SaintBobby

Without wishing to sound too harsh, any bid involving Jackson can safely be written off as a fantasy. If he has any involvement in bid#1 then I favour bid#2, even if this is a consortium of Lowe, Hitler, Davros and Osama bin Laden.

This is fair enough from Badvoc IMHO. The key test for me on whether someone is actually ITK is the specificity/non-specificity of the information they provide. For example, I can imagine someone meeting a mate, who works at St. Mary's, down the pub and the Saints employee saying something like "I bumped into Mark Fry today, he's looking much more chipper than last week. I asked him if we had a buyer and he said "Can't say much, but fingers crossed, they'll be some good news by the end of the week". Such an anecdote has a ring of, if not truth, then at least plausibility about it. Someone who says "I have been told there is a press conference scheduled for 2.00pm" is almost certainly talking total tosh. It's highly unlikely that anyone working at SMS would know this before the press office did and the info is just too specific. What's even more annoying is the "don't shoot the messenger" argument when very specific pieces of information are concerned. Even if you are willing to suspend disbelief and assume that the poster has been told this and accepted it in good faith, why on Earth would the Saints staff member make it up???? It's just not plausible. None of the ITK posters ever seem to go back to their "sources" and ask them why their information was so completely wrong. So, I think those posting very specific supposedly ITK info which turns out to be false should be banned from the forum, unless they can find an utterly convincing explanation for how they got it so wrong.

What we know for sure is that there isn't and wasn't a press conference scheduled for 2pm. The original poster was talking b*ll****. If it turns out there is still a press conference today, it would be a luky guess, but there is no way it wouldn't be public knowledge by now if there was a 2pm start. As someone who works with press and media, you need to give AT least two hours notice just to get cameras set up etc., and probably much more if (a) the press conference is in Southampton rather than London and (b) you actually want to get some coverage for it. I do tend to agree there should be infractions/bans for those who post stuff which turns out to be total nonsense.

If there really is a press conference, then I'm a bit more optimistic than Ken. If Mark Fry merely wanted to issue a non-conclusive statement, he could do this without a press conference - especially if he is unable to answer any questions that go beyond the statement.

Not in League One we haven't. My point is that he may very well have the wrong attitude for the state the club is in. As others have pointed out though, this really is a totally hypothetical discussion. You may as well ask something like "If we could get in a TARDIS and bring a 32-year old Matt Le Tissier forward in time to 2009, would you pay him £10,000 a week to play for us even if you knew he was only going to be fit to play 8 full games and make 6 sub appearances?" It's just not going to happen.

Really tricky one this. You're right that the fans are always the innocent victims. But there does need to be some penalty in place to stop financial mismanagement. And it's hard for the football authorities to go after the money men. I would, however, like to have an FA rule that any and all board members of a club that goes into admin are all automatically barred for life from further football involvement at board level - for life - on a "fit and proper person" test.

Just a note on press conferences - if they are called they are not secret. A calling notice will be issued by the club's press office. Even Saints don't hold press conferences in secret! 99% of the ITK stuff on here turns out to be bullsh*t, but with regard to a press conference, you don't need to be ITK. Just ask the club's press office if it's true. Not saying it isn't true, by the way, just that it's easily verifiable one way or another.

I don't think my statement is in the least bit odd. Neither do I remotely agree that he's "the one player you can categorically say has performed for us". Being "up for it" in League One is going to be (a) very important and (b) very different to being "up for it" in a push for the CCC play-offs. I doubt Rasiak clears this hurdle. At least, I'm not confident enough that he does to support spending £10K a week on his salary, even if we had the cash to do so.

Rasiak would theoretically be excellent in League One, but a worry would be is he "up for it". It isn't a question of whether players are good on paper, but whether they can perform on grass. What I wouldn't want, even if we had the money, would be a bunch of thirty-somethings enjoying being on a £500K year sinecure and lapping up a couple of years' retirement on the south coast. My fear is - whatever his natural talents and stats on Championship Manager - that Rasiak would fit into squarely into this "I can't be arsed" category.

I think it's good news that most of the players want to stay, although we'd certainly need to rationalise Euell's and BW-P's wages. I'm not as down as some on the qualities of our playing staff. I think the raw skill is there, although there have been some exampels of serious attitude problems. With the right preparation, motivation and management, a team that got 45 points in the CCC, should manage 80+ points in League One. I think Euell might be a good centre-forward at L1 level. I'd also say that he never seemed to lack commitment. A line-up of: Davis James Saeijs Perry Surman Lallana Gillett Wotton Holmes McGoldrick Euell subs: Forecast, Mills, Paterson, Lancashire, White looks bloody good for a third tier team IMHO

Reading Jeremy Wilson's Telegraph piece and listenign to Mark Fry, I do have some confidence that we might be able to rescind the 10-point penalty. Another question for knowledgeable forum members, though: Aren't there some practical (even contractual) barriers to Saints seeking legal redress through the law courts? I seem to recall that many sports have arrangements set up to prevent/penalise/deter recourse to the law. If we appeal to the stuffed suits of the FL, I give us a snowball's chance in hell. If we get in front of a court, our chances must be measurably enhanced.

This was an idea I sent to David Luker, and got a fairly positive reply: Dear David, I wanted to drop you a short note about next season’s ticket prices. I know the whole future of the club remains very uncertain and my thanks go to you and our other staff for continuing to do such an excellent job in such trying circumstances. My thinking for League One, runs something like this: There’s a loyal base of maybe 10,000 fans and if the prices are relatively high, they will be rattling around in a largely empty stadium. Cutting ticket prices to, say, £10 a game might mean high attendances but would mean the “hard core” are spending much LESS on tickets than they are otherwise willing to (I’m probably willing to pay £500 for a season ticket even in League One – but obviously wouldn’t just hand over extra money for the sake of it if the listed price is, say, £250) Because of the club’s diminished league status and the wider prevailing economic environment, the corporate suites are likely to have considerable spare capacity next season. My solution would be to issue “gold season tickets” in addition to standard season tickets. These would retail at about twice the price – say c.£500 rather than c. £250. The principal benefit of “gold membership” would be that for a certain number of games per-season (say, four or five), you could upgrade to the Mike Channon - or one of the other - hospitality suites. The marginal cost to the club of using this spare capacity must be pretty minimal (I’m assuming an average spare capacity of about 200 seats in corporate per game). If, say, 1,000 fans were willing to take out gold membership, this would increase revenues by £250,000 next season. There could be other possible benefits of gold membership too – for example: Advance booking of away tickets (this might be very valuable in League One, given the very limited capacity of many of the stadia – but again costs the club nothing). List of gold members printed in the first programme of the season Special access to other benefits – a “meet the players evening”, chances to win a signed ball/shirt etc. I know you have more immediate worries to concentrate on, but would appreciate any thoughts you may have. With all best wishes,

Interesting on the Wessex league - what tier is that? Equivalent of division 9 or 10 or something? Maybe I over-stated the likelihood or promotion from L2 (or chances of relegation from L1) in my original post. But clearly, at some point, the balance tips to being better off in a lower division. -20? -30? -40?

Sure, but the problem is that the points deduction and your likelihood to do well are not independent events. If you're starting on, say -30 points, this indicates: 1. You're almost certainly financially screwed, so are unlikely to have a "top 6" team in terms on quality on the pitch. 2. Notwithstanding your finances, you're going to find it hard to attract/retain any decent players, as they will know at the outset that promotion is basically impossible and relegation is pretty damned likely.

As I say, I don't know what the rules are. But I think they should provide for choice. Forcing a club, hypothetically, to start the season on -100 points is worse than relegatign them down to the next division.

What lottery numbers are you picking this week, delldays? I'll make a point of avoiding them.

I think there is precedent for this, when Swindon were knocked down a league after having been had up for irregular betting. I think their place went to the play-off runners-up. Presumably, if we did start in League 2, a relegated team would be spared or the play-off runners-up promoted to League 1. Other examples include teams being denied promotion because their stadium doesn't pass muster. I don't think it's always best to fight it out in the highest league you can. Not sure where the cut-off is, but at a starting point of -30, relegation is almost unavoidable.

Didn't the League accuse SLH of hindering their enquiries?

I think there was some serious rumour that we'd approached Blue Square as a plan B, or did I get that totally wrong?

Superb article. Really highlights the problems in football finances. The equalisation formula in US sports sits in stark contrast to the tedium and unhealthiness of the "big four" in British football. How many different teams have won the baseball World Series in the last fifteen years? The real problem is that the whole economy of football is now club-based. Major decisions are therefore made based on the narrow interests of Man Utd, Chelsea etc., rather than in the wider interests of the sport. Everyone's focused on trying to maximise their slice of the pie rather than actually trying to grow the pie. Formula 1 has many faults, but at least it has changed its rules and format to make it genuinely competitive. Football must do the same.

Assuming all goes well, we start in League One next season at -10. If things go very well and we win the appeal, we may even start at zero. But - heaven forbid - if for some reason further points penalties apply and we have to start at -17 or even -30 points, is there any circumstance in which Saints could opt to start in League 2 with a clean sheet? Personally, I think I'd prefer to start in League 2 at zero than League 1 at -17 or worse. In the latter scenario, we have mid-table mediocrity as the height of our ambition and quite possibly face relegation. In the former scenario, we probably win the division and almost certainly get promoted (given the 4 up, 4 down situation). So we'd start 2010-11 in League 1 on an "up" rather than in League 2 on a "down" Anyone know the rules? (I assume there's a rule against - as I'd have guessed Luton would have preferred to play in Blue Square at 0 rather than League 2 at -30 this season).

GM, what is you're understanding of the circumstances in which the Saints players and/or their registration with SFC become worthless as assets? I don't profess to know the detail, but believe Clapham Saint is basically right. If SLH is smashed up - and its assets effectively put under the hammer at auction - I don't believe this would include ANY of the players. My understanding is that they would be released form their contracts and become free agents - but even if they didn't, they are hardly assets which can just be flogged off to the highest bidder (in the way that Jacksons Farm or Staplewood would be). If....to develop the McGoldrick example...Notts Forest offer £500,000 for him and Swansea offer three quid, but DMcG himself says he is not willing to play for Notts Forest, well then, we only get three quid for him. We can't force players to go to the highest bidder. Even assuming that the players would remain assets of the club/company (which I doubt), their value would be virtually zero.

I do find some of the reactions on here amusing - not picking on matron's message here particularly. The most side-splitting are those imploring fellow posters to "calm down for a few days", "sit back and wait for more news etc". It's almost as if some people think or believe that members of this forum are in some way relevant to the present processes of finding a new owner. If Mark Fry and others involved in the ACTUAL PROCESS are throwing tantrums, making threats, spreading smears or leaping to conclusions on threadbare information, I'd be worried. If posters do that on here, it really doesn't matter a jot. I take the same view of people "spinning"...derry, it really doesn't matter. The decision is not some form of online poll of Saints fans, it's a hard-haeded business decision made by Mark Fry. You really don't need to "draw lines in the sand". That really is pompous and self-important. This isn't the bloody Alamo FFS.

He's been disappointing. But nowhere close to our worse ever signing.

I agree. Kind of strange (and flattering) that we have had so much more coverage than Charlton and Norwich.