trousers

Yeah, fair point...I guess I was coming from the smaller local company perspective - i.e. those companies whose turnover relies a lot on the existence of the football club. I'm just a sentimental old fool at the end of the day!

Thought: Won't most of the creditors, whom Begbies Traynor are there to protect, want both: (a) protection from outstanding debts and (b) the prospect of continuing to do business with the club in the future? So, for the Administrator to ONLY look at protecting the 'here and now' revenue of creditors by choosing the 'make a quick buck' suitor would be short sighted and doing a disservice to the very people they are deployed to protect? For example, if I run the company who prints the match day programmes, I will want a resolution that (a) makes sure I'm paid for all the programmes I have printed over the last quarter and not yet been paid for and (b) means that I can continue to print programmes in the future because the club is in long term safe hands. So, long winded way of saying that I agree with your concerns Duncan but would be surprised (aka naive ?!) if Mr Fry is only thinking of the creditors in the past and present tenses without considering that these very people he is protecting have a living to make going forward.

Did you not follow the myriad of 'Sharewatch' threads on here over the last 9 months? It would appear mine and Bridge Too Far's talents are wasted on here...

Trust me, all hell will break loose once that chap finds his scanner in the loft

Which reminds me of the unanswered question from the "It's Allen" era....why was no-one hauled over the coals by the appropriate authorities for artificially inflating the share price to 64p (or whatever it reached) in April/May 2007? I believe people have 'proved' that the Allen connection was based on conjecture by 'a certain person' but if that was the case wouldn't the stock exchange have come down on them like a tonne of bricks? Of course, that is one of many unanswered questions over the last two years....

Heavy discounts on travel to Saints game from Isle of Wight Nice one Red Funnel. http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/articles/article.php?page_id=11624

I thought that was the case too, but I read somewhere the other day that the "outgoing SLH board" actually did the appointing of the administrators. Will try and dig out the relevant quote.

Williams? Dan Williams? Roll back those years. We love you Rhonda. All is forgiven.

Respect

That's been bugging the Conspiracy Theorists Society for days now. What's stopping an Administrator excercising 'artistic licence' when it comes to the declaring the number of interested parties? Not that I'm suggesting for one second that the SLH administrators would contemplate this. Purely a hypothetical question. Are Administrators audited? Of course, exagerating the number of potential suitors could be a tactic all administrators deploy in order to keep the competition on their toes and get the best price....Where's Clapham Saint when you need him...? Who knows?

or "Jackson"? (not Michael)

Or "McLaughlin"?

Did you see anyone sign in by the name of "Beckham" or "Allen" per chance?

But, if the League have any faith in why they brought in the 'financial prudence' rules in the first place they will realise that this PLC vs Football Club malarkey is a red herring. The rule was brought in to combat reckless and speculative spending on expensive players. We have not got into financial trouble for the reasons that the League brought in the rules ergo I have faith in the Football League to be clever enough to see this and ignore the false debate of PLC vs Football Club. Trousers starts holding breath.....now.....

Supporting the Saints I grew up watching the Saints standing on the terraces of the Dell with my father and brothers. I remember our 1976 FA Cup victory against Manchester United, our promotion to what was then the First Division in 1978 and travelling to Wembley for the League Cup Final against Nottingham Forest the following year. I understand what this club means to Southampton and its many fans and I sympathise with them. For those like me that have grown up in Southampton this club is part of who we are. It is part of the fabric of our great city. The City Council are supporters of the football club. Many of our staff and Councillors are season ticket holders or regular attendees. When the club does well we all do well and when the club is in trouble we all feel the pain. Obviously we are distressed at the situation the club finds itself in but there is no magic wand. The city council has finite resources. We have responsibilities to all our residents. We have to educate our children and care for our elderly and vulnerable. We have to mend our crumbling highways and keep our citizens safe in their homes and on our streets. In the past the council have been a key player in helping the club in its ambition to build the excellent ground at St Mary’s. We have assisted in the planning process and even donated a small piece of land. Recently we have been helping to find a way through the Football Club’s financial crises by talking to funders, bankers, government ministers and the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA). In the short term the club needs an injection of cash. Saturday’s match against Charlton has been discounted to £15 to encourage as many people as possible to attend. If we can get a full house for this match the club will be one step closer to survival. The Holding Company – Southampton Leisure Holdings - has now called in the Administrator and we must do everything we can to avoid the same fate happening to the club. Maximum attendance and some positive results on the pitch would preserve Southampton Football Club’s survival in the Championship this year and give it a chance of surviving into the future. The city council have arranged advertising around the city to remind people how important the club is and how important it is to turn up and support them. Times are tough. People are losing their jobs. Banks have stopped lending and there is no end in sight to this dire recession. It is unthinkable that we may lose a club with its fantastic 125 year history. Whatever has happened in the past must stay in the past and we must collectively look to the future. If we all rally behind the Saints in their hour of need we may yet save them from administration and certain relegation and start the process of getting the club back where it should be – in the Premiership. http://roystonsmith.co.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=231&Itemid=2 Royston Smith is the Deputy Leader of Southampton City Council and Councillor for the Harefield Ward. He is the Cabinet Member for Economic Development. Royston also represents Southampton's interests as Vice Chairman of Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority. He is the Conservative nomination for the Southampton (Eastleigh) Airport Consultative Panel and has served on that committee for the past 5 years. Royston is the Conservative Parliamentary candidate for the Southampton Itchen Constituency.

Is this the report being referred to in the opening post? I would venture that the word "yet" is probably quite key to putting his words into context... "Head coach Mark Wotte revealed that a pre-match phone call to tell him that Southampton have not yet been docked 10 points inspired his side to take a battling point in their bid for survival." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1168416/Watford-2-Southampton-2-Saints-inspired-FAs-inaction.html

I still haven't seen those cotton picking minutes....

First we have male bidders posing as women (complete with IP masks) now we have women Administrators posing as men. Or is that the other way around?

34? 31? Is this bingo night again?

Ah...maybe that's where I heard the "£15m" figure that I quoted elsewhere (although, not from the horses mouth, obviously....)

Just don't play too well or we might end up owing Notts County another 6 figure sum....

I see what you did there.... © School boy humour association

Or....well done to the many root causes that made those fans feel they couldn't/wouldn't go? i.e. credit crunch, poor value for money (aka bad results), a chairman they disliked (rightly or wrongly)....

Fair point.....although I wonder if Barclays had ANY say in that side of things at the time, even at a rubber stamping level? On second thoughts, I doubt it as I'm sure Lowe would have mentioned it at the first opportunity after going into Admin....as in: "I wanted to retain Pearson but the Bank had a better plan to leverage our academy resources which I reluctantly went along with"

Unless of course said Saints fan wanted Lowe out.....? Hmmm....I feel a conspiracy theory coming on