Flyer

Hes a bitter Norwich fan, he will write anything to try and destabilise teams in their division. Expect some more crap in the couple of weeks leading up to the Saints Norwich games. Its pretty sad he lowers himself to that level but then again, he is a mail writer.

2. Lakshmi Mittal and family (QPR) 12.5 billion Add £2b for Bernie and £200m for Flav although Bernies divorce might have cost him something. In reality, having rich owners only means security, not having a rich club and splashing out on multi million pound transfers every week.

Why would Aviva write that much off when theres a billionaire owner who can pay them back at full price? It might happen but it makes no sense to me.

Or use a firefox plug in that has auto refresh so you can save yourself an RSI injury.

We have the worlds richest man, the person who runs F1 and Flav who turned around benetton and renault F1. Running other business well doesnt mean they will know how to run a football club as the lot above has proved. 20k on 2 chandeliers but little investment in the team is not a good way to get the fans on your side.

Theyre trying to make the club self sufficient so if they walk away, there will be a future. I would hate to be run like Chelsea, owe hundreds of millions in loans and the club will be bankrupt when the owner gets fed up. As for the season tickets, they arent too bad now.

The opportunity to appeal to the FL is over but Saints could launch legal action, legal action that could mess up the entire L1 season. Its completely legitimate for the FL to not want this to happen, its not a witch hunt and the FL arent sitting at home rubbing their hands together saying "excellent" Mr Burns style. Everything thats come out has pointed to the pinnacle group being complete jokers and it being entirely their fault.

Saints had the right to appeal within 7 days of the judgement. They didnt. The FL are only asking Saints to sign a waiver saying they will not sue or take any other action just like theyve done with all the other clubs. Would you let anyone into your private club if they were going to sue you or would you make sure they couldnt do that before you allowed them in?

My logic says perhaps the buyers havent got £14m. So the club sells a couple of players with the consent of the potential buyers and £12m is paid for the club. The creditors still get their £14m but the buyers dont pay as much and dont have the bad publicity of having a fire sale right after they take over.

But they got someone else to pay for it. Thats when I knew they were tyre kickers. If they were serious, they would have put up their own money.

The league had the same stance with other teams. Quote from the BBC. "Last summer, the League refused to allow Rotherham, Bournemouth and Luton to begin the season unless they accepted points deductions following spells in administration. " Its not the leagues fault. Its standard policy that should have been known to bidders weeks ago.

The Sunday mirror has surman to QPR for a knock down 400k. http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/2009/06/28/sur-fire-saints-sale-115875-21477346/

Saints should have gone into admin months earlier. All points deductions would have been applied last season, so there would be more interest in buying a club starting on 0 points and there would have been more time to sort out a takeover, player contracts etc before the money runs out. Its not admin thats the bad thing, its the fact it was left so late in the season.

75% of the creditors need to agree that football debts will be 100% paid 1st. The tax man will never vote yes so if 25% of the debt or more is to the tax man, its another -15 unless 100% of the debt is paid off. Rumours are going round that Lallana is going to QPR, the friendly at LR was part of the deal and thats why Parma were turned down for Saints.

Yes but if the deal went through last week, the odds are the tax man wouldnt make up 25% of the amount owed so they wouldnt be able to veto the CVA. The longer it goes on, the more the taxman will be owed, the bigger the chance of the extra -15. All that over an appeal right he said he wasnt going to use. So hes going from a guaranteed -10 to a guaranteed -10 plus a probable -15 by delaying. He should have alos known they were going to ask him to waive the right of appeal, I and many others on here knew they would do that, its been done with Leeds and others before. Hes trying to say its a surprise the league sprung on him when its anything but that, he was stupid for expecting the rules applied to Leeds not to apply to him.

It doesnt add up to me either, hes holding it up on a really minor technicality, perhaps so much now theres a risk of an extra -15 points. He came off really badly on screen. If he was serious, he would have jumped at the -10 before anyone else could buy the coub and before the staff and tax man didnt get paid and thus risk an extra -15 points. He seems to be really badly advised too, just like Lowe was by his lawyers who didnt think the -10 would be applicable. Why is the sticking point the right of appeal if he isnt going to appeal anyway?

Actually, Wycombe away is the toughest, I thought they were in L2. We turned down Parma to have this fixture, believe it or not. I think Lowe must secretly be our chairman now.

Not quite, they are £440 to £585 now. You might well be right, we are having a credit card system installed and this will be the 1st and only test before the season starts. We had to get a home game in against someone but this is the 1st time ever Ive seen a team at home to a lower league side. Believe it or not, Saints are the best team we will face in pre season!

The FA are worse at running things than the FL. The Tevez affair, not relegating WHU, then Sheff U suing. This is exactly what the FL is trying to stop in denying the right of appeal. Saints could win an appeal, stay up by 5 points and then the 4th from bottom club could sue the FL for them not following the previous application of the rules.

Derby "got away with it" because they were in admin before the -10 points rule was bought in.

In Saints case, winning is still worse than accepting the -10 or even -25 if it means 2 seasons not playing in the FL.

No but it will stop them taking off a -15 if anything was owed to the taxman.

Would you be happy for Saints to be excluded from the league and maybe have to start in the wessex league if they lose? What happens if the case drags on past the end of the season and Saints would be in the playoffs without the 10 points but mid table with them? They have to do it, it would be a farce otherwise. Would you personally go to a court case even if you were sure you were going to win when you could just win it anyway by making the other party agree not to take it to court? No one in their right mind would do that.

Read the FL rules, they can deduct 10 points for anything akin to a club going into admin. This clearly applies to Saints. People are arguing that Saints should get off on a technicality when the rules are totally clear and have been applied correctly.

Leeds didnt, they had to sign away their appeal rights to be accepted into the league just like Saints will have too.