um pahars

As per my post above (#428 ), I'm not suggesting ex players/managers etc should get freebies. HTH

Go here: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/ Tyoe in Ex Saints in the green box "SEARCH FOR A CHARITY", and you get: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/SHOWCHARITY/RegisterOfCharities/SearchMatchList.aspx Two seconds!!! not trying to win an argument, not trying to embarrass you, just pointing out that if you're going to make such an allegation, then you really do need to make sure your claim is watertight. In this case it wasn't and you could potentially have caused this charity all sorts of problems including a serious lack of credibility.

Don't think for one minute I'm excusing some of the behaviour exhibited by some of these "legends", I'm not and the problem is that this bickering has now got out of hand with each side happy to keep adding fuel to the fire. I wish it had never come to this, but now it has got to this stage, someone (or everyone) has to compromise if there is to be any chance of a reconcilliation.

It took me two seconds to go to the Charity Commission's website and get their reg. number. If you're going to post (incorrectly) on here (on a public site) that they are not a charity, then you have to be pretty sure that what you're posting is correct. Dress it up all you want (and list as many excuses as you can find), but if you're going to make such allegations, then you have to be pretty sure about what you are posting. In this case you simply didn't.

With all due respect, if you're going to make such a scurrilous claim (stating something, as opposed to offering an opinion) then you need to be rather sure about the facts you're stating. The onus is on you to get it right.

Let's make it clear, I'm not arguing that anyone receives freebies, I'm merely suggesting that the Club should be doing all they can to harnass the goodwill and positive vibes that may come from working with those who have represented the Club in the past. I merely see it as a great opportunity for both sides to benefit from such an agreement, as opposed to both sides suffering from this falling out. Unsusbstantiated claims could probably be called opinion and Football is a game all about opinions. I think you have to be somewhat thick skinned to be in the business and certainly not going around getting all upset and petty when someone gives an opinion on the Club. But finally these analogies that a football club is a normal business are just risisble and display a somewhat nonsensical and simplistic viewpoint.

How many business events have you been to where Julie, the now retired check out girl, and Brian, the retired delivery man, are wheeled out in front of the current customer base to be met by widespread applause and cheers and then asked questions on their days at "Tescos" and invited to give the audience some insights on the current way the company operates???? These analaogies with "normal" businesses spectacularly miss the point about what a football club is about and its link with its supporters.

Indeed he has and I have recently dug out my mid 70's plain Red n White number (also have a matching Yellow n Blue one as well). Had a little look at the 1976 silk number I still have , but sadly it's really faded and I'm not sure those ones are back in fashion (yet).

With a swimming pool like that and the retractable doors on to a patio, I reckon they should use it as a summer holiday camp and let people pitch a tent up on some of the Youth Team pitches. It would certainly beat Holland's Wood or Roundhill!!! But seriously, looks and sounds impressive, so well done to all involved. Would like to get a tour up there when it's finished (note to Club - any chance of arranging tours around the new Staplewood at some point???).

Indeed they are, and in a world where mud sticks, people should be very wary of besmirching a decent little organisation that is only on their radar due a to a personal spat between Cortese and MLT/Benali. The insinuations and innuendos are unhelpful and unwelcome.

As with Buctootim yesterday, it is rather easy to make glib accusations on here that have no basis in fact. Nuffield Health, like the Ex Saints are a non profit making charity.

The Ex Saints is an official charity registered with The Charity Commission (reg no. 1122431). HTH.

As someone else pointed out, I have to say I find your analogy rather ridiculous and totally out of touch with what a football club is all about. It is more than a business or a workplace. As my mate pointed out on Saturday, why would 1,500 hardy souls travel to watch a game on a Saturday evening when they could have watched it at home??? I have no problem with it being run like a business in the modern era, but a part of what makes a football club so special is the emotional link it has with its supporters and community. A club should be doing all it can to engender that link and turn it in to a benefit for both the supporters and the Club itself. IMHO a part of that should be a positive relationship between the club and its former "heroes/legends" (although I accept that relationship has to work both ways).

Indeed they do, and despite some people talking rubbish and embellishing the truth (a trait often found on here) there was no trousering of money under lowe or any of the previous regimes. The simple facts are that despite wage reductions introduced upon relegation, this was not enough to offset the massive drop in income following relegation. Wages were by far our single biggest cost, but generally we had a quasi Premiership cost base which outstripped our Championship income.

I'm aware of all of this, but when Cortese took over I would have thought that about 99% of those you mentioned had already "got the bus out of the stadium". I've just struggled to appreciate who these spongers were, how much they were taking from the Club etc etc etc. It's been mentioned a few times (and brought up again on this thread), but no one has been ableto clarify just who this claim was aimed at.

No, I think you (along with others who attacked the Ex Saints Charity for a myriad of reasons) are missing the point, in that you seem to be going to great lengths to denegrate those involved in the argument in order to try and justify the Club's actions. Is it not possible to be a fan and care about the event? Is it not possible that organising an event is a demonstration of how much of a fan he is? For the record my father no longer attends home matches, struggles with the cold, at his age thinks everything is an effort and I'm sure he's getting somewhat agrophobic. However, he is going to the Mayflower on Sunday. I suppose he cares more about the event than being a fan on a matchday!!!

So is your ability and qualification to espouse an opinion based upon how many season tickets you have, attendance at home and away games and how much is spent in the Club shop??? Unbelievable.

You lazy ba****d. I posted the following earlier today (bottom of page 4 I think), you could have at least read it LOL: IMHO, the freezing out of the Ex-Saints and removing their usage of the crest is just petty and doesn't reflect well on the Club. You can argue that Saints have their own Foundation/Charity now (we have always been involved in other charitable/good causes, but still supported the Ex Saints) and you can argue that it is within their rights to retain ownership of the logo (fair enough to stop exploitation for commercial reasons, but to stop it being used by a bunch of Ex players trying to do some good????) and you can argue that the Club has no control over the direction and operations of the Ex Saints Foundation, but are we really saying that it is impossible for the Club and the Ex Saints to sit down together and agree some parameters about how things will work and what is allowed and what isn't?? There has to be some common ground, a position whereby both parties can benefit from harnassing the goodwill of both ex players and the Club. Allowing the Ex Saints to use our badge costs us nothing in monetary or emotional terms. They are not commercial rivals, its use is not to the detriment of the Club and there is no risk attached to them using it. In fact, IMHO, it can only be a positive relationship (and it should be one where we all benefit). Removing it from them just smacks of pettiness and IMHO is probably due to MLT and Benali sitting on their board. This has got personal, which is a crying shame.

I strugggle to get my head around who these were. Who were these "all hosts of people" and what "nice livings" were they making off the Club??

then both sides have to come to the table with a determination to resolve the dispute and acceptance that there has to be a degree of trust, respect, compromise and perhaps even an apology in the discussions. Maybe a good airing of views and then a way forward!!!! Your post just highlights all the "slurs" & "slights" from one side only, which are then countered by others from exactly the opposite position. It's this intransigence that will get us nowhere.

You might want to go back through your posts and amend the inaccuracy just in case people only glimpse over this thread and are left with the impression they are not a charity. Sadly mud sticks and the false allegations you have made on here might in some way hurt their activities (however subtly). Plus if you're that concerned with the legal issues, then maybe drop them an e-mail with your queries/concerns Email: m.thew@btinternet.com

The problem is that we are now in a vicious curcle and those on the other side would say they are only giving air to their grievances, grievances that have been brought about by Cortese in the first instance. I think the only way to make this work is for some peacemaker (he'd have to be a hell of a peacemaker) to be able to knock some heads together, massage all the bulging egos and clear the air. Ultimately, I'm sure they all have the Club's interests at heart, so there must be some common ground. Well if there is to be any reconcilliation and potential progress, then that may have to be a trait that he moves on, otherwise everyone might as well say that they're not up for a compromise and we just carry on with the vicious circle.

The Ex Saints is a charity, registered with the Charity Commission (no. 1122431).

IMHO, the freezing out of the Ex-Saints and removing their usage of the crest is just petty and doesn't reflect well on the Club. You can argue that Saints have their own Foundation/Charity now (we have always been involved in other charitable/good causes, but still supported the Ex Saints) and you can argue that it is within their rights to retain ownership of the logo (fair enough to stop exploitation for commercial reasons, but to stop it being used by a bunch of Ex players trying to do some good????) and you can argue that the Club has no control over the direction and operations of the Ex Saints Foundation, but are we really saying that it is impossible for the Club and the Ex Saints to sit down together and agree some parameters about how things will work and what is allowed and what isn't?? There has to be some common ground, a position whereby both parties can benefit from harnassing the goodwill of both ex players and the Club. IMHO, the only reason why this has not happened is due to MLT & Benali being on the board of the Ex Saints. Just like the Nick Illingsworth situation, I believe Cortese has allowed his judgement to be blinded by the ongoing row/dispute with MLT, Benali and others and the Ex Saints have become victims of this wider spat. As for that spat between MLT, Benali, Lawrie V Cortese et al, then why oh why can't someone knock a few heads together. The constant bickering, petty disagreements and actions leave everyone looking rather foolish and dirtying the name and integrity of the Club. Both sides must accept their share of the blame, but sadly there would appear to be too many egos out there to allow for any swallowing of pride.

Fair play to Cortese (and others) for sticking to his guns and not falling for the pressure from the "bigger" clubs. Also good to see him probably (as I'm speculating here) stand up to Oxo's advisors as well. Just hope him and Adkins have managed to make Oxo see the sense in their viewpoint about him being better served in staying with us, as wouls hate to see him become disaffected. I've always wanted us to play by the book regarding transfers (e.g. for all of Lowe's faults, I thought this was one area where he did show some good grace and manners), so it's good to see us sticking it to some who may not be as gentlemanly.