Saint_John

The 4 contenders were :- Rickie, Beckford, Snodgrass and Becchio http://www.givemefootball.com/league-two/pfa-fans-player-of-the-year-contenders-league-one As it says in the article :- Unfortunately the results page just says he won and not what the votes were. http://www.givemefootball.com/league-one/pfa-fans-league-one-player-of-the-year-2010-rickie

You seem to be confused about the Court Cases. In 2004 HMRC lost on appeal when they challenged WIMBLEDON's cva. http://vlex.co.uk/vid/52636688#freetrial However THREE years later they took Leeds to the High Court and the case was due to be heard in Sept 2007. That case NEVER MADE it to court because Leeds accepted the 15 point penalty in exchange "Golden Share" from the League. This means that although HMRC lost the Wimbledon case (2004), they were still willing to go back to court in 2007 to challenge the result of the original ruling. Along with a number in the press now saying the ruling in 2004 was unfair, the web site THE LAWYER is also starting to question it :- http://www.thelawyer.com/paying-by-the-rules/1003055.article

Interesting date. This report from Israel dated 18 March says "Daddy's trial" will start around that date. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3864697,00.html Perhaps they hope he will have his bank accounts unfrozen and "normal business" (sic) will be resumed shortly afterwards.

As I said before I believe they will go to the HIGH COURT in the 28 day cooling off period and raise some of the questions we have all been asking about some of the creditors. They will then add on the fact that some of the unsecured creditors will get 100% while others only a small percentage (because of the FL golden share rule). Exactly the same as Leeds. That Court Case will not be heard before the date for the -17 point deadline. When these cases are heard the Judge ALWAYS ends up saying that the percentage proposed in the CVA should be paid anyway whether the cva is agreed or NOT, so HMRC have nothing to lose. HMRC do NOT like the FL rule and if they DO NOT CHALLENGE IT this time they leave themselves open in any future cases to the judge saying something like "If you dislike the rule so much why didn't you challenge it in 2010 in the Skates cases ?" What HMRC may do is question whether all the debt from Football Creditors deems them to be "ASSOCIATED Creditors" (because they are going to be paid in full) along with all the previous owners and STOP the cva being issued on the 50% rule.

Here is the link to the PFA web site http://www.givemefootball.com/league-one/pfa-divisional-team-of-the-year-league-one There are some bitter millwall fans and Paul Donnelly judging by the comments at the bottom. Somebody tell Rickie that the "thug from norwich" is trying to beat him to the top goalscorer this season by getting to 37.

We could of course look beyond the current Academy players. The Sports Echo (Pink) last sunday on page 31 had a report on how Southampton Schools had reached the semi-final of the England Schools U15 Trophy for the 1st time in 25 years. They play their s/f next Tuesday against Cambridge & District Schools and if they win that the final will be against hot favorites Liverpool Schools at Anfield. For information no Southampton side has ever reach the final before. http://www.esfa.co.uk/competitions/?view=2009,Boys,u15b_iat,1 (Round 7).

As I understand it the creditors then have a 28 day "Cooling off period" to review the CVA in which they can go to the High Court and complain about it. In the case of Leeds, HMRC waited 27 days and 23 hours before complaining about 2 creditors voting for the CVA. They then added the issue that Football Creditors get paid 100% whereas they only received something like 8p in the pound. In effect they "took the Administrator to Court over the FL rules", this meant that the court case would have lasted 5 days, and therefore was delayed until Sept 2007 (The case didn't take place, however the principle is there that HMRC will go to Court). Because of court action Leeds could not get a CVA "signed off" until after the start of the season (Skate web sites says it is the date the fixture list are produced, which is 15th June this year), and therefore had to accept a 15 point penalty at the start of the season. I believe it will go the same way with the Skates, i.e. if AA is saying 6th May then HMRC has until 2nd/3rd June to go to the High Court. (Remember there are lots of issues HMRC can complain about) and any case is unlikely to be heard because the 15th June (if this date is correct). I expect lots of verbal diarrhoea in the press about "how this is unfair and the Tax issues should be decided on the Subbuteo Table" or other such rubbish, while HMRC will be completely silent on the issue. Look out for High Court action on the 2/3 of June.

As a heads-up for tomorrow night and Saturday, Mount Pleasant level crossing is still CLOSED to vehicles, only pedestrians and bikes can cross. When I ran by this morning (09:30 ish) the 2 workmen were looking at a water pipe that ran across the new trench, the earth around it looked a bit damp. I have heard this work is due to go on until at around the 24th May, i.e. all the games this season.

What Saints should be doing is "leaking information that we will be sending Scouts to look at a couple of Stockport players". I think Duncan mentioned at the start of the season that we were interested in a couple of their younger players. And I also believe we will be looking improve some of our backup players in the summer, i.e. we are short in central midfield, right back and centre halves (Perry legs are gone, Jaidi is slow at turning etc). Tell these player's agents that Saints are interested and they have a choice of playing L2 football next season or producing a performance that suggested they can make the step up to playing for Saints.

I think some in the press are coming around to view that they are CHEATING. The hardcopy (not online) of the Observer has Paul Wilson column (page 6) which has a piece titled "Pompey have no licence to rip up rules". (some quotes) "When it was decided that teams entering administration should automatically incur a league points deduction, it did not seem to occur to anyone that similar sactions in other competitions would be both fair and logical...... .... Everton and Villa are grumbling now because after another season of working hard, staying technically solvent and just missing out on the top prizes, the possibility has emerged that the league's worst run club could leapfrog them into Europe .... But if the Portsmouth do not expect to be kicked when they are down or punished any more than necessary, neither should they expect preferential treatment when they have done so little to deserve it".

If, if ,if we are lucky enough to make the play-offs, the Football League have PROVISIONAL announced the dates http://www.football-league.co.uk/latestnews/20100415/play-off-dates-announced_2245681_2012386 Note that the home game (6th v 3rd) for League 1 will be either :- FRIDAY night (14th May) at 7:45 or Saturday (15th May) at 12:15.

This case appears to have been moved to Friday as well in Court 7 before JUDGE TESTAR. ? Does the "Order made under Contempt of Court Act 1981" refer to Storrie or the person below ?? (It looks like Storrie to my uneducated eye). Could it refer to that leaked email a couple of weeks ago ?? http://www.courtserve.net/courtlists/current/crown/sthwk_T100416.01.htm

It was originally scheduled for the 14th, this article now says it is Friday http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1265101/Spurs-boss-Harry-Redknapp-Court-wont-distract-me.html "but he faces an even bigger date on Friday, when he appears at Southwark Crown Court charged with conspiracy to defraud."

You have misunderstood my post. Since the Swindon game he has been on 9 bookings (if the Echo if correct), the cut-off for players getting a 2 match ban for getting to 10 bookings was after the Charlton game. i.e. he had to play 5 games without getting booked. IMO the fact that he was one booking away from a 2 match ban affected his performance in those 5 games.

I seem to be the only one who thinks this will go back to the High Court before next season. If you look back at the Leeds case in 2007, they obtained 75.1% on the CVA (and there were lots of question marks over the voting and certain loans). Without anything in the press however, HMRC waited 27 days and 23 hours into the 28 day "cooling off period" before going back to the High Court questioning two creditors (Yorkshire radio and somebody else). At the same time HMRC ADDED THE ISSUE of Footballing Creditors receiving 100% and the others only 8%. This meant that the court case suddenly became a 5 day case instead of 1 day case. This could not be arranged until after the start of the season. HMRC do NOT like the Football Creditors rule and went to court in 2004 (Wimbledon) and lost on appeal and were willing to go back in 2007 (Leeds - I dont think the case took place). They WILL take every opportunity to retest the rule in court. As a newspaper said yesterday there are so MANY unanswered questions with the skates that HMRC is going to have a field day raising issues in court e.g "Associated creditors" for the 50% rule, money being transfer out before Admin etc. I think 5 days may not be enough.

I always thought it was a UEFA rule that means they require a Licence to enter Europe next season, and it had nothing to do with the English FA. This page on the UEFA site has lots of links to all the documenation, which I don't have time to go though now. http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/protectingthegame/clublicensing/news/newsid=1453119.html I didn't know that there are already a number of clubs already refused. "it presents the names of 21 clubs, including six in the most recent year, who have been refused access to the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Cup and the latter's successor competition, the UEFA Europa League, because no licence has been granted to the club in question."

UEFA have "11 Key Values" and No 8 is ? http://www.uefa.com/uefa/elevenvalues/index.html (p.s. to Saints fans only - did MW write No 1 ?)

Storrieteller - Thursday 15th April 2010 for plea then the real court case is 16th May 2011 and then IMO the points penalties. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1244847/Sol-Campbell-sues-troubled-Portsmouth-money-owed-Arsenal-defender.html#ixzz0hgfy6Bxq The other 2 (Milan and Henry) I believe are in court Wed 14th April 2010 for plea. All at Southwark Crown Court. IMO the "leaked" email the other week will not have helped any of them.

Jason also got though the 10 booking deadline yesterday (i,e. 2 match ban if 10 booking before the 2nd sunday in April). I think has been effecting his form over the last few weeks. http://www.thisishampshire.net/sport/5067891.Puncheon_s_tightrope_act/

Agents don't seem to like "banana man" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-450992/Agents-angry-FAs-bananas-man.html "The agents? anger is directed mainly at FA compliance department chief David Lampitt, who has recently been promoted to head of financial regulations despite the widespread criticism he attracts. This reached a head when a banana was put in a seat that Lampitt should have occupied at a top-level sports industry conference debate about agents."

I posted this on the echo site yesterday but will repeat it on here, Mount Pleasant Road is CLOSED by the Old Farmhouse for vehicles. They are digging a trench for Gas repairs from the level crossing back towards Bevois Valley and all traffic are directed down Derby Road. Traffic on the east side is stopped by the roundabout by the old TV studios. The road is still open for pedestrians and bikes, but I know a number of people use this road to drop off and collect people on match days so I thought I should mention it otherwise there will be a lot of moaners on here come Sunday/Monday.

I produced this on the 19th March if you want to read up on what happened to Leeds. IMO it was HMRC who don't like CHEATS and the FL just applied their own rules, i.e. NO CVA signed off therefore -15 points. http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=657703#post657703 I think the skates will end up back in the High Court (the later the better), what I don't know is what the cut off date is for penalty points i.e. 1st July, 1st Aug, 1st Fixture etc. CHEATS

It is interesting that on Oct 1st (after over 2 months of the season) we had a poll on "Where we would finish this season" with the following results :- 1st, top place, Champions of League One........ 10 1.31% 1st or 2nd, auto-promotion, good stuff.......... 1 0.13% 3rd-6th Play-off position...................... 148 19.40% 7th-9th, just missed out!...................... 137 17.96% 10th-12th, top middle.......................... 147 19.27% 13th-15th, mid-table .......................... 135 17.69% 16th-18th, lower middle ....................... 104 13.63% 19 or 20th, just staying up!.................... 50 6.55% 21st-24th, relegated, any of the bottom 4 places 23 3.01% 24th, stuck at the bottom, terrible............. 8 1.05% http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=16984 So only 20.84% of Saints fans thought we would be higher than 7th-9th i.e. 1 in 5 fans. As you can see I voted for "mid-table" because even then I could see we had issues that would take more than this season to address. An Example: when the opposition play 4-5-1 against us, we either get out numbered in central midfield 3 to 2 if we play 4-4-2 (Swindon home lose, Orient - poor game), or if AP matches up and plays 4-5-1 we sometimes don't get players up to support RL (examples - Wembley we did, Brighton we didn't). I am general happy with AP but I wish he would CONSIDER getting his wide midfield players to tuck-in when playing against 4-5-1 and then getting the fullbacks to provide the width, not unlike wGS use of Chris M with Wayne overlapping. However, from what I remember AP never has, he always liked his wide players to stay wide. (end of example of an issue that will take time to address). By the way in the Poll thread, don't worry saint_stevo your quote will not happen.

It is almost certain they will lose the "support of the premier league" at 16:55 next Saturday, and then the Football League can open their Dossier and Rule Book. Saturday, 10 April 2010 Hull v Burnley, 15:00 West Ham v Sunderland, 15:00 CHEATS

He did produce some verbal diarrhoea on the radio about the Ref not showing "common sence", then more verbal diarrhoea about something else. They also said that they should have 2 of their players who were "OUT FOR THE SEASON" back for next week - Boateng & Yebda, I think . Perhaps another PL side or England might like to employ their medical staff, because it seems they are able to get their long term injured players back in a couple of weeks, i.e. Rocha played yesterday but was out for the season when "attacked" by that chelski player only a couple of weeks ago. CHEATS