derry

£300,000 fee. So we paid Euell a £200,000 signing on fee each season and £10000 a week, what a bargain.

Davis was a bit vulnerable and panicky today. Surman was better at left back than in midfield, swop with Skacel. The formation at the start was poor. The marking at set pieces set a new style, stand anywhere, hands on hips. Wotton means well but contributes little, Scneiderlin was a disapointment but he needs us to play 4-4-2. James did his job but too many hopeless balls into the box. Why oh why don't they play Smith on the left and BWP on the right, McGoldrick, Euell and Saganowski were just picking up scraps. Just don't get me started on the manager, last saturday was the worst performance I've seen from a manager in fifty years. At Watford and Wolves the selections were bizarre. He doesn't seem to be aware, standing on the touchline is stupid, he'd get a much better view from the stand. For me the team selections are obvious. Davis, James, Saeijs, Perry, Surman, BWP, Euell, Skacel, Holmes/Smith, Saganowski, McGoldrick. Skacel could attack and Euell could defend, Holmes is probably good for 45 mins only if fit. Keep the ball on the deck and attack down the wings. About 50% of all goals are set pieces, put all throws down the line and make ground to win a corner. Saeijs takes all the free kicks in range, and at corners put Euell in to run intereference on Saeijs's marker. Used to do it years ago, interference picks up the marker and gets between him and Saeijs causing him not to be able to get close. We don't have a bloody clue.

There was a lot of stuff in the Echo that was not really relevant, no mention of the influence of the saints web or the contributions from here. It didn't mention it was a back up initiative, however I have contacted the Echo and I think there will be some more tomorrow with the correct information. Worst of all the wrong website that can't be used. The address if anybody wants to know, thanks to Steve Grant. http:http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/saveoursaints

Thanks Phil, you'll see on the MP thread, I've said no MPs and no politics. We hope we are not needed but waiting was not an option.

moving it up.

Talk is cheap they'll be able to put up tomorrow when the appeal is launched.

Whitewash alert! The quoted plc is not subservient to the league as under law it cannot give up it's right to sue the league. The private company gives up that right as SFC did, but it's not in administration. The reason we are set up like this is that in 1997 the FA/league would not accept SFC as a public company and insisted they set up a separate, independent company subservient to their rule of no legal redress only grievance procedures. The league have set up the enquiry to duck making the decision that their lawyers after a week of studying the rules have concluded. When the independent lawyers come to the same conclusion as their lawyers and the administrators/club's lawyers have already come to, they can hold up their hands in mock horror and promise to close the loophole, forgetting of course that they and their rules caused the problem in the first place. If they try to pull the 'make it up on the hoof' scam they will be sued by the new owners because of the financial implications and they know it.

They won't want to be sued either.

As a matter of interest Royston Smith of the Southampton City Council was in SMS Monday about 4.20pm with Leon Crouch. I saw him.

If it's any consolation Steve that is my recollection too.

He's barking up the wrong tree, LT was/is not a plc. The same rules don't apply and SFC is solvent and not in administration. I think it's a case of ' Don't confuse me with the facts'

Just to muddy the waters a bit the mortgage is secured against future ticket sales. Isn't that a buggers muddle.

And that's fine but positively no politicians whatever the colour. There is a bigger mess out there for those buggers to get sorted, and they are getting well paid to make a proper mess of that.

Just moving it to the top.

We are positively not mounting a bid for the club. We are creating a fallback position, taking pledges as an indication of possible support, and creating a viable infrastructure if all else fails to try and save the club. Alternatively assist a worthwhile bid in the event it would otherwise fail and the club would go down. It's damn easy to come on here and pontficate under an assumed name and castigate people who are at least trying to make positive suggestions. Incidentally the Saints Trust are organising a bucket collection at SMS on monday. That could raise if there are enough £5/£10/£20 pound notes donated between £50k to £100k if the majority of adults contribute. I suggested it to David Luker but he told me the ST were already doing it, fair play to them. As an afterthought, this money goes to the football club not SLH/administrator.

Well that's just buggered that appeal, she ought to read the papers, see how MPs are viewed and leave the real people to get on with their lives. Last year she was slating the police for shooting two armed robbers one with a loaded gun stuck in the face of a security guard. Anything to jump on the bandwagon for a bit of free publicity. If she makes the mistake of talking to me she will get a right flea in her ear. No politics, no politicians.

The football club was in administration wasn't it? not just the Plc. We aren't it's only the Plc in administration. If the creditors come to a deal with the administrators and new owners and the debts are settled and we come out of administration, in the meantime the club stays out of administration there is no case anyway. Remember Ipswich settled their £32m mortgage with NU for £7m and nobody sued them. Slightly different I know but it's business, just like SFC completing the transfers of Walcott and Bale by taking less up front instead of waiting for the staged payments, it's just business.

A holding company won't make a blind bit of difference, it has to be a quoted public company.

That pretty much sums up what we are doing, to take money now without knowing exactly where this is going to go, would be stupid. If all the money had to be returned, only the bank, for security reasons could return the money whence it came and I presume that would be very costly and would have to come out of the sum collected. In that event there is no way I would agree access to the funds by anyone else for everybody's sake and peace of mind.

Luton won't be sueing the league, they have accepted the FIFA/FA/League rules that they are not allowed to sue. They can only use the prescribed rules of appeal. That is why SLH a public company had to be seperate from the football club company as it could sue the pants off anybody but the club can only appeal. Again, the club are not in administration, Luton FC were.

The Echo is launching our saveoursaints appeal to complement the sticky on here. At the moment the appeal is being put forward with the same basis, asking for contact details and a pledged sum, as a fall back position, or a backup in the event of a preferred bidder being outbid. Both the thread and the saveoursaints section will continue to run in tandem. Any feedback would be appreciated on the existing sticky. Just remember we are just doing our best to do something rather than talk about it. We really have no control or even know exactly what the echo are putting out tomorrow although they have told us they are being very supportive and positive. We have been told that it will be both on the front page and inside pages. This is really to ensure that there is a structure in place with the public aware with the support of the media, that in the event of no acceptable bid we are in a position to be able to mount a rescue without delay.

Luton were not a public company. The holding company was just another limited company that owned a football club. A public company is a completely different thing and the league know it.

As Fry said he is working closely with the independent directors. The real point is where do any short term contributions go, to the solvent football club to try and keep it from administration.