trousers

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!

Just done a quick search on consumer rights in this area and it's pretty clear that the consumer is legally entitled to a refund if, for whatever reason, they can't make a rescheduled date. This example goes back to 2008 but it's from the horse's mouth (the office of fair trading) and the underlying principles of law will still apply today: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/dec/05/tottenham-hotspur-ticket-refunds-oft (Apologies for the dull posts - even more so than usual - companies trying to pull the wool over consumers eyes is a big bugbear of mine!)

Based on my understanding of consumer law, that's utter nonsense. Caveat: my understanding is based on studying consumer law back in the 80s, so could well be out of date, but the principles behind the Sale of Goods act and Trade Description act are pretty set in stone.

I've no idea. I'm no expert in any of this (does it show?!). I just assumed any non-UK entity/person buying a UK company would have to set up some sort of 'shell' company in the UK as part of the process? I guessed that's why DaGrossa set up a 'Kapital / SMFC' company at around the same time he was supposedly in talks with the club...? Dunno. I just search for stuff that might be if interest and/or connected and drew a blank. Nothing more educated / sophisticated than that I'm afraid.

They would be breaking consumer law if they didn't give a refund upon request so, no, you won't be out of pocket if you can't make a rearranged match.

Yep, I actually think this postponement could be a blessing in disguise. The Saints players and management should be more psyched up than usual before the rearranged kick off and any new-look Newcastle team won't have had time to gel by end-Jan/early Feb. I also think it being a home mid-week evening game will also work in our favour. #GlassHalfFull

As sad as this may sound, I've spent a while this morning trawling through Companies House listings for a company and/or director(s) that one could conceivably link to a Saints takeover by the Redball people (Cardinale, Beane, Scudamore, etc) and have drawn a blank. It was easy to find a company that could be seen as a takeover vehicle when Kapital/Dagrosa were supposedly sniffing around. Make of that what you will.