stevegrant

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.

Searches don't replicate for other users, they're only relevant for the user who did the search in the first place. To find a list of all of "Ticket Office"'s posts, go to the user profile: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/member.php?2121-Ticket-Office and then click "Find all posts"

Where has he said that he's "demanded" to speak to all levels of management? As far as I can see, he's sent what I assume to be polite emails (and they would have to be if he wants them to take his complaint seriously, which he clearly does) through the various channels he has available to him at the club. I think he posted on the UI forum that he first contacted David Luker, who would be the most logical place to start as he is - in name at least - in charge of the ticket office, and so should know what's going on. If he's not had a response from him, I don't see why it's an issue to escalate it to more senior members of staff if he knows who to contact. I'm sure we'd all do the same in any business if we had contacts to resolve issues as quickly as possible.

Don't know a Steve Straker at the Echo, heard of Simon Straker though. Always helps your stories to get the names right. Why do you think this discussion wasn't taking place two or three weeks ago then, when the ST refund actually happened? Can't have been looking very hard then, I missed four away games all season and recall seeing him at the vast majority of them. By people in charge before him. £6.5m overdraft, anyone? An overdraft that was the direct cause of administration... Administration twice, don't own their own ground because they sold every single asset in order to get short-term cash injections. Highly likely they'll be in administration again if/when they get relegated. They got promoted because of Eddie Howe working absolute miracles, not because they've run the club well on a tight budget. That club's been run appallingly in the last 20 years. Supporting who? You don't seem to quite know what your argument is, whether it's about Lowe or Nick Illingsworth. I'll always support the right of any Saints fan to go to games, whether I know them, like them, agree with them, etc, assuming they've not broken any relevant laws or ground regulations which would block them from going. It appears rather unlikely that Nick has done so in this instance, would you agree? If this is about censorship, which in my personal opinion it seems to be (and the club already has a recent history of this), then it's an absolute disgrace.

Strange, it seems to me that the majority of "vocal" posters on here don't stick up for him at all. Interestingly, though, nobody seems to ever confront Nick at away games with their concerns. I can't imagine why... Lowe's return was doomed from the start, but not because of Lowe. Do you seriously think HE phones THEM?! Probably because Nick wanted to keep it quiet until he'd actually found out what was going on, so the Echo weren't aware of it. Why would he tell them something he's been trying to keep quiet?

Not true. Someone else mentioned it either yesterday or Monday, and a whole load of assumptions/allegations were made about the whys and wherefores which Nick felt required clarification before it spiralled out of control. See above, he didn't choose for it to come out. I was told about it while I was away in Switzerland, so it's not a new turn of events, but somebody else mentioned it, others posted various inaccuracies and he felt he had to correct those. What "procedures" are they then? Judging by what Nick's said on what he's done to find out any reasoning behind it, which all seems fairly sensible to me, he's taken the following perfectly logical route: Contact people at the ticket office to see what's going on? Check. Get no response. Contact other people within the club who might have the faintest idea what's going on? Check. Get no response. Nick didn't go public with it. Who knows? Certainly not you. No he hasn't To be another sheep because it's the done thing to call into question a long-standing supporter's motives and actions, yet a new kid on the block playing with someone else's money is beyond reproach?

I thought the pitch looked in excellent condition, particularly given its reputation and Barnet's lack of budget. Difficult to read much into the team performance with a number of reserve and academy players getting a run-out, so I looked at a few individually. Carter looked useful but faded in the last 25 minutes or so, unsurprisingly. Ryan Dickson worries me, on a couple of occasions he gave the ball away cheaply, charged forward in an attempt to win it back and then left a massive gap when he didn't win it back. Aaron Martin again looked composed, and did particularly well tonight as he was the "senior" centre-back of the two. Racine looked a good prospect as well.

Cortese was at the last one.

Not really, if it genuinely was a complete irrelevance, nobody would give a toss about it and it wouldn't ever get discussed on here or on other forums.