), but you can count on HMRC objecting to it out of principle. But we won't get lumped with another points deduction just because the League feel like it.

In the eyes of the League, SFC Ltd and SFC PLC are one and the same. You may not agree with it, but that is what they have decided and when they announced that they also said the other provisions of the League's insolvency policy would apply to SFC Ltd and SFC PLC (i.e. a CVA for the PLC would have to be agreed and SFC Ltd would be bound in to that outcome).

It is not an illegal interpretation of their rules. The FL won't just add on -15 for any old reason. In the case of Luton it was for financial irregularities, whilst for other clubs it was for not complying with the League's insolvency policy (e.g. failing to agree a CVA). I doubt they'll find any financial irregularitis as their forensic accountants have been in and no one has heard a whisper about anything untoward, so that only leaves failing to agree a CVA which will hopefully be OK.

I've just got my telescope out and Wotte looks slightly bemused. Looks like he's a lager and pasta man. Lynam however looks as though it's white wine.

Just looked on Google and it was Panorama in 1957, which is not the one I was thinking of as this was in the late 70's/early 80's, so more digging methinks!!!

You may well be right there fella. Can vaguely remember it in the late 70's(ish) as an April Fool's joke. I'm sure it must be up there on Google somewhere (and will have to see what the That's Life stiry was)

You must be aware of the uncertainty that surrounds football clubs, after all your other teams (Charlton, Leeds, Aldershot, Salisbury, Villa etc) have all had uncertainities over owners and their futures at some point in recent history. HTH