The Kraken

Pat, what are you on about? Dave Watson has never worked for Manchester City. He coached Joe Hart while he was at Birmingham (and will do now for England), and he obviously coaches Jack Butland at Brum when he's not out on loan. Other than Joe Hart being a City player, Man City will have no imfluence over Butland at the Euros.

Once again; I'm not saying I agree with what Cardiff are doing. I'd probably be kicking up a stink if Saints did it. But, from a neutral point of view, I can kind of see why they are: - they are supposed to be £70M in debt. - they are supposed to be losing up to £1M a month. - the new investment will look to turn the debt into equity and invest in the training ground and potentially stadium. You mention Leeds did their changes under Revie as evolution; I really don't see much different to this. The change of nickname is just one step further than that. Cardiff want to improve their club on and off the pitch, and they think this way is the best way to do it. The standard reaction is: "imagine if Saints were being made to play in blue, I'd never put up with it". But it's not really a valid comparison. A lot of Cardiff fans will already be used to wearing red, as its their national colour. It's more of a comparison to expect Saints to start wearing a white kit; which we pretty much did a couple of years ago with minimal fuss (and for which I've heard plenty of people say they would like to see us wearing the sash as a full time first team kit). Cardiff fans will be used to the dragon on the new badge, as its the same dragon that was on their old badge (albeit now more prominent) and it is a national emblem. The renaming of "The Bluebirds" to "The Dragons"; that's probably the worst part of it. Although I imagine the club's supporters will keep calling themselves Bluebirds and keeping the chant going, so informally I don't expect that to take off any time soon, although gradually (non Cardiff supporting) people will get used to the new references to "The Dragons" in the media and on TV.

I think SFC's approach to disabled tickets is actually very good. 1 disabled ticket (which is at the lowest rate) also includes 1 free enabler ticket; so, take a mate, split the cost and each pay half price for a ticket. For visually impaired, radios and headsets are included in the ticket price. There is specially designed areas for 168 wheelchair spaces in the stadium. There is an additional 88 seats for ambulant disabled (i.e. still regiastered disabled but can walk). There are designated stewards who will help with getting refreshments etc for disabled supporters who come without an enabler. That's all just in the home end, the away end has the same facilities but obviously on a smaller scale. So I think any criticism of the club in this area is harsh. http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/DisabledFans/0,,10280,00.html

Personally I'm more worried about all the other targets we've clearly missed out on after going on this wild goose chase for so long.

Yep, except for the fact that Dave Watson works for Birmingham City.

Absolutely brilliant. He starts this thread prior to one of Saints' best starts ever in a league campaign. Kind of sums it up really. For the record: we signed Jack Cork on 11th July, Steve de Ridder on 22nd July, Danny Fox on 11th August and Jos Hooiveld on 31st August.

Pilgrim House for Chinese is supposed to be excellent; although I have never been so I cannot personally verify this.

Again, I can't be certain either way, but its a theory that was put forward, and we'll soon see.

I haven't been able to find any information on it, so I'm speculating either way. However, my understanding is that it came out shortly before PFC went into administration that the stage payments were NOT a contractual requirement of the CVA. It was only the final date of April 2015 that meant anything. Like I say I have nothing to back that up, but that's the way I've understood it for a while. As for Baker Tilley being the liquidators and therefore are the unsecured creditor for the £16.5M, again I'm not so certain of that either! I've heard argument that if the CVA gets renegotiated then the original administrator (UHY) is in control of it, and therefore retains the voting rights. That's just a theory I've seen put out there; I guess we'll find out either way on all of this soon enough.

No it didn't. You simply cannot 100% guarantee that a new owner won't yet come in a repay all of the debt. Until a new CVA is drafted that also encompasses the debts owed by CVA-1, the original CVA has not yet failed.

Yeah, I know that's where it came from. My point was, I'm sure there was discussion that showed that although those stage payments were listed in the CVA document they were not actually set in stone. I'm sure that before going into administration PFC were already talking about delaying the CVA repayments, without penalty. There is a clause in that document, on page 9, which states that Newco will be given 4 years and 3 months to pay the outstanding consideration into the liquidation; and that, from memory, was the line that confirmed that the percentage stage payments were not actually a contractual requirement of the CVA, it was only final figure in 2015 that mattered.

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.