stevegrant

It's included in the original entry cost. I'll need postal addresses from everyone at some point, but I'll worry about that a bit later.

Haven't watched it yet, but will be looking out for it, certainly. It's still not right, tried to play 6-a-side last night and it's still giving me grief

I have the master copy of the DVD now, so will be getting the copies done fairly soon.

Quite, but the same can be said for both "sides" in this instance.

You may wish to practice what you preach. I would draw your attention in particular to the bit I've highlighted in bold.

You're confusing the ill-fitting replica shirt-wearing Sulieman al-Fahim with the never-spotted Ali al-Faraj... Interestingly, Radio Solent's Twitter feed has just revealed that: and the best one... Er, why have the club's lawyers been in touch with HMRC if a) there has been no appeal, and b) the CVA is - as they claim - watertight?

I've not managed to find the root cause of it yet (mainly as I was away all weekend and busy last night), but I suspect it's to do with the Yahoo-sourced JavaScript files... Rather than source them off our server, I can retrieve them from either Yahoo or Google to improve the performance, so I might try that later.

An unofficial page.

Here's the original thread: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?22677-Saints-official-Facebook-page

Given they announced its launch on the OS to a big fanfare, I think it's safe to say it was official, unless it's a cunning piece of misdirection

Thing is, they could easily have prevented user comments and just used it as another means of alerting people to OS articles. Interestingly, there's been nothing posted to the officialsaints Twitter feed since the Facebook page was dropped, and the original OS article announcing the launch of the page has mysteriously disappeared.

To be honest, I've generally got very little sympathy for those involved - firstly, the surveillance is magnified at derby games; secondly, Maze Hill should have been a reminder that, rightly or wrongly, football-related disorder is generally treated with much harsher sentences than you would expect for similar crimes in "normal" life; thirdly, regardless of the harshness (or otherwise) of the sentence, they've still broken the law and as such can expect to be penalised for doing so if caught. That said, the entire situation would probably have been avoided had the police done what is normally done for derby games, i.e. keep the away fans in the ground until the home crowd has dispersed. One might even speculate that they may have set up such an incident in the hope of nabbing a few "faces" and in order to justify the expense of policing the game (even though it's covered by the club).

Considering their faces were plastered across the front of the Echo as part of a request for information by the police, I'd say it's pretty much guaranteed that they were unknown in Football "Intelligence" circles.

Did they insist that their customers don't take on credit to buy their products as well?

The one caveat I'd add with that is that the club has (or had, no idea what the deal is for the coming season) a contract with Avensis to provide the coaches for the club for the whole season. As a result, I think it would have been Avensis operating the third-party coaches on a sub-contract basis, rather than the club going direct to those companies. Therefore, it's entirely possible that Avensis saw an opportunity to screw the club (and, by definition, the fans) for a bit of extra cash, as they would have wanted to make a markup on each of the sub-contracted coaches as well as their own.

is all I have to say, really...

I suspect it'll be a one-to-one interview with Cortese on Radio Solent where questions and comments are pre-screened for "suitability".

How would you describe it then? Club says "we're not running an installment plan because of the high administrative cost to the club" Fan does research, discovers there are options which cost the club precisely zero (where the cost is passed on to the customer) Club says "we're not running an installment plan because of the high administrative cost to the club", in direct opposition to the facts presented to them. Not if the cost is passed on to the customer. It's an absolute ****ing sham and I'm absolutely appalled that so many people cannot (or refuse to) see what's happening here.

No it doesn't, it's just bad wording on the original article on the OS. The £2 matchday surcharge is included in the "Matchday Prices" list. Therefore, someone wanting to buy a ticket, say, in the Northam for an individual game has the following options: 1. Find time to go to the ticket office to buy in advance in person: £22 2. Buy over the phone or online in advance: £22 + £3 booking fee = £25 3. Take a chance with the queues on the day of the game: £24 This is one of the few bits of information I've actually managed to get out of the club in the last two months, so I'm pretty sure that's right.

Judging by what Baj has posted in the "Forum Suggestions" forum, it's fixed, but you have to remove SaintsWeb from your list of favourites and then re-add it.

The typing delay is a strange one, I tried it in loads of different browsers and it seems to be a problem specific to Internet Explorer. I'll have a hunt around to see if anyone's found a fix for it. On the page load speed, there are a few more tweaks that I can do, so I'll try those out a bit later today if I get time.

Pele was sold for a profit, and the sale figure was less than £1m according to West Brom. The purchase figure was never published. Skacel figure is correct Davis was £1m (published figure - soccerbase only lists published figures) Rasiak deal was done in 05/06 BWP was undisclosed, but the figure is probably about right Idiakez was £250k (published figure) Viafara figure is about right I've not included any signing-on fees for free transfers, otherwise you'd have to add a load on to all the other teams' outlay as well, unless you want to have a guess at how much they were spending on wages as well - Sunderland (Connolly, John, Edwards, etc) and Birmingham's (Phillips, McSheffrey) spending in that regard would put ours comfortably in the shade.

They are, but they still get a vote as an unsecured creditor. I guess they've only rejected it either on a point of principle or perhaps with the thought of the legal challenge to the football creditors rule in mind.

Three creditors rejected the CVA: HMRC (obviously) Steve ****er - Tommy Smith's agent and.... Paul Hart

Some cracking rewriting of history to suit your Burley hatred there. Transfer outlay in 2006/7: Sunderland £7.7m Birmingham £7.5m ---------------------- Derby £5.3m West Brom £800k Wolves £1.5m Saints £5m ----------------------