Fowllyd

That's a bit better. Nothing you haven't said before of course, but at least it's funny.

Perhaps he would, perhaps he wouldn't. But I do find it irritating when people write as if everything would have been OK had we only appointed Hoddle when Strachan left - we don't and can't know that it would. I'm not having a go at you here; the main purveyor of this guff is Dalek, who has a serious and often rather scary Hoddle fixation - I don't count Scooby for obvious reasons.

If memory serves, it's 3% of the total shareholding under normal conditions. So if you already own more than 3%, every purchase you make has to be reported; if you make a purchase which takes you above 3%, that must be reported. Not sure what happens if you own 3.5%, for example, and sell sufficient to take your shareholding below 3% - then again, that's probably totally immaterial anyhow.

Can't argue with any of that - except that Theo could have gone when he did with the fee decided by tribunal. Walcott (and of course his family) are very much the exception rather than the rule in their behaviour it seems.

Some of Scooby's posts make me laugh a hell of a lot. But you're wrong about the passion and convictions - he's a troll who doesn't support Saints at all, just comes on here to wind people up. The fact that he so frequently succeeds in doing so is a cause of constant amazement to me - it can only mean that people take him seriously. I personally don't care in the slightest if he continues to post - I just want him to amuse if he does, and in that particular instance he completely failed to do so. Just think of my post as a variant of theatre criticism. Fine avatar, by the way...

A very poor post I'm afraid. A dismal rehashing of earlier posts, nothing more - ridiculous yes, but where's the spark? The heights of preening absurdity? All gone, it seems. I hate to say this, but I fear that the Scooby of "Lord Lowe's 10,000-strong body of faithful supporters" is now a long way past his best, a mere shadow of the goat-scaring troll he once was. It might be kindest now if he were given back his fiver - it's not pleasant to witness such a sad decline.

I agree - Surrey had no chance of a win once we'd scored 450 on the second day. But they're 167-7 now - Ramps still there unfortunately, but their tail looks as long as the Loch Ness Monster's to me. Come on lads!

Play due to start today at 12:55, according to Cricinfo. Why the hell didn't Dimi declare when Tremlett's wicket fell yesterday - or even just when we reached 450? We'd never lose from there, but we'd have given ourselves a chance of bowling them out twice. As it was, two wickets fell at 451 but we carried on batting - I really can't see what was achieved by that.

I'm sure the OS will have full details on that particular question in due course!

They're being readied for disposal in a newly-created black hole somewhere or other I expect...

Ivan? Are you quite sure about that?

I think he should grow back what hair he does have and adopt a classic comb-over. It's a style which has been sadly lacking from the game for some years now.

I think you'll find that his Scoobness answered that on another thread a few weeks back. It was a side-splittingly funny post, quite brilliant even by his standards. Here it is: Sadly, I don't think he'll ever reach those heights again...

If Paine were to be added on the left, how about Marsden on the right?

That I really can't answer. There's plenty on here who think they can, though...

Because he's the executive chairman (effectively chairman and CEO rolled into one) of SLH. SFC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SLH. Level of shareholding has nothing to do with it. Edit - level of shareholding is not immaterial. If I said I wanted to be exec chair of SLH I don't think I'd get the job. Lowe has 5.6% of shares personally, his allies (who will vote with him) increase that to about 29% I think, though it may be less. Add Wilde's 16% and you have a sufficiently large minority to make it highly unlikely that you'll be voted down. So the current set-up is an agreement between the two.

OK Prof, you've taken Richmond's juicy leg-stump half-volley (a delivery he specialises in) and despatched it to the boundary. Easily done. However, earlier on, in answer to your comment about Lowe and Wilde selling up, I raised the rather more pertinent question of who exactly would have bought either of their shareholdings. You can't sell something that nobody wants to buy, and I have yet to see any indication that there was any buyer for the shares belonging to Wilde or Lowe (presumably the latter would mean Lowe plus his allies). I do not pretend to know the motivations of Lowe and Wilde - I can guess at what they might be, no better than that. But I do know that you need a buyer with sufficient funds in order to sell anything.

Really? Who was going to buy Lowe's 6% of the total shareholding then? Or Wilde's 16%? Seems to me there's been a distinct scarcity of buyers, and you can't sell up if nobody's interested in buying.

Ah yes, the great big gizmo cranks into action on Wednesday morning...

Hate to disillusion you, but the last thing old-school 'gentlemen' would feel duty bound to do would be to communicate with the common people - any more than any more newly moneyed types would feel obliged to talk to those less wealthy than themselves. That said, there's one reason and one reason only why the whole Fulthorpe enterprise would fail - they couldn't get the money. It'll be nothing to do with anything else. If they can secure sufficient funding, they can make an offer which the existing major shareholders will accept; if they can't, they can't. That's about it really.

What if his record is W8, D1, L4 then - purely for the sake of argument? That would be 25 points - hardly sacking form I'd have thought. As others have pointed out, JP's here for the season as an absolute minimum, unless things go really badly wrong. And, even if they do, I can't see how we'll afford to sack him and take on somebody else - well, thinking about it, the firing may well be pretty cheap. But the hiring wouldn't be.

What if his record is W8, D1, L4 then - purely for the sake of argument? That would be 25 points - hardly sacking form I'd have thought. As others have pointed out, JP's here for the season as an absolute minimum, unless things go really badly wrong. And, even if they do, I can't see how we'll afford to sack him and take on somebody else - well, thinking about it, the firing may well be pretty cheap. But the hiring wouldn't be.

Ah, but another one will just spring up in its place...

Ah, but another one will just spring up in its place...

As a matter of interest, who would you like to see replace him? And did you see the Carling Cup game against Birmingham?