trousers

Indeed. That's what I was alluding to. Seems like a conflict of interests to me... Shouldn't the Administrators be 100% independent?

...............Davis................... ...James Size Perry Molyneux... .............Le Tissier................ Surman Wotton Scheiderlin Skacel ................Saga................... subs - bart, lancashire, bwp, gillett, lallana

Wouldn't that make it an 11 point plan though?

The content of Le Tiss's "message" could fit the "agenda" though....for example, if someone was thinking of taking over, or becoming more hands-on, in a post Administration scenario, the 'clever' thing to be doing right now would be to appear as neutral and diplomatic as they could so that they didn't come with any baggage.

Quick question..... Who, or what, decides which Administration company gets the gig? And who are the likely candidates?

So, who knows how to set up one of those online petition whatsits?

I feel a petition coming on....!

Why are there corner flags in the first place? What purpose do they serve? Eh? Answer me that. Yet another example of how the FA are toothless when it comes to licking the shoes of FIFA and UEFA. FFS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1125028/Charles-Sale-Premier-League-turn-Hero-Fund-cash-villain.html (21st January 2009) Lowe point for Southampton Southampton's beleaguered chairman Rupert Lowe, who regained a club left in financial meltdown by the chronic mismanagement of the regime that forced him out of office, will have to make a major decision by the third week of March. That is whether to put the club into administration and take the Football League’s 10-point penalty this season. Southampton, whose bank Barclays are threatening to reduce their overdraft facility considerably, have to find extra monies by the end of next month to keep afloat.

So that just leaves Torbay's ex-mate up in the loft (hope he took some sandwiches) and Marvin's radio broadcast (was St David a guest on this one?) Still enough legs in this to get us to 17 pages I reckon.

I'm no expert (anyone noticed yet?!) but there are two ways of going into Administration, one compulsory due to action by creditor(s) - i.e. as you describe above - and the other is 'voluntary'. I believe you can go into voluntary administration at any point that you can demonstrate that the company isn't a "going concern" (or indeed is likely to stop being a going concern and a projected date in the future??). And SFC/SLH stated in last year's annual report that their "going concern" status was in jeopardy if additional funds didn't materialise in the short to medium term....

I wasn't meaning to imply he had a "duty", per se, to raise his head above the parapet, I was just mulling over why he chooses not too. Apologies if it came across otherwise. p.s. I see where you're coming from on the "principle" side of things re: comparison between my good self and Mr Le Tissier, but a more tangible comparison would be to compare Le Tiss getting more directly involved at SFC with me getting involved in saving a company that I had worked for for c.20 years. The last time I looked I hadn't been a long term employee of SFC. . Anyway, no worries, understand the point.

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/uploads/documents/nov_08/sfc_1227479896_Southampton_Leisure_Holdings_p.doc

Erm, no. A like-for-like comparison might work better though.

Indeed. Without wishing to blow one's own trumpet I did make this very same comparison with Quinn a while back. I know Le Tiss is beyond criticism in most people's eyes, but if he really cared for the club (which of course I don't doubt whatsoever in his heart) then why wouldn't he be prepared to sacrifice his TV contract in the short term to help spearhead a consortium, or even just a movement of some sort, to act as a catalyst for change? I'm sorry Matt, but observing our plight from the sidelines, whilst admirable in showing your ingrained love for the club, isn't actually helping achieve anything. Harsh but fair?

Except that the annual report doesn't state that CCC survival alone would protect our 'going concern' status. To my mind it was quite clear in saying that we need to raise additional funds this year regardless of which division we end up in after May.

The 2007-08 annual report published in December said that the club would need to attract significant additional funds in 2009 in order to continue to be a 'going concern', either through player sales or investment (internal or external). Given: (a) the somewhat surprising lack of player sales last month and (b) the somewhat unsurprising lack of investment thus far the only logical vote (IMHO) is "yes, we should enter administration before the cutoff date" Unless someone knows something that I don't that renders the club's clear statement in the annual report about it's "going concern" status obsolete? If so, please publish here so I can change my mind. Thanks.

A debate about our future on here? Don't know where you get that wacky idea from....

Le Tissier has reservations whether the team can avoid the drop for a second year in a row. "Last season was bad enough, but at this point in time it's looking like we'll be quite fortunate to make a last day scenario again," said the former England striker http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/7884265.stm This article doesn't particularly say anything new in general, but first I've heard Le Tiss start to write off our chances in print as it were.

Wait? For how much longer? p.s. what do you think of my new webcam? Here's a recent snapshot of me on TSF waiting for the club to be taken over....

Before or after Dailly and Lupoli?

Don't remember that one....do we know any of their names?

Erm...oh yes they can...according to the fastidious notes in my takeover files (c.April 2007 to present date) Ottery is number 267 is a list of people who have posted uncorroborated 'facts' relating to the future ownership of this football club. Fact.

I assume this will be Hiddink paying back the compliment that Wotte gave him yesterday....

Cloth for my screen please!