derry

Better to try and do something and fail. As to looking like an idiot, I think it's the talkers and negative do nothings that pledged and didn't put up when called in will look the idiots. The intelligent people will know that it was genuine attempt to potentially try and save the club if all else fails. Failing is not a problem for me and not being needed is the best result possible.

I think it maybe needed guarantees that the bank would accept. SLH is in administration, but I'm sure any potential buyer would support any move to keep the club from administration and the definite points deduction it would bring with it.

Well I happen to know some people who have pledged decent amounts on there and have nothing at all to do with the site. In the end the pledges mean nothing they are a guide and until called in are unquantifiable. Hopefully nobody else from the site will pledge twice, provided they read this page.

Not at all as the whole emphasis is putting a structure in place that is able to launch an appeal in he event there is no other way. The club couldn't be saved otherwise. What is happening here is just a poll measuring possible interest. It is raising awareness, getting media onside, and just being organised and ready in the event of imminent liquidation. I am too much of a realist to be fooled by false promises, What is happening serves it's purpose in opening doors we want to open.

We know there is £53k from 45 pledgees in two days, I suspect not a lot from here if any. That sum indicates a total lack of awareness or interest. We need to get the message out with the website address and see what support builds up as a result, the last thing we want is £900,000 repeat pledges, to totally distort the picture, as we have no idea who has pledged what. That won't matter in the end as it is only the actual money contributed that counts, the pledges only indicate an interest not a guaranteed commitment.

We really need to keep the web side of the appeal and public side of the appeal separate and current so that we can measure the speed of publicity and the public support. Those that have pledged on here should leave it at that for the present. If that alters you'll be the first to know. It's the support on this site that has given the initiative it's current credibility. I realise that, however the pledges on this site are opening a lot of relevant doors that otherwise wouldn't be opened to us. I don't want to lose that connection. In the end pledges mean three tenths of FA. They are really a rough measure of the interest, We really need to know the level of support outside the site. If there isn't the required level of support the initiative is clearly going nowhere. I will say however that in the event of the situation arising that the administrator says there are no buyers for the club, there will be an enormous media surge and fan reaction, that is the point, god forbid, that the structure in place will be able to publically launch the request for funds. We are widening the media support, today the site was given out on BBC Radio Solent, and Kevin James is going to do repeats and try and get the tv side to put it out. Radio Hampshire are doing a piece today and tonight, we are talking to the Echo about another article and hopefully daily updates. We are giving the media a focal point by putting the structure in place, which will kick in if we are all that is left to save the club from extinction.

No because we won't have a clue what the measure of support from the public is.

The club has done the deal the administrator can't be seen to be connected.

I'm a realist, I realise the shortcomings, the simple fact is in the end if we need to raise money from the pledgees it will be backs to the wall time. They will either stump up or not, there is not a thing anybody can do about that. In any event should the saints be going out of business in a matter of days a whole new ball game would open up with the saturation media coverage and a lot more people would be aware, but unless something substantial is in place, however willing the fans are to contribute, there would be nowhere for them go. There would be no way then of saving the club in the time.

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.