pedg

I'm afraid that whereas your little manifesto the last time struck a chord with me after what had gone on before it, this all sounds dreadfully hollow and contrived. All waffle and sentiments without much substance.

Strangely that's what I thought about the original manifesto!

But wouldn't the 'relevant authorities' investigate a doubling of share price 'overnight' as 'potentially suspicious' regardless of whether the company in question brings it to their attention or not? Surely that's the whole remit of the Takeover Panel and the like.....they wouldn't be a very effective policing body if they relied on tip offs from the very company whose share activity they are duty bound to ensure is above board.....would they? Who knows? (indeed....who does know....?)

 

Either there has been 'wrong doing' or there hasn't.....perhaps I should give the old bill a call now to bring it to their attention? Unless of course PA, or his representatives, were in the loop all along....

 

cheers

Who, indeed, knows?

I think the possible scenarios are:

1) It was an official approach from a PA representative with explicit permission to contact SLH.

2) It was an official approach by a PA representative who had a brief to go out and investigate possible investment options.

3) It was an approach by a PA representative but they were doing it without permission from on high.

4) It was an approach by someone claiming to work for PA who had links with one or more of his companies who was trying to make legitimate money if he could marry the two off.

5) It was an approach by someone claiming to work for PA but was just part of a con to drive the share price up.

6) It was an approach by someone claiming to work for PA who was in it just for a massive wind up.

Probably a lot more. Anyway you pay your money you take your choice...

hope you are right because CCC ref's are not to good on picking up the pushing etc' date=' hence Derby's success with Moore and Howard[/quote']

 

I think (hope) the difference will be that this season when our players get fouled it will more regularly just after they have passed the ball on and I think even CCC referees are going to have to start booking people for late challenges after a while.

the comment over the Ref is something we can expect this season, we are playing a style that is alien to this division and the vast majority of the country.

Thing that intrigues me is that i thought Wotton had been brought in to act a "minder" like Jimmy Case did , but that does not appear to be happening unless it is felt he cannot play 2 games a week.

I think you have to remember it was a friendly and just as you are not supposed to imply to much about how the players will play in real competitive matches that is just as true about the refs. Ref's are generally far more lenient in friendlies than competitive matches.

Give me a chance - I do get out once in a blue moon.

 

So....what's happening then?

 

What has NEVER added up to me is that certain people keep 'pointing the finger' at Tommac and allege that he willfully misled a Public Limited Company, artificially doubling the share price in the process, and yet no sign of anyone being charged, arrested and tried for this so called deception. So....only logical conclusion is that PA must have been in the loop somewhere otherwise someone has broken the law and/or industry code of conduct....

 

WHICH IS IT? (FFS)

My feeling is that PA was not in the loop but that those involved at the club were too embarrassed to go to the relevant authorities and hold up their hands and admit they were duped.

Interesting read NickG ,

I personally have no problem with a good 'cut and paste' article on here as they're a useful debating tool but the forum terms and conditions specifically rule against it , something to do with copyright and the Echo complaining I understand .

 

As a point of order can the Mods issue definitive guidance on this matter so that we all know where we stand in future?

It looks like a press release type statement by Wilde with no input from the echo hacks then I don't think its a problem in this case?

Im here. Its just that Im sat at the back of the itchen on my own

What's your take on the first half then?

SAINTS (2nd Half): Bialkowski; Hatch, Thomas, Racine, Mills; Dyer, White, Wotton ©, Wright-Phillips; John, Rasiak

 

Strange that Stoke Website had this 5 mins before our own.

Obviously a change in plan as on the OS JP was saying about giving the 'first team' 60 minutes then swapping it round.

half - time

If and when the Lowe Out protests reach the point of a boycott, and the said boycott impacts on club finances, should Rupert Lowe resign?

Yet another purile question that has not got a hope in hell of being answered.

We now know that PA had contact with the club several months ago, before MW's resignation.

 

Many of you know who Saintmarc is and therefore what i've highlighted in bold contradicts the original poster.

I think that needs to read We now know that someone claiming to represent PA had contact with the club several months ago. I am sure at the time there were those, prime example being crouch, who were convinced this was a legitimate approach by PA and I think it took a long while for some to be convinced it was not.

Personally, I think the Chairman and board should have shipped out all the negative influences and supported the manager (as had happened with Lawrie and Nicholl).

 

Alternatively, they should have cut it short earlier before Luggy had spent the transfer budet and wasted the vital pre season build up.

 

What followed (i.e. Wigley) was the real disaster.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Remember there was a possible third option that the manager and the players might have learnt to get on.

What would people have said if we had shipped out some well known and popular players?

What would people have said if we had got rid of Luggy earlier?

Persevering with the new manager and the players at the time, who, lets now forget were supposed to be professionals not school children, was an equally valid approach to take at the time without the wonders of hindsight and if anything the constant moaning on places like this about the number of managers that worked under Lowe probably contributed to the fact that he was kept on for too long in the end once it started to become obvious that there was not going to be any reconciliation.

That is a very fair comment.

 

The real problem with that though was the appointment that followed him.

 

That decision is the one that really cost us.

And as I said the time in the season when we needed to replace Luggy was not a good time to find a decent manager (i.e. no half decent ones got fired before Luggy left!) which left us with the barrel scrapings we ended up with.

It just highlights that in 2004, he (and his associates) got the managerial/Head Coach appointments very wrong.

The one key mistake was probably one that very few people saw coming, that being the appointment of Luggy. I was one of those who welcomed his appointment as he appeared to be a successful manager and I don't think I can remember anyone warning about the internal conflicts that ended up with him leaving and the roundabout that ensued as we played manager catchup.

He's not exactly the only candidate ever to apply for a job that interviewed well but then turned out to be a disaster.

Just goes to show that the decision to have too many managers leads to failure and that chairman who follow that path are failures themselves.

Do you think its some sort of concious decision to have too many managers then??

It either says something about the changes that have occurred since the end of last season OR the eternal optimism of football fans as if at the end of last season you had said that a poll on 'here' pre season would show less than 3% thinking we will get relegated you would probably have been ridiculed.

Not sure. I think if he was not injury prone at the moment I would have said freddie. Given the options available KP is probably the best choice but does that make it a good appointment?

I'm just resentful you discovered it first!

Polls will be ten a penny now... Would not be surprised if the mods remove the privilege but we shall see..

Feel free to be the first to start one on one of the other boards.

Yes its a shame the first one was so poorly constructed. Sets a bad precendent IMO. Shame on you Pedg.

I was so overcome with the prospect of being able to start a poll without pleading with a mod that what little sense I have went awol.

How big is 'mid table'? and surely there is an overlap with 'top half' and 'bottom half'.

I sort of tried to clarify (read make up for badly worded options) at the top. Should probably read.

Promotion to Prem

Top third that would stay in the CCC

Middle third that would stay in the CCC

Lower third that would stay in the CCC

Relegated to Division 1

OK what about Play Offs

Promotion through playoffs = promotion

Failure through playoffs = top half

First Poll and first sticky on the main board. At last a claim for fame...

Lets see if I can get the hang of this as I think it said members could start polls?

(and for the pedantic where I said year I obviously meant season...

... and top half means say 3rd to 9th, mid table 10th to 16th, bottom half 17th to 21st...)

what happens if they sell 22k tickets and then get 4k walk ups on match days' date=' where do the stewards etc come from[/quote']

 

I would guess that if advanced sales made it look like there would not be enough space for walk ups they would put wheels in motion to open the corners. Its not rocket science.

Actually, any idea what squad number he will be? The sooner it's confirmed the sooner I can get my away shirt!

The OS article about squad numbers heavily implied that No 6 was being kept free for his return so I think its a fairly certain bet that will be his number.