stevegrant

Potentially 40% depending on how much you earn through it combined with your regular job earnings. There are almost certainly tax savings to be made by channelling it through a limited company, but that's beyond the scope of my knowledge, to be honest.

Just a pointer for those travelling via Waterloo next week... if you're planning on going direct from there to Leytonstone, the Northern Line section of Tottenham Court Road station is closed, so there's no interchange to the Central Line. Instead, the quickest route will be the Jubilee Line from Waterloo to Stratford, changing to the Central Line there.

They wouldn't have needed to buy St Mary's, considering it was already owned by the club The mortgage was never a problem for us, it was the overdraft which proved to be the millstone.

The whole "completion bonus" issue was blown out of all proportion, IMO. It's common practice for directors to receive such payments on completion of what would have been quite a complex takeover process. IIRC, the total pot to be shared between the five directors (i.e. Dulieu, Hone, Hoos, Oldknow and Jones) was in the region of £300k - I dare suggest the bonus each board member stood to receive would be less than the bonuses and pension contributions that were normally being paid out regardless of performance at the time. The link between SISU and Dulieu at Coventry poses the question of a conflict of interest, but I can't remember any suggestion of that link existing back in 2007. I assume the current link is as a result of the relationship developed from our offer. Re the ownership, the share placing would have given SISU a majority shareholding, so the likes of Lowe, Wilde and Crouch wouldn't have been in any sort of position of strength, even if they became part of an incredibly unholy trinity (the thought of which genuinely terrifies me ).

Nominally. He only worked two days a week (at the most), so the amount of influence he actually had was minimal. Hone was the one pulling the strings. If people took their blinkers off for just a second rather than pigeon-holing people into "this side" or "that side", you might actually realise that the situation we were in at the time of the SISU offer and the situation Coventry were in when they went that way were poles apart. Slight issue there in that it's 4 years since SISU bought Coventry, thus saving them from administration (they would have been forced into admin the following day), and as I mentioned in my earlier post, Coventry don't actually have any assets, so quite how SISU are going to strip them is anyone's guess. They've supposedly already "invested" (i.e. ****ed away) £30m into the club in those 4 years - the main mistake I think they've made at Coventry is not taking up an option to buy the Ricoh Arena (or at least a large share of it); if they'd done that right at the start, they'd probably be pretty stable now. From memory, I don't think the trust ever had a stated position on the offer - everything moved so fast that it was nigh-on impossible to consult the membership. Lowe, Wilde and Crouch were against it as it would have diluted their shareholding, but the share placing that was on the table would have injected more than £10m of cash straight into SFC. The overdraft that was built up on Wilde and Crouch's respective watches - which was ultimately the reason we went into admin in the first place - would have been paid off, leaving the club on a much more stable footing. With the crowds we were still getting, we could have remained competitive financially in the Championship. "Could" being the main word, as let's face it, none of us know how it would have panned out over the 4 years since the offer. Given how it all turned out, with all three of them losing everything, I wonder if they might reconsider their decision now. I suspect they might. From my perspective, it certainly would have been infinitely preferable to that relegation season, administration and not knowing if I'd actually have a club to support in August.

It's like comparing chalk and cheese, though, as the deal they'd put forward for us was completely different to the one they put in place at Coventry. For a start, Coventry still don't own the Ricoh Arena, which means they need crowds of 22k just to break even On the face of it, sure, it looks bad, but had it gone through here, the overdraft would have been wiped out with plenty to spare, and we would have still been competitive in the Championship. In the long-term, barring anything mental happening in the next couple of years (and let's face it, with Saints, we can never rule it out!), we may well end up in a similar or better position, although who's to say what that position might be?

It did, once the original allocation had sold out. However, when they first went on sale, they said this: http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10280~2318938,00.html

I'm sure they will, but the players' response will be (privately at least) "so what?"

I'd argue that a long-standing and well-known local rivalry is somewhat different to a one-off event 34 years ago that many fans of both clubs probably aren't even aware of.

The current players wouldn't give a flying one about something that happened before most of them were even born. Their fans might make a big deal about it (which I suspect is where all this fake rivalry ******** has come from), but the players will be trying to win the game because they're top of the table and unbeaten at home and want to keep it that way.

I don't think they're doing any weekend events. Assuming we get enough people to go ahead, it'll be a 6.45pm kickoff.

In order to be selected you've got to send an email first...

The directors would have received a completion bonus, but IIRC the total was somewhere in the region of £300k between them - pretty small change for a takeover of that size.

More likely the 6th, as the evening of the 5th is the Charlton home game.

Fair to say my first touch isn't anywhere near as good as that anymore

Bournemouth is understandable as we are their nearest club geographically. Brighton's is just bizarre, I can only assume it's bitterness dating back to 1977 when us and Spurs played out a tedious 0-0 draw on the last day of the season to ensure we both went up, with Brighton the team missing out.

We had 3300 last season.

Evening all, Having originally believed the club weren't running end-of-season pitch events this season, I got a call last week to tell me that, in fact, they are, so we've again got the opportunity to play a game on the hallowed turf at St Mary's. Unfortunately, the cost has gone up a bit from last year, so that means that, should we get enough interest to confirm the game, the cost will be as follows: 90 minutes: £270 45 minutes: £135 There will be 6 90-minute slots in both teams and 10 45-minute slots (5 in the first half, 5 in the second half). If you wish to participate, please email playatsms@saintsweb.co.uk with ALL of the following details: Forum Username Real Name Email Address Age Preferred Foot (left, right, both, two left feet, etc) Up to three preferred positions in order of preference (options: GK, RB, LB, CB, RM, LM, CM, ST - each should be self-explanatory) 45 or 90 minutes (also say whether you'd be willing to accept the alternative) The deadline for applications is 5pm on Tuesday 5th April, and payments will be due within two weeks of that date (i.e. by 5pm on Tuesday 19th April). Full Members will be given priority if the event is oversubscribed. If anyone has any questions, please either PM me or post below. Good luck

Sold out, apparently!

Why would someone buy a car before checking how much the insurance was going to cost?

I'm not surprised in the slightest. The BBC - as with the vast majority of other broadcasters - has gone downhill rapidly over the last 10-20 years. They seem to take a really bizarre and contradictory stance on things, they'll imply in-depth knowledge in their audience when they should be providing the knowledge and clarity themselves (as in this case), and yet imply stupidity in their audience by going into some things in minute detail when it's completely unnecessary as the audience already knows what they're talking about.

Still bitter about 1977. That's the only conclusion I can draw, really.