Micky

Err - I beg to differ, -9 now methinks...!

Dont know whether this link has been posted elsewhere, and would imagine that most have seen the game, but for the odd one or two who still haven't - 5 minutes from the Sky Sports site here: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid29318049001?bctid=32771067001 Enjoy...!

I think you need to edit this one again - believe me, this is no time to be exiting, things are looking up and the season is going to be exciting - honest...!

Good advice. That said, only a couple of weeks ago I was looking at our Squad list on the Sky Sports site and it still included Safri...!! It definately wasn't a cached page, but it has been amended now - damn sloppy web maintainers, hate 'em...!

Good news, good news indeed...!

About the worst peice of ITK info I have read for years - the lad is head and shoulders above this league. If Arsenal were going to load him out Man U would be in for him.. he's that good...!

What do I make of it, simple - Dr Silly Man's fax is fooked...!

Correct it is - would enhance it no end.... ...any better..??

CL, thank you very much for reflecting and considering your original comments, I think that it is important that we don’t taint our current Board & Management with wholly unfounded accusations. If you really wish to debate the issue of where the ‘information’ came from, then I might agree with you in that it is likely that if could have originated from within the club. That said it does not make it official information, i.e. information that has been screened and agreed for dissemination to the public at large. Information emanates from many different unofficial sources within any business organisation, and not all of these sources are creditable because they invariably do not know the ‘full story’. The information may well have come from the club, but it has come via ‘an office temp’, ‘the cleaner’, ‘a junior scholar’ or the like who has made a casual remark to friend or family, which then gets passed on and pretty soon we have the snowball effect. So you see – I agree, in principle that the information could have originated at source from the Club, but the fact remains that nobody sanctioned, vetted or agreed that the information should be put into the public domain. There is a world of difference between ‘Official’ and ‘Unofficial’ sources, and it can make a world of difference to the information too.

Not that I really want to go there, but that comment might intimate (to some) that you could know some hot dead ones too...!!! :confused:

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.