Micky

Well I hope that it all works out for you, the more success we have amongst South Coast clubs the better. That said, even after you have off loaded all your 'GTX Supercharged' squad, you'll still have a few 'old bangers' that you can chug around that 'parking lot' of yours..! Good luck for the season.

Not exactly the preverbial 'fox in the box' is he, flatters to decieve or in laymans terms, looks bright, plays shyte. Whats the current word on the street down there ref the Dr., is he coming or going...?

Ahhhh yes Bert - but this is considered 'managable debt'. In other words they are living within thier means because they are guaranteed revenue from Sky, Sponsorship and thier 'sugar daddies'. Because of this banks will also afford them silly overdraft facilities. The problem arises once they are relegated from the Premiership (ala Newcastle United), they get less Sky money and hence less Sponsorship money (ala Newcastle United), or when thier 'sugar daddy' wants out (ohhh ala Newcastle United again...!). At this point - the debt becomes unmanagable and reality kicks in. Many Premiership clubs have been 'gifted' money by thier benefactors in the form of 'interest free loans' - god help any of them should they wish to walk away from the club with that money repaid.

I would imagine that the club would consider: a. Do we think an appeal would be successful ? b. Can we complete the appeal process relatively quickly ? c. Is the player a lot better than any alternatives that we have lined up ? If the answer to those questions are yes then I would expect us to appeal.

Unfortunately no..! I am no Legal Eagle - but Phils measures (above) would go some way to making those in the boardroom act with a little more due diligence to finances as opposed to 'gambling for success'. I'm not saying that it's the perfect solution - but if individuals were made more accountable for thier management decissions in the boardroom (as pitchside managers are subjected to), and a few of them got the bullet - then perhaps clubs would be encouraged to run a tighter ship.

As do I. But the point that I was making is that the punishment should fit the crime. If a club deliberately sets out to achieve administration in order to 'clear the decks' then they deserve to be penalised. However, as in our case, where we took reasonable measures to try to avoid administration and remain solvent by playing youth players, loaning out experience and reducing the wage bill, then this should be considered before punishment is decided. I just feel that the Football League should be trying to maintain the confidence of it's membership - not looking to offload every club that finds itself in difficult circumstances.

This was actually news to me: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/2573471/Antti-Niemi-set-to-sign-for-Portsmouth.html Not the 'Anti in' bit but the 'James out' bit - bad news if true...

Well said that man.

Quite funny, but actually, this was news to me: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/2573471/Antti-Niemi-set-to-sign-for-Portsmouth.html Not the 'Anti in' bit but the 'James out' bit - more bad news for them if true. P.S. You do know that this is very likely to end up in the Lounge - doncha...!!!

So he failed his medical, then (allegedly) went to meet the players, and then (allegedly) trained with the players, and the club then lies about the reason as to why he has not signed on his agents say so. Somebody - please remind me - what day is it...?

Gotta laugh...!

I would agree totally. It seems quite inappropriate that clubs that go into administration are penalised in this way - they need assistance from the governing bodies, surely - not a kick in the bollux. No club sets out to achieve administration - it is a consequence of a series of events that lead to such things. As I understand it, Luton were docked points as well for 'financial irregularities' as well, but even with those charges levelled against them - surely they do not deserve to be hounded from the league. I think the powers that be should remember the fans part in all of this too - we are the life blood of the club. Do we deserve to be punished by the league because our Board were incapable of running a business as a going concern - I think not. Yes there should be penalties for administration - but those penalties should be weighed against the sequence of events that caused the club to go under and not just meted out as a 'one punishment fits all' system.

I think ESB has probably got the OS and Local BBC News confused there to be honest. There is nothing on the OS that I can see.

Perhaps Tac-tics can throw a little more light on the situation...???

Sorry, what wording? Link?

Relax, it could have been much worse....

Ahhh the nub of the problem - it is far to easy to get behind Olly Lancashire....

Sadley no - Thomas the fookin' Tank Engine...!

My original comment was tongue in cheek I can assure you. But your point about why was the question of a work permit was not addressed at the initial stages of negotiations is a very good one. Who knows, perhaps it was and it was percieved that there wouldn't be a problem. If, on the other hand, this problem has only just come to light - you would have to question the negotiation & agreement process.

With all due respect, go back 1 month, we were hovering on the edge of a precipice, could have been bought by LLS, endured the Pinnacle debacle and finally survived courtesy of Mr Liebherr. So I think that most have woken up and taken a good long sniff of that debt free air - and are probably quite happy with thier lot right now. Evidently our new owner is not short of personal funds, but that does not mean that he does not expect to run the club with prudency. From what I understand he currenly runs at least 5 large successful business ventures. The sooner we all understand that SFC is no different to his other businesses the easier it will be to throw off the 'sugar daddie' syndrome. Last month he invested about £14M into our club - lets give him a few months to 'flash the cash' again eh?

No, not really you can't. If that were an excuse for being paranoid then all Saints fans would be so, as we have all suffered exactly the same emotions as you, but paranoid - clearly we are all not.

You've entirely missed the point Phil - this is not about a work permit - it's because he wants more money...! ....and in your own works: Whoosh - didn't see that one coming... did ya..?

Yeah, very good - I note that you didn't quote the complete post and you only have one relevant word...! Surely not trying to distance yourself from your words are you? Tell you what - I'll help you out with a few relevant words from your post, perhaps then you might see why I (and others) thought that you suspected some sort of conspiracy theory, as opposed to a simple case of a work permit problem.

And once again you spectacularly miss the point again...! Whether you really believe that your 3rd party information eminates from the club is irrelevant - the fact remains that it is not an official explanation. All that has happened here is that the player has been refused a work permit - we may yet appeal and win. So why not wait and see, give the club a chance to respond officially before you throw your conspiracy theories into the mix?

You appear to be doing a very good impression of the preverbial Italian Tank. What your actually suggesting now is that everything that we read in the press is as a result of the club leaking information to them..! If there is anybody else who would like to subscribe to this bizarre theory then I'd be amazed. How many times have you read stories in the press that don't come true? Ill let you read your own words yourself, you wrote them, but you appear to want to distance yourself from them now - go on, have a gander. So you have not intimated at all here that you think the club is lying to you... no?