Micky

This has just got to be the most NOTITK post that I have ever read...! We are going to make a new signing (shortly), don't know who! Given that in the grand scheme of the universe the term shortly could actually transcend a few thousand years, I would hope that we do make some bloody signings...!

CL, did you really go to the trouble of doing all of this for me – I’m really flattered, honestly. It is a shame though that you have trawled this thread for support, yet totally missed our original disagreement. Let me make this easy for you – I agree with you. How’s that – feel better? Listen, it has absolutely nothing to do with a Work Permit. The player has failed the medical and he wants far too much money and can’t agree personal terms – the club is now not willing to negotiate further. There – we agree. (Well I don’t – but for pacification purposes, I’ll cede) The problem is though, that this, was not our original disagreement – was it? The original disagreement was because you intimated and suggested that the club had lied to you (us), by reporting that it was a WP issue. At that time, the club had made no official announcement about the player whatsoever. I think that if you check, you will find that this ‘reason’ was reported by the Echo – not the club. I haven’t been about much this morning or checked the media – but as far as I am aware, the only official news emanating from SFC about this deal, from AP, is that there is a problem and they are still pursuing it. Therefore, for the last time – the club did not and has not lied to you (us). No, they haven’t given you any specific reason as to why the deal is not done, or the problems that exist – but they have not been dishonest either. So there you go – debate the ‘original point, and I’ll maintain my stance – but thanks for your efforts. Unfortunately for some, it appears to be the new way business is now conducted at SMS, quietly, confidentially and professionally. Gone are the days when ‘club or board personalities’ might decide to pop up on web sites such as this to ‘gauge the reaction’ or even attempt to ‘further their own agenda’. It was hoped that with the successful takeover, gone would be the disunion between the fans and gone would be the conspiracy theories and threads – alas, without a ball yet kicked, that appears not to be the case. Me, a ‘Happy Clappy’ as you so eloquently put it – probably not actually. But I do not have so short a memory as to forget where we were only 2 – 3 months ago, for me, ‘The futures bright – the future is (Swiss) red & white’.

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.