The Kraken

If they pay him off they have to pay the remainder of his contract all off up front. From a cash flow point of view they can kepp him on the books and spread his payments over the full year. Also, there is still a small chance that we could loan him out to another club, and if not get full payment of his wages at least a part payment.

It hasn't failed yet, though. Not in law. CVA-1 stated that 20p in the pound would be paid back, but only by 2015. There were stage payments that were listed but these were not contractual, they were just guidelines (as I said a devious but clever move by Andronikou). So unless the club miss their final deadline of 2015 to pay all creditors, or unless there is a dilution of the original CVA as part of CVA-2, CVA-1 is still (in law) valid right now.

Other way round now; the enabler goes free. Worth considering?

To be fair, you can see the logic in the FL's response. Until it is absolutely certain that any CVA is less than 100% (or at least the CVA1 portion of it) then there's absolutely nothing they can do about. CVA-1 hasn't failed yet; the way it was structured meant that it only had to be fully paid off within a number of years, staged payments were not set in stone, they were really only a suggestion (devious but clever by the Android). So until CVA-2 comes out and formalises a % in the £ for CVA-1, CVA-1 is still (by law) perfectly valid. You would have to hope that, as soon as CVA-2 comes out, and if it included a dliution of CVA-1, the FL will be ready to act. As they must, unless their rulebook had just as well be chucked in the bin if you can circumvent it so easily.

The reasons are different, but they all serve to try and reach the same aim, development on the pitch. The Cardiff owners feel that if they do this it will make them much more commercially attractive, and they will therefore have more money to spend on the pitch. Therefore they will be a stronger team, by being able to spend more money. They will also be able ot improve their infrastructure, thus strengthening further. I think you're missing the part where I've consistently said I don't particularly agree with it, and if it was Saints I really wouldn't be best pleased. But the owners aren't doing it just to try and p*ss people off. They are trying to maximise revenues, and turn around a club who are currently losing £1M a month. It'll be fairly unpopular in the short term but really, who gives a stuff about it? It's such a minor thing to consider in the scheme of things, compared to their commitment to wipe out the club debt, build new training facilities and potentially in time increase the capacity of the ground.

"Well duh". Good adult reasoned response there. Bloody hell. As I've previously said; I don't particularly agree with what they're doing. But you've listed 3 things that they've changed (colours, badge, nickname) as being totally unacceptable; yet when Leeds did that with two things (badge and colours) that was fine? So its the just the changing of the nickname you have a problem with? Even the image of the bluebird appears on their new badge. Sunderland changed their nickname when they moved to the Stadium of Light, they no longer wanted to be called the Rokermen. Different reasons for changing, but their fans got over it as they realised it was a new future for them. I'm sure Cardiff fans will do the same. The head of one of their supporters groups doesn't seem enormously up in arms about it: To repeat myself from earlier; its not an ideal thing to do, but its hardly the end of the world.

Notwithstanding the fact this point has already been made, I feel the epic fail of the pictures selected gives your point extra gravitas.

Football365 Mediawatch's take on it Not The End Of The World Of course, there are plenty of people getting into an awful tizz over this trampling on the traditions of Cardiff by this change. However, while Cardiff's owners have changed colours because they think it will earn them more Asian coin, we should probably point out that this sort of thing is as old as time. Chelsea changed from light blue to royal blue 100 years ago, Leeds changed from yellow to all white in the 1960s because Don Revie wanted to look like Real Madrid, Coventry switched to sky blue in the early sixties, Malcolm Allison altered Crystal Palace's colours and team badge in 1973...we could go on. In short, it's hardly ideal, but not the end of the world.

Take the hint and do what? Rip up his contract? Of course he's going to keep doing what he's doing with us. As little opportunity as he's getting with us, his biggest chance of staying in professional employment beyond this contract is to have the status of being affiliated with us; it may hold some sway with a lower league club. He proved he wasn't even good enough for the non-league sides he went on loan to, so there's every possibility that when he leaves us it will be his last pro contract in the game, and he'll have to retrain and find something else to do. If I were him I'd absolutely take the money while I could, he'd be a complete idiot not to.

Something to bear in mind; a blind person wishing to come to a game has (presumably) to be accompanied by an enabler. I think all the club have done is bring all disabilities into line; all disabled tickets come with a free enabler ticket. Besides, according to the club, they held discussions with the Saints Disabled Supporters Association before making the changes. http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/DisabledFans And radios and headsets are provided for all blind fans, so its right that that service should be paid for.

Of course, us switching to blue would be an awful thought. However, Cardiff don't have rivals who play in red. Their national team play in red; the red dragon in the new badge actually made up a part of the old badge. Its a re-branding, for sure, but not an eradication of their history.

True; but the aim of these guys at Cardiff is to do the same. Its a controversial way of going about it, I admit, but again not without precedent. After all Leeds' success with revie they changed their badge a further 2 or 3 times, so that's hardly steeped in history. We invented a whole new badge for ourselves, not all that far short of 100 years into existence. Cardiff are taking it an extra step forward by doing what they're doing. But give it 2 or 3 years and this whole thing will be completely forgotten by 99% of the football supporting public, and if it massively increases their revenues then it will have been worth it.

Whereas Cardiff have had a rich tapestry of success and history?

That's true enough, but there is a monumental difference between not liking a player because you don't quite understand/appreciate everything he does, or not liking him because you're a racist and the colour of his skin clouds your view.

There'll be some mocking of the decision in the short term. But the end of the day no-one really gives enough of a stuff about Cardiff for it to make much difference. What's more shocking is that they couldn't do any better with the design of a new badge than getting a 12 year old with MS Paint to draw it. As for "Fire and Passion", that's pretty cringeworthy too. Poor idea, but absolutely horrific execution.

I don't see a massive amount of difference, to be honest. As I said I don't particularly agree with it, and if I were a Saints fan and it happened to us I'd be against it. But in the general scheme of things its hardly like "selling your soul to the devil" or "ripping the heart out of the club" (which, to be fair, was my initial reaction until I actually thought about it a bit). The new badge plays on the pride of being a Welsh club with the iconic dragon, plus a reference to the bluebird, so it is still relevant to Cardiff as a club. Leeds change of logo and particularly change of kit was initiated by Don Revie, as he saw it as a way to gain a competitive advantage on the pitch. Cardiff are re-branding in an attempt to increase their revenues to plough into the club and therefore gain a competitive advantage on the pitch.

I can't help feeling there's a bit of an overreaction to this. I don't particularly agree with what they've done, but its hardly without pervious precedent. Leeds United for example. They've changed their badge a number of times (as recently as the 1990s), the image below shows the changes made since the first change in the 1960s. Leeds also traditionally used to play in blue and yellow, before don Revie changed all that with an all-white kit (and the blue/yellow remained for the away kit, which Cardiff have also done).

I'd suggest the chairman should be trying to drum up support a little closer to home before taking such significant measures which could alienate the current customer base in chasing a target market thousands of miles away.

Or, alternatively, John Cunningham could have rung the Echo himself to make them aware of it? "Another chance for the Echo to have a go". Why is there such a paranoid reaction to everything the Echo (and other media outlets for that fact) report on concerning Saints. Every positive article is shown as an example of what a great club we are, negative articles are seen as that media outlet having an anti-Saints agenda. And in the past couple of years you'll struggle to find a local paper that has shown more support of the local team, in spite of the fact that the club has operated a complete media shut-out to them, banned them from the ground and refused any co-operation whatsoever. This news story is fair comment; a previous concession has been removed without (it would seem0 much prior warning. The club are IMO right to do what they've done, the Echo are also right to have delivered their news report on it.

Check this forum every summer and you'll get the usual array of nutcases suggesting our season is f*cked because we haven't signed half a new team before the end of June.

Yep, could be that of course. We'll see soon enough, I guess.

Oh right. I can't recall our OS ever using female models before. And certainly not to launch the kit. Funnily enough its always been a selection of players chosen. Not saying they wouldn't use a female model; they may have a new range of ladies wear. In any case, I still think its possible she didn't know what she was actually modelling.

This whole "red with pinstripes" thing; is there any chance that what has been seen so far is just a training top, and the actual shirt is being kept well under wraps? Seems like a lot of the speculation has come from this female model, who didn't really seem to have much of a clue what she was looking at apart from the basic design. And I'd have thought that any model who has seen the kit would have to sign an NDA if the club were keeping the design under wraps. And in any case, why are they using a female to model a new kit? Very odd. Just putting it out there.

I don't even understand what's being argued here.