trousers

No wonder Torbay Saint's mate had all that trouble getting it down then. So, that Wolves chap could still be looking to buy us and no-one would be any the wiser.

Which part of the roof space? (You watch, I'm gonna win this one if it kills me....)

So, we're looking for a newspaper without an interweb site that then...? Sounds like it might be worth me having a root around in the loft for my scanner tonight then....

Was just about to mention that it would have to be seen as such....

I thought the administrator was sorting out the debts of Southampton Leisure Holdings PLC? Why wouldn't Southampton Football Club Ltd continue to be run as a going concern at the moment? Won't one of SLH's subsidiary companies generating additional revenue increase it's value as an asset to the PLC?

I'm sure we could get around that by charging a 'minimum base price' initially to cover the going rate in League 1, and then collect a (contracted) additional payment later if we stay in the CCC. Surely it's better to have SOME money in the bank through season ticket sales than none at all and go out of business as a result? (just seen Pancake's thought on this which may have something to do with it of course but won't the Escrow route protect all interested parties?)

I'm actually at a loss as to why this isn't happening....now!

Wouldn't the "3rd party account" (i.e. Escrow) solution solve that uncertainly though? Although, that said, could we afford the cost of an Escrow account in the first place?! (although that could always be embedded in the cost of the season ticket I guess)

Maybe there should have been a joint statement with Barclays then? Or would that have flouted LSE rules perhaps?

Sounds good to me. And to offset the League 1 vs CCC "dilemma" that fans would have in deciding whether the price offered good value for money, simply cost them on a tiered payment basis. So you pay, say, £300 now, which covers League 1 football, and £100 later if we stay up. Simple?

Only if the reasons why weren't communicated transparently

Whoops. Humble apologies! I'm just in a daze at the very thought that our mini winning spree a month or so ago, coupled with Monday's victory V Palace, could actually be doing us harm rather than good.

And a smaller sum for Leon Best, I believe

So, are we left with these two scenarios in that case....? 1) The football club goes under because there's still a chance we could stay up (which breeds indecision amongst the pool of potential investors) or 2) We forfeit our remaining results which, whilst guaranteeing our relegation, removes the 'indecision' catch-22? Of course, the above assumes that of the "34" potential investors there is at least one who will buy a league 1 Football Club.... In other words, does there come a point of no return where we force ourselves into relegation to protect our very existence? edit: actually, throwing matches is probably a tad illegal so ignore me!

I assume the reverse applies to certain news outlets who, some people say, copy stuff verbatim from here....?

So, with my skewed logic goggles on, in a way, by winning the odd game here and there and thus prolonging our relegation status we could actually be shooting ourselves in the foot? Could it be argued that had we been effectively (if not mathematically) relegated by (e.g. like Charlton) then this would have made things clearer for both the administrator and the potential bidders - i.e. everyone would know where things stand. So, in summary, could the very future of the club be in greater jeopardy by us being in limbo (league position wise) compared to being in a dead cert relegation position? An unpalatable and slightly bonkers thought I guess but a smidgen of reality in there somewhere?!

Talking of which...as in the good old days of LLS, HelpMeRhonda, Asturius Sports, NamG, etc, has anyone done any scouring of the Companies House website to see what new Ltd companies have been set up in the last couple of weeks with anything 'interesting' in the title...?

"IMHO" or "matter of factly"....?:confused:

I thought they had changed the rules in as much as they added a "we reserve the right to use our discretion if someone tries to exploit a loophole again" clause....? Doesn't mean they have the legal right to use such a catch-all clause though I guess....

LSE announcement pasted above....

a.k.a. Ken Tointon ? I'm still confused, albeit somewhat rhetorically, as to why the Administrator of Southampton Leisure Holdings is writing the 'view from the boardroom' page in the Southampton Football Club Limited matchday programme? Why isn't one of the Southampton Football Club Limited board members writing the usual 'view from the boardroom' article? I thought the Football Club was operating on a 'Business as Usual' basis at the moment?

Doesn't the stock market announcement on the 2nd April suggest that the SLH board appointed the administrators though....? Or is it just 'traditional' for an outgoing board to be credited with doing the deed even though it's the bank pulling the strings? http://www.hemscott.com/ir/soo/irEssentials.jsp?item=118942676831344 RNS Number : 0096Q Southampton Leisure Holdings PLC 02 April 2009  2 April 2009 Southampton Leisure Holdings plc ("SLH" or "the Company") Appointment of Administrators The Board announces today that it has appointed Mark Fry and David Hudson of Begbies Traynor (South) LLP as joint administrators to the Company. Rupert Lowe, Andrew Cowen and Michael Wilde have resigned as directors of the Company with immediate effect. Southampton Football Club Limited, a subsidiary of the Company, is unaffected by these insolvency proceedings.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/search/4288533.Lib_Dems_cautiously_back_bid_to_buy_stadium/