derry

I'm not leaking information it came from a media source but too late for today's paper. I understand the fee is circa £500k.

If you have clicked on a sum on here then it is registered on this thread.

Let me clarify the situation. The original SOS group was started by Mike Fenner about three months ago and have a website www.saveoursaints.info which isn't up to taking pledges. I started the thread on here and was amazed at the support and contacted the administrator, who asked that we carry on as a backstop in case there was no buyer. He then put the SOS group in touch with me, we met and decided to join up and go public. Steve Grant set up the www.saintsweb.co.uk/saveoursaints section to take the public pledges. The reason for the two pledge sections being kept live and separate is so that we can measure the public interest rather than the site members pledging twice which would then give us a distorted idea of the public support. The OS/club's initiative is them using the words 'save our saints' for their cash appeal to keep themselves going in the short term. These are two separate things with different aims. Our group was there first but who would deny the club using the same words to raise funds, after all they are the saints. I have heard this morning that the Dyer permanent transfer and fee has been agreed with Swansea and although the fee won't be paid until the window opens the guarantee underwrites the immediate future with the bank.

I understand that agreement has been reached with Swansea that Nathan Dyer will join them on a permanent transfer when the summer transfer window opens. The agreed fee is not being paid until the transfer but underwrites the club's present position with the bank, and I believe definitely keeps the club from administration this season. Don't ask the source.

We are trying to set up a fallback emergency position with the necessary mechanisms in place should the administrator indicate that he can't find an acceptable buyer we would initially try and buy time, then either appeal for funds to try and save the club or assist a worthwhile bid that had otherwise failed to purchase the club. I have just found out today that Exeter City is owned by the fans, they are doing pretty well by all acounts. I have been given the mobile number of the vice chairman who has indicated he is happy to help in any way he can if we have to go down that road.

The Administrator of SLH doesn't see or control donations to SFC. Any donations go into the solvent SFC to try and help to avoid administration and buy time to get a buyer in and the deal completed before the SFC collapses.

Thanks Mark;)

You just don't get it. The initiative involving pledges which is the only initiative on this site is not putting a penny into anybody's pocket. It is measureing whether there is enough support to possibly save the club in the event of imminent liquidation. At the same time cutting the corners so it is possible to act quickly. It is a last resort initiative. I actually think that whatever we do, if somebody doesn't buy the club and it's assets, as there are more apathetic debaters than people that will donate, the club is finished whatever we try to do. Maybe if you read more and debated less you would grasp what we are trying to do.

Mark, this is a mistake. Leave the initial pledges as they are, If it becomes necessary we will request the pledgees on here to donate to the secure bank account. If any from here start pledging on the other site, we won't have a clue where we are. The other site is an indication of public fan support. Doing what you are proposing will leave us not knowing whether all we have is the support of our membership and little public support. The total is the two sites. This one is still receiving pledges. Before you come on here with initiatives moving the goalposts, talk to me first. I will manage the communications on the site with Ron, Duncan and Steve. If there is not public support clearly it won't work and we need to know that.

You really are a bigger prat than I gave you credit for, the only thing I am involved in is the potential appeal and backup structure. Under organised £5000 bucket collections don't cut it for me. I have two season tickets, the last two seasons I had three, but often couldn't give the seat away, I haven't missed a home match in three seasons and if we are still going will be buying two more next season. Maybe a visit to your phsychiatrist might cure some of your problems. You should read some of your posts and see how you look to others. It's not a pretty picture.

I don't need a self rightious lecture from you. I bought six tickets and put folding money in the bucket. I made my choice, you made your choice. I expect everybody to be free to make their own minds up without sanctimonious prats like you spouting crap.

They did bottle but not the way you are intimating. The league's lawyers have been through the rules with a fine tooth comb, as have the club's lawyers and the Administrator's lawyers. The rules do not allow for the penalising of a wholly owned independent solvent subsidiary of a public company in administration. The league's problem is that their rules stipulate the football club has to be a completely separate entity from it's public owner. To allow it to be a member of the football/premier league clubs have to undertake to abide by the grievance procedures/tribunals laid down in the rules and give up the right to sue the football authorities. The really neat thing is public companies can't comply with that rule under public company rules. The problem the league have is that if they act despite their rules the public company can sue the pants off them for the losses they would suffer, by action taken against an asset they own, in contravention of the league's rules as the member club is not in administration. The league's lawyers will have already thoroughly advised them of their position. If the rule could be applied then the league would have issued a clear statement that Southampton would be dealt with in accordance with the rules after the final game of the season. The fact they didn't and called a 'forensic' independent legal enquiry shows that they have a problem legally. They already know the position as their lawyers will have advised them of their position. This is a 'Mawhinny' political answer to a too difficult to deal with problem. Get somebody else to make the decision. If the independent enquiry says they are independent and not in administration, the league can hold their hands up in mock horror and promise to try and close the loophole. Apart from banning public companies from owning football clubs there is little they can do. That stance then takes the heat off them from the clubs who have been already docked points. Only Derby I believe was a public company with a subsidiary not in administration. All the others the whole structure was in administration as far as I can make out. The rules had been changed bringing in the points penalty prior to the Derby affair in 2003, they suffered no points penalty. In any event those clubs that are threatening to sue the league are talking crap, and both they and the league know it is just posturing because under the rules they can't sue the league, only use the grievance procedures and that's where we came in.

There must have been about 3000 of a walk up as David Luker told me about 11am that about 20,000 were sold up to then.

His enthusiasm masks his limitations, he won a few headers but failed to get to a lot more, his passing was hopeless, his main target was Davis, he worked hard but because he is not mobile he is very limited.

We played pretty well with a good tempo. The back four battled all match. Davis made one trademark save that saved us at the end. The less said about the diamond the better. Wotton worked hard but his passing was awful. Lallana had his first decent game since september, still needs to add end product, plays a bit like a butterfly flitting around on the edge of things. Surman tried hard and was up for it but needs to get his form back. BWP and Euell tried hard, BWP was very wasteful but the worst thing for me they played too far apart, they need to be a pair, feeding off each other. Euell has no subtlety, needs at least one player with a bit of guile up front. Saganowski when he came on for Euell worked hard but never really threatened. McGoldrick tried hard, he must have shut his eyes when he hit that magnificent goal not like him at all. Schneiderlin came on helped pass the ball in midfield, but then the ball was mostly lost. The thing that gets me about Saints is that they play off the cuff all the time, and are a lot of the time there for the taking. They have no plan to close the game off and break up the oppositions play. They keep playing little square ball throwins and loads of little triangles which break down regularly and let the opposition counter attack. They have to keep forcing the ball down the touchlines, making the opposition keep conceding throwins and work it into the corner. They only have to play the ball off the opposition then attack down the line into the corner. Take a short corner, just knock it off the opposition but don't let the ball come out into the centre of the field. They don't seem to know that. At corners etc JP Saeijs is running around like a rabbit to try and lose his marker. Him and Perry are the only ones likely to get in and win headers, stop messing about, get Euell and Wotton to run interference on their markers, get in between Saeijs, Perry and their man to man markers it causes chaos because the other two markers are in the end marking nobody and getting in the way of the main markers. This allows our best headers to get free.

I wasn't ignoring anyone, I had covered it all before. The company that is the club SFC Ltd, to be allowed to play in the league has to undertake to comply with their rules. One of which is to exempt the football authorities from legal action and to accept grievance procedure tribunals as the final arbiter in any dispute. A public company cannot do this. That is why the league insisted they be independent. As they are independent in a legal sense but because of the connection the league by imposing a penalty despite the member company being solvent and trading normally, under the league rules could only appeal. Because any illegal penalising action on the club which isn't in administration, would directly impact on the finances of the public company, it would certainly lead to the league/FA being sued. The enquiry being set up by the league is to effect a whitewash. The league's lawyers would have been studying the rules and the administration of SLH, if the rules were conclusively on the side of the league there would have been a statement that the rules would be applied as appropriate as laid down after the last match. The fact that the league have set up this lawyers enquiry is for them to come out independently and say what the league's lawyers and the league already know. This way they can hold their hands up and promise to close the alleged loophole caused by the implementation of their own rules.

Don't even go there.

I'm still going to stick something in the pot, there are a lot of good, totally innocent people in the club, wondering if they are going to be paid this month, and worrying how they are going to pay their bills if they aren't. If everybody who could afford it stuck £10/£20 in the bucket it would certainly help.

I've looked into the situation re the club and things like bucket collections. They are not in a position with all that is hanging over their head to do this. You couldn't make it up, even the bloody bucket must have a sealed lid. I think that the saints trust should have advertised on here as soon as they knew they were going to do one and get a pool of volunteers rather than a post on Easter sunday looking for volunteers at the last moment.

Cloggies don't appreciate advice.

I would have thought it was entirely appropriate as we are about to disappear down the plughole.8-[

I've read the posts, he's not his usual proactive IMHO self, It looks as though there may be doubt about/from his contacts. The separating the stadium from the business is linked to more than one possible buyer. However I would have thought the real attraction of SLH is the knockdown stadium price, together with the other property, giving real value if there are no debts. Leasing the stadium in perpetuity isn't the best deal but would appeal to people who can't raise sufficient funds. Not the best deal unless it's the only deal.

All the information in the posts on here.

Methinks, that may be more difficult to answer, I'm not talking about the attire. If Morph isn't posting it indicates that confidence in this deal happening is possibly low or maybe the deal has been put on ice.

Do keep up Clarkie;) it's on the OS.