trousers

Anyone know (or can estimate) how much it would cost the club to call off the game at short notice? I'm guessing it would be nearer a 6 figure sum than 5?

No idea to be honest. Depends how many straws there are and how strong the camel is I guess...?

Isn't it still possible that all the players that people said were as good as gone could still go in the secondary loan window? (when does that close? end of Feb?)

Hallelujah. Post of the week Wes. I know I'm world famous for jumping to (often wrong) conclusions but for people to be assuming that 'no sales' = 'club safe' are being too optimistic. It could just as logically mean the opposite. Not that there's anything wrong with optimism of course!

Indeed. Something must have changed. But what? Internal investment? External investment? No investment and 'administrators elect' not happy with derisory bids for players? Barclays have relaxed their stance on overdraft? Tie-in with Ujpest offers financial security somehow? Lord Marland has convinced Suggs to buy us out?

Is he still going to double his efforts too?

Erm....as per the bit of your post I quoted, I was latching onto your observation that signing 15 players this season isn't a sign of a club going into admin, and suggested this isn't necessarily the case. I'd have quoted something about the Hungarian defender if I was latching solely onto the Hungarian defender bit. cheers

Or, a bank manger that turned round and said: "even if you sell your best players it won't be enough to keep you afloat I'm afraid" In that scenario, why would we bust a gut to sell anyone if it didn't change things enough financially? So, there is a train of thought that says not selling our best players could be a bad sign financially. Of course, the flip side could indeed be true.

Aye. And said Googlers are only proved right 87% of the time. Madness.

There's a fine line between maintaining a company's "going concern" status and going into admin. Or, as Gordon Brown keeps telling us..."doing nothing is not an option". Going through the motions (e.g. signing players) keeps the wolves at bay longer than would be the case if the club had done nothing in the transfer market this season. (IMHO) "The deck of a ship before it sinks is a busy place."

We're all too exhaust-ed

Come on people...beehive will you? (hark...is that the sound of a grown man fetching his coat I can hear?) P.s. Like the analogy by the way. Eerily accurate!

Saturday; 23:59; Slavia Prague

How come the Echo don't have any reports about the march on their online 'back page'? Are they under instruction not to by either the police or the club? http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/

If only HelpMeRhonda was still around....

I agree that criticising someone for both 'being there' and 'not being there' can on the surface seem somewhat hypocritical and/or inconsistent but this can be logically justified if each scenario is put into context. For example, if someone believes Lowe shouldn't be "interferring" with shop floor level team affairs then they would be entitled to say "I wish he would stay in the background more". Conversely, if the same person believes that Lowe should have attended a press conference to introduce our new manager then they would be entitled to say "I wish he wouldn't stay in the back ground so much". There you have two seemingly opposing views from the one person, yet, in context they are completely viable opinions about the same person because they related to different aspects of his role in the club. I'm on the cusp of explaining this very well....

Add Mr Lowe to that list (as per Charles Sale column on 21st Jan, reputed to be Lowe's media mouthpiece by some.)

Have just spoken to a conspiracy theorist friend who suggests that making Davis club captain in the last week of the transfer window could be an attempt to squeeze a few more pennies out of any bid that comes in for him. A bargaining tool if you like. New club: "We would like to offer you £800,000 for K.Davis" SFC: "Hell, we've just made him club captain. There would be uproar if we sold our club captain for that" New club: "Ok, fair point. How about £1m instead?" SFC: "Ok, deal" OS: "SFC sell Davis due to receiving an offer we couldn't refuse" I don't know. The price I pay for having a conspiracy theorist as a friend.

No, not strange on planet SFC. e.g. An SFC employee w/c 19th January 2009..... Tuesday: "We've had a +ve meeting, I'm staying and I will now redouble my efforts" Friday: "Bugger that, I'm out of here"

Well, I though that was quite clever, even if I say so myself....

Please explain to me what on earth I was going on about then when you get a mo - cheers!

Could it be that at the point in time we overtly stop acquiring assets (because there's a dawning inevitability we're about to go into administration) do we cease to be a 'going concern' at that point in time and, as such, by continuing in a 'business as usual' fashion enables us to have more control over the date we choose to formally go into voluntary administration? In other words, it's a bit of a catch-22....? (not very articulate but perhaps you get my drift?)

Saved me the job....thanks....

Interesting