um pahars

I think you're being a bit unfair there Chez. Brentford's Officials at that time were complete buffoons and I can remember Luker, Coley, Egelstaff, Cowen and others (inc Police and supporters groups) bending over backwards to try and dig them out of the hole they had gotten themselves in. I have seen Tyro League Clubs better run that Brentford around that time!!!!! Plus all the time people were trying to come up with a solution, the idiots in charge up at Brentford were printing lies on their Official Site and spouting complete ****** in interviews on Sky Sports, which wasn't really the best way to try and win friends and influence people!!!!! The end result was two sets of fans (and officials, judging by martin Allen's conduct on the day) who were somewhat wound up by the time the tie was actually played!!!!! We did more than we should have to help them out that day.

And as much as it may irk some Saints fans, Brentford have an obligation to their own fans first and it may well be that asking/demanding season ticket holders to vacate a stand will not be in their best long term interests. Of course we would like more tickets, but that's not to say we should be riding roughshod over other teams and their supporters. If they (Club and supporters) want to accomodate more of us then fair enough, but it should be their decision on what is best for them. Personally, I have to ask whether what Orient did the other day was best for them. Of course they got some extra wonga from the 3,200 fans, but it effectively turned it in to a home match for us and potentially helped inspire the team to victory. Some extra ££££££'s balanced against 3 points in a play off push match?????

Gove and Lansley seem to be from the same stock in that whilst Gove seems intent on taking the curriculum back to the Victorian era, Lansley is keen to take us back to the Doctor knows best era. I'm certainly not against making efficiencies in the NHS, cutting out waste and putting patients first, but from what I can make out (and Lansley is right he hasn't sold this very well) this seems half baked and very risky. I'm not sure putting the GP's in charge is what they want, nor what patients want. A bit of a ccok up really and although I don't particuarly like seeing U-Turns, I think this bill needs to be consigned to the dustbin.

More than happy to offer congratulations to Brighton and considering the terrible times their fans have had to suffer over recent years then I personally think it's great news that they are not only going up, but having a quality stadium thrown in to boot. They have been worthy winners over the full season and tying it up with quite a few games left is quite an achievement. I hope their fans enjoy the rest of the season and I bet they can't wait for next season to start. As for the rivalry, well there was most definitely a semblence of one back in the late 70's/early 80's when Portsmuff had fallen off the radar and Brighton were vying for promotion and then in the top flight together for a few years. Not a "real" rivalry, but it was definitely a game that you'd look out for (and get down to central for the Footy Special to Hove!!!!!). I'm sure some of the older heads down still there have it in for us after the perceived stitch up of 78, but not sure why the younger generation are so moody LOL.

I wonder what Crab Lungs has been smoking/drinking/sniffing??? Where did you find that figure from Chez??? Would be interested to see what other teams take away (or do you just have Leeds figures)???

Really???? I thought Dyer left due to a combination of the Club needing to get a striker in (part of the Robertson deal) then to raise some funds to keep us going to the end season (through loan fees from Swansea) and then the Club needing funds during the close season to keep us afloat until a buyer came in after going in to administration, as well as wanting to try and get a regular game. Jan Poortakabin didn't fancy him at the start of his tenure (I think Dyer started 1 of the first 10 games that season), Dyer wanted some first team football and we were short of cash. Not sure us fans ever really played much part in the decision LOL.

I think you'd be very lucky to get paid for umpiring at a low level in Cricket. In my experience most clubs at a lowish level don't pay umpires. I know some clubs in the County Divisions do pay, but I think they get their umpires from the South Coast Panel (and you have to be at least Level 1 qualified). The Hampshire Cricket league has a forum on its website and you could ask on there, but I wouldn't hold out much hope (and maximum you'd get would be £30 for a long days work!!!!)

You're making this up surely????? Leeds last few away matches have been: Millwall 2,200 Sheff Utd 3,600 Preston 5,000 Swansea 3,000 Bristol City 2,000

On that occasion Brentford were allocated the amount that their officials requested. They could have had more from the start, but decided against it. They were offered the maximum under FA Cup rules, but as they had to pay upfront for half of the final tranche they rejected this and only asked for the "middle" number of seats. It was only later when they had sold out at Griffin park ticket office amidst scenes of chaos (they did not prioritise the selling of the tickets causing uproar) that they came back asking for more, by which time it was too late. Brentford Officials then started lying about the sequence of events, making up stories about talking to Hampshire Polic etc and trying to paint us as the villains in the piece. Luker & co then took them to task about their lies, statements were pulled from their OS and apologies made to Saints and the Police. It was a balls up from the start that centred on Griffin Park, certainly not down here.

Massive result(s) for us yesterday. Didn't play well, but three points in the bag when I would have settled for one before hand and Huddersfield dropping two brings promotion so much closer. Think 4 points from the two games in hand would be good, as think Rochdale will be a toughy. Happy with a draw there (a win is party time). The only problem is I think our other game in hand is Plymouth so will be ages before we get a chance to bag those points. As others have said, all we have to do is match Huddersfiled's points haul over the run, but with the luxury of having two extra games to do it in. They won't win all 5, so the odd point dropped here or there won't be a problem for us. Think I'll be making the trip up to Rochdale now (anyone fancy giving me a lift???).

I think you're right in that if we want to get places fast, then we will probably have to rely on cash injections from the owners to gain a competitive advantage over our rivals and as I mentioned yesterday a part of me can easily see the positives associated with this, success on the pitch, feelgood factor, promotions, increased attendances etc. However, that doesn't stop me having a bit of an issue with regards the morality of gaining that competitive advantage and the potential consequences (no matter how remote) of living beyond our means (after all "we" have been quick to have a pop at others in a similar situation). Then again, when the goals are flying in and we're poised to go up (fingers crossed) your moral compass takes a beating!!!!!

I think you'll find they do, along with heaps of journalistic interest in to what is going on at Stamford Bridge. Just type in David Conn and Chelsea and see what you get.

And I too would prefer to be in this position than having to service external debt. However, there could be an argument that I would prefer no debt (or at least only debt that was serviceable), which brings us nicely on to: I'm not sure on this one!!!!! I know other teams have done it in the past and others are still doing it, but I sometimes struggle with the concept of living beyond your means and relying on a benefactor to gain a competitive advantage. There is a difference between say a Jack Walker providing funds and leaving a legacy at Blackburn and the OTT spending seen down at Portsmuff. A part of me is happy to enjoy the benefit of having a benefactor putting money in to the Club, but another part thinks that perhaps we should be looking to be self sufficient and not living above our means. Let's hope so, and I wonder if there is anything already in place (or could be put in place) to ensure we aren't exposed at some point down the line.

The problem may be (and I'll add emphasis on the may) that if in 5 years times the plan has failed and the money is required to be paid back, then we might have a hard time finding the wonga to pay it back!!!! Personally, I have faith and trust in the Liebherr estate that we will not be left in a pickle, hence the may. As with above, if you either can't sell the house, or have to sell it for less than you were expecting or if your Dad calls in your loan earlier than expected, then you might be in a pickle. I'm not saying this will happen in our circumstances, but I don't think we should be ignorant of any possibilities given both our own and football's history.

Problem is that we don't know if that is indeed the case. It could be possible that the "loans" are never to be repaid. They could just as easily be seen to be gifts (over time converted to shares) and not repayable on promotion, or even on the sale of the Club. We just don't know either way. However, if they are repayable upon promotion then people would do well to remember that, as the first chunk of Sky monies wouldn't go to rebuilding the team, it would instead go to paying back these loans. Alternatively, if the loans are to be repaid when the Club is sold then it will be probable that the "new" owner sticks the amount he has paid to buy the Club as debt on to the Club (as has happened elsewhere) leaving this debt to be serviced by the Club. Whilst I am fairly confident with regards Liebherr and the Trust he left behind, it doesn't mean I'm ignorant/blind/inconcerned of what could be around the corner (no matter how remote it seems at them moment) and as others have said, I don't think it is unreasonable to want to know a bit more. The only reason we are liquid and have cash in the bank is because of the £20m shareholder loans that have injected cash in to the Club. We are cash negative on normal operations so certainly not liquid enough in that sense.

The bit that backs on to the railway in the Kingsland/Chapel corner???? Can't think of anything else!!!!

TBF I wouldn't be using Stu's rants as some sort of objective point to argue against. The way he is ranting (mostly inaccruately) about the numbers isn't worth getting wound up about. I'm with you in that I am comfortable with the words and actions of the Liebherrs to date (backed up by some of the numbers and statements in the accounts), but there does seem to be a fair few who are anxious about these numbers (and perhaps understandably so given our recent past and what has been witnessed at other Clubs!!), so would asking for some clarification be seen as being asking for too much???

In some ways I admire your "whatever will be" approach as there is most definitely an argument for the line that we can do nothing about the big numbers and just have to take it on the chin (and trust those in charge) so why worry about it, but do you not also think there could be a case for someone to come out and put some people's minds at rest???

I think I would be being sentimental if I thought this was a good idea. It sounds good, but then I realised that his exploits down here were 8 or so years ago and at 33 I think he is most definitely past his best. 4 years ago, yes, now I don't think so.

John, I think you may have misread my post (and intentions) as I'm most definitely sat in the camp that says Liebherr was (and still is) acting as benefactor in much the same way as those other decent benefactors we have seen in recent times (Walker, Gibson etc). EDIT sorry, I thought you were referring to my posts, when I now assume you were referring to Granty's (that said, the following still applies). That said, given some of the obvious concern and other scare mongering I have seen, would it be too much to ask for someone to come out and formally clear this up and state what the arrangements are (without prejudicing the commercial position of the Club)??? Given football's chequered past, I don't think it's being too nosey just to be cautious and inquisitive about how your Club is financed.

Portsmuff FC accounts April 2008 - one more win and FA Cup Winners and a European Tour.

BDO LLP are the auditors, just across the marina from me!!!!!!! With the Shareholder Loans being payable after 5 years, there is some reassurance there!!!!

Would it be deemed inappropriate to seek to find answers/reassurances to your points above???? Would it be seen as sniping and sticking your nose in???? Or would it be seen as just needing reassurance regarding something that we have seen is so important to many people and the local community???? Personally, I was under the impression that Liebherr was acting as a "benefactor" and in addition to stumping up the initial cash to buy us (and pay off Aviva etc) he was also funding us whilst we were in the lower divisions (always thought we were, and still are, running at a loss) and this money would not be expected to be repaid (although like most benefactors, I also assumed there would be an upper limit to his generosity).

I'll have to dig out my old copy of the Companies Act to have a look, but from my hazy memory Ithink you have to include all emlouments paid during the year, even if the person was only appointed as a Director part way through. Nice wedge though either way!!!!!!

Whoever came up with that figure must have included the stewards, old bill, ball boys and flags to get to that many. Seemed much less!!!!!!! An awful turnout on a par with Dagenham and Redbridge midweek earlier in the season.