trousers

Sounds like he's good at 'tax efficiencies'....

This fella? https://www.finews.com/news/english-news/47000-belvedere-rolf-boegli-board-credit-suisse-sec

Mantra exponent in slamming other mantra shocker... #legend

Oh joy... you mean we've got another 4 years of Lord D's superiority complex to endure...? #legend

Q: "Will the club be more competitive in the transfer market" Semmens: "We're in a better position than yesterday but you won't see any major changes in our transfer strategy, maybe gives us the opportunity to invest in a couple more Livramento type acquisitions" (or words to that effect)

I think it's pretty clear from the Semmens interview that there isn't going to be any significant increase in 'off the shelf' player investment...

Semmens: "There's a lot of very rich people out there looking to get involved in football clubs but without any plans. We didn't want one of those"

No, but I wish I was! Doh...

Will Adam ask Semmens the most obvious question I wonder, or tip toe around it? i.e. "will Saints still be shopping in the c.£15m bargain basement player window or does this takeover open the door for player spending in the £20+ bracket, if needs be?"

oops!

We've been taken over by someone who wants to run a self-sustaining football business....

"The proof is in the pudding" FFS... it's "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" Get it right Adam!

Tweaked it for you

Radio interview with Semmens coming up here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_solent

Anyone know if Gary Dias (aka Diaz) gets to keep his job?

It's 'Monkey-Chicken' FFS. Never forget the chickens.

No squirrels FFS

'positivepete' seems well connected.... indeed, he may well be the only forum member to have met Ankersen in person (back in 2016)...

Quick... someone check to see if Ankersen and Kruegar have ever been seen in the same room together.....!

# Devil's advocate klaxon # If "the players" are happy could this imply that we shouldn't expect any significant signings this window as a result of the takeover...? (In other words, better players coming in to replace existing players would result in some unhappy existing players, wouldn't it....? (yes, I know, Trousers over-thinking stuff as per usual! ))

Мој ховеркрафт је пун јегуља

Hmmm.... sounds a bit like the sort of character we'd chuckle at if he had been linked to a Pompey takeover back in the day....?

Slighly disappointed that he's only got one ear TBH. Nice lobe-age though.

Sorry to bang on about this but, consumer law trumps what an organisation decides to put in its T&C's. As I previously posted, Spurs were previously reported to Trading Standards for having "no refunds for postponements" in their ticketing T&C's (see here: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/dec/05/tottenham-hotspur-ticket-refunds-oft) and the FA ordered clubs to remove such clauses from their ticketing conditions. I admit that things may have changed over the last 10 years or so but the fundamentals that underpin consumer law have been pretty much set in concrete for decades. I'm in the same boat so I'm going to contact the club this week and invite them to prove that their T&C's comply with consumer law and thus the expectations and rules of trading standards / the OFT. P.s. most companies get away with this because people generally can't be arsed to challenge what is in the T&C's. You'll also note that all T&C's have a clause along the lines of "TheseT&Cs are subject to the law of England and Wales" (Saints have the clause below in theirs) which is basically a way of saying: "we'll put what we like in our T&C's but, at the end of the day, we have to comply with consumer law, but we'll make it as difficult as we can to put people off challenging"... "21.6 These Terms and Conditions and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with them shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales. The parties hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of England and Wales in relation to any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms and Conditions (including in relation to any non-contractual disputes or claims)." Anyway, as I say, sorry to bang on about this, but people need to challenge T&C's that appear to flout consumer law... (And double apologies if the rules have changed at some point and outdated my understanding of how the law of the land trumps a company's T&C's!)

Maybe there's more than one opinion on this rather than a black and white 'right,' or 'wrong' interpretation? Happy New Year fellow humans!