derry

Steve, we are not involved with other initiatives full stop. That doesn't rule out combining with a similar initiative if it fulfills the aims and integrity of this one. Reading between the lines this £250K I would assume is for the present, to keep the football club from administration and buy it a bit more time while this mess unravels. Your summing up is correct, however we are hoping to launch, continuing with the pledges principle, in the Echo on Friday. Steve Grant is assisting getting the website ready to receive pledges after monday. As to security of potential money collected, I am absolutely paranoid about that, as are the others involved. The proposal at the moment from me, is there would have to be four agreements to reach the money. I am exploring the bank's requirements. One would probably be me, another from SOS and two high profile independent Saints or suchlike figures like say Matt Le Tissier and/or Mick Channon who would in no circumstances be involved in any skullduggerry. Unless all four, positively identified, and physically present in the bank give their assent, no money could be moved from the account. Probably what would happen would be a small administrative account with say £1000 and a chequebook requiring two signatures topped up if necessary by the bank on the production of the necessary evidence that the money had been spent legitimately. I hope this clarifies where I am coming from. Best wishes, Dave.

It is one of the possibilities, however returning money would be a logistical nightmare, and would have to be carried out by the bank for security and logistical reasons.

It's not a legal loophole. The league insisted that public companies were not allowed to be football clubs and the wholly owned company was formed to comply. The league have brought this on themselves because they deny the clubs the right to sue them. SLH can.

spot on.

Thanks for the good wishes and the wise words, but let me say now I'm not in this for the long haul. This is for the here and now, I opened my big mouth and somebody has to pick up the baton, for the moment. Anything that stops me playing golf 364 days of the year, get's my ear bent by her indoors and impinges on me being an idle book reading, tv watcher, lying back in my electric recliner will get kicked into touch in short order. I actually think that everybody in the ground except paid employees should pay for seats, hospitality and parking like everbody else. That would be a culture shock for the free loading directors box. Especially at this time premium prices should be the norm not complimentary perks. With views like that I wouldn't be around long in any event. Luckily I'm comfortably off and can walk away. It's just that when I was a kid 54 years ago I used to sell penny on the ball tickets and get in free to see 80 mins of my heroes at the Dell. It's hard to stand by and see the club die because of the incompetent, egotistical, money grabbing, greedy, self interested, p ricks who have ruined this club. And if you happen to be reading this, yes it does mean you.

I understand your position but I think you should consider the followng. SFC were bought out in a reverse takeover by Secure Retirement, as a result SFC became a quoted public company. The league/FA would not allow a football club to operate as a public company because the public company had to comply with public company rules not League rules eg not allowed to sue the football authorities but would accept the use of tribunals. The League required a completely separate independent company to be formed to run the football club. Therefore to comply with the league criteria, SFC became SLH Ltd a plc then a wholly owned company became SFC Ltd, the football club in the league. Irrespective of the wish to be even handed there are two important points, firstly the league themselves have caused this situation by insisting on the separation, secondly the football club is not in administration. This enquiry is because the board, club directors, are not qualified to make a decision. Anybody that thinks the league haven't already legally dissected and come to a conclusion on this rule are naive. They do know the answer but are ducking the decision to avoid flack from other clubs who cannot sue the league under the rules. That is why a legal enquiry has been convened so that under the league rules the committee can hold their hands up and say there is nothing that can be done. It's not a holding company issue it's because SLH is a plc. If the league get this wrong they will get the pants sued off them by a public company. The league know that and I bet the result will be "they are separate but we are going to look at the rules again."

Hi Steve, There is no intention at the moment to do anything other than in the event of no acceptable bid for SLH/club/SMS/Staplewood/JF mount a rescue. If there was a preferred bidder that wasn't in a position to close the deal, then if it was feasible, we could possibly ask for subscriptions to close the deal in return for a share of the club. In the event the club was going into liquidation imminently then we would probably again specify the conditions and try and quickly mount an immediate rescue and a follow up purchase plan. I think the bids and this is purely an opinion could well take different forms. Preferably a bidder buys the lot and invests, if that doesn't happen, SMS could go to one bidder to be leased back to the club whilst the club is bought by a different bidder who satisfies the debt. Then there is the question of Staplewood and Jackson's farm. Interestingly Leon Crouch was at SMS yesterday afternoon with Royston Smith the leader of Southampton Council who haven't ruled out buying the site. Just a few thoughts on the subject, we are in the process of getting organised, use of an appropriate powerful website, a media launch, a secure impenetrable bank account, continuing at the moment with pledges, and of course we know that not all the pledges would be honoured, but that's the real world. We are just doing our best in the limited time available to be ready if needed. We are almost in a positon to draw in and co-ordinate other initiatives if they want to join with us, subject to the necessary co-operation. We are not really trying to compete and will do our best to save the club if we are needed. I think Crouch has his own agenda and is independently pursuing that. I get the feeling he is being all things to all men in pursuit of his own interests, not necessarily the supporters interests.

I've put out another thread but we desparately need a computer expert to alter the save our saints website to take pledges. Can anyone help?

Even if you can't do you know somebody who might? It's bloody difficult setting this up because whilst I hope it doesn't come to it it may be all we've got. The administrator is saying the bad results and the doubt over the immediate future is making it difficult to find a buyer. We can't launch the main media appeal until we have the website in place. Mods can you make this a sticky it's vital for the appeal.

I was invited to a meeting with the save our saints group at SMS, the meeting was interesting and I feel that we should join up with them to launch a wider appeal. I am to invite Duncan Holley and Ron, Weston Saint to future meetings. They are on the point of setting up a launch and have a website that needs to be adapted. If there is anybody that can help please pm me. The intention is to keep the pledges coming in on this site and try and adapt their website to take pledges from the wider publicity.

Ask him what was Royston Smith Southampton Conservative leader doing, going into SMS with him at 1630, are they putting a deal together to buy SMS. I can't because I'm at a retirement party. I'd be very interested to see how he answered.

There must be someone surely!

I have had a meeting with the save our saints group who have satisfied me that we can combine and go ahead and launch an appeal on a trust or similar basis. So that there would be proper protection in the event of the necessity to turn the pledges into funds. They have a website www.saveoursaints.info which is in a basic state. What is needed is a computer expert who could alter the website to allow the same format as our collection thread to allow in the first instance fans to pledge in the same way. In addition pledges can continue to be taken on the original thread. Can anybody who can help please pm me and whether you are confident you can do it quickly.

What Mark Fry is saying in the event there is no suitable corporate/consortium buyer coming in with an acceptable bid, then this sort of idea might be all that is left to stop the club going to the wall. The club's initiative is to bring in what money they can in the here and now to help them pay the immediate bills. I do think they missed the boat a bit on Saturday, a bucket collection in each section would have in real terms raised a big sum, especially with the mood of the crowd. I think there might well have been a lot of fivers and tenners put in.

It sounds like a decent place to start from. I'm not sure about 25000 though, if we are in the crap enough it might bring forward that number. The 50 year idea would have to be transferable for obvious reasons. I'm going to a meeting at SMS at 1230 but don't really know what its about or who precisely is going to be there. If it's appropriate I'll float it if the right people are there.

But not if they play a diamond, he needs men out wide, Holmes WL/BWP WR he then has passing options and we will begin to play. Wotton is awful. He should have been right back instead of Thompson, He, Thompson and Lallana were absolutely dire and caused us awful problems.

It might work except not with Wotton he would be just as mobile if he took a deckchair out and sat in it all afternoon. The holding midfielder has to defend wing to wing to avoid the central defenders being pulled across, Wotton just sits in nomansland. I think unless your three at the back is for all out attack with the rest, Watford will pick us apart anyway if we sit back and try to stifle them. I fear Wotte will stick with the diamond, James at right back and play the other 10 that started yesterday. If he couldn't see to change it yesterday it's unlikely he'll change it on Tuesday.

I'm not absolutely sure but neither Lallana or Surman are out of contract this year.

That's a pretty decent side. A bit hard on McGoldrick with two in two games but you can't please everyone.

Could be because he didn't feature in the earlier rounds, that would be fairer to the player that played.

The diamond is probably a lot of the problem with both Surman and Lallana. There is never an early forward wide option which is making both players pass inside or have to turn away and play the ball back or back sideways to a full back. It has completely stifled our football and results in the hopeless punt upfield straight to the opponents big defenders.

You could consider Surman at left back and Schneiderlin in midfield. Molyneaux hasn't bedded in yet and is a gamble and Lallana needs to be left out to regroup.

I just have a feeling if they just go for it with enough possible goalscorers and bugger the result they could cause Watford problems. We need a bit of pace and just stop buggering about.

Mills is at S****horpe and playing every game.

The idea was a minimum contribution of £100 the equivalent of one share. If we do have to collect and every penny counts that could change, but only my thoughts. If you mean "can I keep coming back with more contributions" I would think most certainly.