trousers

I'm no fan of the health and safety laden nanny state but surely this isn't the cleverest thing for our players to be doing, is it...? http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10280~2093760,00.html

http://aerolloyd.biz/index-1.html

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=142622059087050

True, but I guess he's saying that having sight of HMRC's appeal earlier would have given PFC more time to look into the issues raised before the 28 days were up. Sort of latches onto the post I made yesterday: "did HMRC delay until the last possible minute as a tit-for-tat measure (thus lowering themselves to AA's level), or did it genuinely take best part of 28 days for HMRC to prepare their case?"

Their supporters are very thankful and seem to be assuming we'll send a strong team:- http://suttonunited.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2876 As Stu says, given there's no other friendly organised for that weekend (yet) I would expect Pardew to take the first team too. Given how Sutton were let down by Fulham I can't see them not nailing down some sort of assurance from Saints that they would be sending a strong line-up.

I tend to agree. Was just reacting to some posts above alluding that we wouldn't be taking a 1st XI.

Is he playing? I thought he had a dislocated shoulder?

And had a 'placeholder' website.... Also around the same time as the 'NAMG hoax'....

It would also be in their interests not to mis-represent an event in their advertising as that would be breaching several consumer and advertising laws

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?16976-Tommac-and-The-Saints-Forum-indirectly-saved-Saints!&highlight=tommac

Artificially inflating the share price......hmmm, wouldn't that be illegal though.....*rubs chin*

*cough* Tommac *cough*

Weston Saint?

Shhhh.....I'm not the glory hunter type, hence I've been trying to keep that email of mine quiet all this time. Don't blow my cover now!

"The situation remains confusing for administrator Andrew Andronikou, who is adamant he has discovered the promise of an extension was nothing more than a verbal agreement." I remember being taught at school that a verbal agreement was, legally, just as binding as a written contract, from what I recall of o'level economics. Obviously the former is more difficult to substantiate than the latter but purely in terms of law it's binding. I'm not sure where the burden of proof lies, but the fact that AA has admitted the verbal agreement existed he may well have shot himself in the foot (for once)

Yup. Blimey, that was 25 years ago. God I feel old!

Eh?

Vienna?

Before.... After...

Could be time for everyone to change their avatars again in tribute to our friends at HMRC......

We salute you Sir. You don't do lottery numbers too per chance...?

"The article has been unable to display."

The only downside being that we won't get to play them in the league for the foreseeable future....

http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2266529/hmrc-faces-millions-costs So, if I'm reading those two quotes correctly, Andrew Andronikou would only "pursue HMRC for costs and losses" if HMRC lodge an appeal AND lose that appeal in court. Or, in other words, if HMRC lodge an appeal today BUT withdraw said appeal 1 day before the court date (in November, let's say) then Andrew Andronikou would not be in a position to pursue them for costs, losses, etc. So, bottom line, HMRC have nothing to lose by lodging an appeal, and withdrawing it later on, in order to make PFC squirm a bit longer? Yes/No?