stevegrant

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/announcement.php?f=5

Are you genuinely suggesting that we were a defensive (the near-perfect translation of "pragmatic" in football-speak) team last season?!

I'm not too fussed about the trophy itself for those same reasons, but I would add the following caveats: 1. It gives the game a pseudo-competitive edge a week or two before the season starts, which helps the players, and also the fact that they're playing for a trophy will add a bit onto the attendance; 2. Assuming the TBT game is played against prestigious opposition (West Ham aside), it also serves as a good test for the team, and from my own perspective, I like to see us playing against the best players. Watching Luis Suarez tear us a new one in the second half was fantastic viewing, even though we ended up getting beaten. Prestigious opposition will always bring bigger crowds as well If they're going to scrap it, that's up to them, but they could at least communicate that fact, if only to save them the questioning on the subject as a result of their silence. The timing this year in particular was somewhat "unfortunate", coming only a matter of weeks after the death of Ted's widow.

What, a bit like a handling fee levied on tickets bought via the most common and convenient methods?

I wouldn't bother questioning it, apparently you'd have an agenda...

Just got back after spending an hour or so up there - unsurprisingly, Lancashire barely played any attacking shots in the time I was there, the one exception being when Smith tried to sweep Briggs but top-edged to Adams for 128.

That photo is brilliant

Agreed, but we won't be bringing 5 or 6 teenagers off the bench to replace our first-teamers in any competitive game, so I'm not too concerned by the last 20 minutes or so yesterday. I was actually pleasantly surprised by how well we coped without Lambert in particular, but also Lallana, Puncheon and Schneiderlin, as I think all four would be in the starting lineup if everyone was fit.

Pretty much sums up my take on it. The best thing to come out of today is that the players have proven they can still play well without Rickie Lambert against a decent side.

Being sent to Coventry, apparently.

ADO Den Haag (£83,151.64): For Le Havre (£176,269.00): For Paris St Germain (£106,961.41): For RC Lens (1,958,258.90): For Stade Rennais FC (£4,150,531.00): For All voted in favour, presumably on the basis that 20% is better than 0%

Nope, the football creditor rule only extends to payments to other English clubs (down to "tier 7", I think)

Yep, the football creditors rule is only applicable to deals involving clubs in this country. Hence why the likes of Udinese are only going to receive 20p in the pound if the CVA is ultimately approved.

There's no equivalent rule in other countries, as far as I'm aware. Real Mallorca qualified for the Europa League by virtue of finishing 5th in La Liga, but as they went into administration, they were refused entry to the competition.

So do I.

There's a minor update due to the forum software which apparently includes some sort of style generator which will (allegedly) make it quicker and easier to change the way the forum looks. I'm hoping to do that update at some point in the next week or so, once that's done I'll see whether the style generator actually works!

Some pretty lacklustre research gone into that piece, to be honest. Ben Haim and Boateng are both still under contract for at least another year.

Yep.

I think I remember someone suggesting there's still another year to go on the beer-supplying contract.

Ignore the fact that it's Nick. What if it was just AN Other fan?

That wasn't the point though, so well done on missing it entirely. In the hypothetical (but unrealistic) situation that I banned you from here simply for disagreeing with your opinion on something, would you not think that was unjust, and attempt to do something about it, raise awareness of the situation, etc? Or would you meekly sit there and think "oh well"? Once again, well done for telling me what I think. I've never said that the first point of call is the press. In fact, if you actually read what I've written today, I said that Nick had gone about things the right way by NOT immediately going to the press (which he could easily have done), instead contacting people in the right department at the club, and then when he got no reply, contacting people in other departments who might also be able to help. If, as seems on the face of it to be the case, the club have simply ignored his requests for an explanation (would you agree that he at least deserves an explanation?), what would you suggest his next move is?

IIRC, that deal was actually a genuine possibility. I seem to remember Lowe coming out with something after it all broke down like: "He has to realise that we are not Manchester United and he is not 28 anymore"

Who the **** are you to tell me what I have or haven't been doing? If, for example, I banned you from this forum just for having an opinion I disapproved of, would you or would you not be straight onto other forums or emailing/phoning the Echo telling people about it, saying how I run SaintsWeb with an iron fist and that the forum's **** anyway because I don't let people have an opinion that differs from my own? I reckon you would... Believe it or not, many people quite like the idea of being able to stand up for their rights, one of which just happens to be freedom of speech. If you're happy to be gagged and/or told what to say and think, congratulations on your lack of a backbone.

IMO, it's not his intention to portray himself as the King of St Mary's - he wants to be seen as the ruthless businessman that he clearly is, while also having a fan-friendly side to him as well (hence the free coffee to the ticket office queue incident). Coming out all guns blazing won't help him maintain that image, it'll make him appear to be a bit of a loose cannon and he'll certainly lose more support than he gains if he's publicly banning/revoking season tickets from fans who dare to utter a word against him or the club. Those who don't care one way or the other about Nick would certainly question the censorship issues this episode raises from a neutral perspective. Keeping it quiet ensures that nobody's any the wiser until one side blinks, and then if Nick reveals what's happened, they can just say "we would have dealt with it privately but you decided to go public with it". It would appear that one of the people Nick told about the situation privately has let the cat out of the bag, but until people started asking questions about it, he was quite happy to keep it quiet until he'd resolved the situation one way or the other. What he will do/would have done if/when he finds out the actual reason for it, only he knows, but many people in his situation would have been straight on the phone to the papers or on forums complaining about what had happened.