stevegrant

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 ----------------------

Not entirely sure what the Greek keeper was doing... it was going straight at him, then all of a sudden he just dived out of the way

This. Burley was decent enough overall, IMO.

Happy with that, Higuain's in my fantasy league team

3-1, Higuain from about a foot out Good game this one

It works both ways on that, though... don't forget AA said the debt would "bottom out at £78m", then all of a sudden this new load of debt turns up to reduce the HMRC percentage.

Interesting that both the official Facebook page for the club and the original linking article from the OS have both disappeared...

You'll find that pages you view for the first time (since the server change) will still take a little while to load - one of the JavaScript libraries used by this style is 400kb - but once they've been loaded once, they'll be pretty much instant from then onwards as they'll be cached by your browser. The only thing that will take any time will be content you've not seen and the actual text from posts that is retrieved from the database.

Right, I've made some changes on the server (which I foolishly believed were already in place) so most of the content will now be compressed, which should make page loads much quicker

Your account shows that you first paid on 15th June 2009, so that looks right.

I assume the other details were your PayPal login details? Yes, no problem. I'll put the address on the subscriptions page.