stevegrant

The only data we still have is what Master Bates has copied from the front page of the forum, which is as from 3rd August 2008, the date Saints Web was launched after the TSF server died a horribly painful death. I think you are right, though, the "most online at once" figure was a bit higher on the previous incarnation. The levels of total traffic are pretty similar, though. In fact, since the New Year, they've actually been higher than the old forum.

Indeed. The largest pinch of salt being taken here...

If you're looking for old threads from TSF, you *might* get lucky with Google's cache, or perhaps archive.org

They had a Saints fan on there on Wednesday last week... bucking a trend, he won by a mile.

Haven't a clue about the "position" of it, to be honest. I speak to Nick and a few of the other board members occasionally, but I'm not aware of anything major in the pipeline, although I have vague recollections of them being quite happy with the membership recruitment drive they did before Christmas. I would expect them to be formulating some sort of plan or statement on the current situation, but I really don't know. I don't think it's ever been that, to be honest, although I can see why that may be the perception. Nick is probably the only "recognised" name on the board now, so I guess it's inevitable that it all leads back to him, but he's been chairman for quite a while now. It's only a hindrance if people want to make it one. The Trust is the perfect vehicle for supporters who want their voice to be heard within the club, its structure ensures that the majority viewpoint is always taken, so any policies will always be reflective of the majority of the membership. Of course, unless every supporter joined, it won't be entirely reflective of the fanbase, but given a bit of support it could easily represent a significant cross-section. I think a lot more was made of the "fan on the board" stuff than was necessary - it certainly wasn't the single policy that many people seemed to think it was, and the original idea was a 5-year plan to get to that stage. Unfortunately those in control at the club at the time decided that they'd try to rush it through before the Trust had gained the kudos and reputation it required in order to make it work, and I made my reservations (particularly surrounding the idea of combining the Trust's membership figures with those of the regional supporters groups to get to the "magical" 1600 figure) known at the time, but others felt it was too good an opportunity to turn down (for the Trust, not for them personally - I don't think any of those on the board at the time would have actually been the fan who got voted onto the SFC board) and one the Trust might not get again, which was their choice and one that I accepted on the democratic basis. It's still there, and the board has decent people working on it, but in order for it to do anything it requires people to support it and to buy into the idea. I'd like to think that having Nick as chairman wouldn't put people off, but I can also appreciate that he's not everyone's cup of tea. I think his experience of supporter initiatives could prove very useful in these troubled times, though. Whether people are willing to give him and the others a chance is another matter. Edit to add: of course, if Nick isn't leading it or acting as spokesman, as I said in the other thread it still requires somebody to step up to the plate and be ready to assist the media at no notice. I don't envisage many people being willing or able to do so.

Just now you were saying that Robin's articles were more like a personal blog rather than the views of the organisation which he represents... make your mind up, either it's "only a personal blog" or it's a Trust statement of policy - it can't really be both.

It also needs a receptive audience. Unfortunately, while a lot of fans will agree with most of the voted-on policies of the Trust, most of them will also use the one policy - whatever it may be - they don't agree with to beat it with and refuse to join or get involved solely because of that. It would be nigh-on impossible to have a series of policies that every single supporter agreed on, and for some reason there seems to be a complete lack of any willing on the part of anybody to compromise.

It's entirely possible that that's the case - I've seen posts on here in the past which have basically been along those lines. However, it's a catch-22 situation really. People don't want to get involved if it's the "same old faces", but it usually ends up being predominantly the "same old faces" who are willing to put in the effort to get organisations such as the Trust off the ground. Any "outsider" who does get involved tends to very quickly get fed up and disheartened from the numerous cynical posts on forums which slag off every single thing they do or say, regardless of whether there are merits to them or not, and then you're back to the "same old faces" again...

So you recognise here that they are his views, rather than those of the Trust, and yet have a go at him because he gets asked his opinion by the media? As far as I'm aware, unless he's been given mandate to do so on the basis of a members' vote, Nick hasn't ever come out and said "The Saints Trust thinks ". He gets quoted by the press as "Nick Illingsworth, chairman of the Saints Trust" because the press like to use "credible" sources as much as possible, as it gives weight to their story. That doesn't mean to say that it's the opinion of that particular organisation. He's stated his opinion. What's the big deal? In what way?

I guess that would then depend on whether Duncan has made himself available. I know that Nick's job allows him the time to do it at pretty much immediate notice - I don't know if Duncan (or anyone else, for that matter) would have the same flexibility.

At the end of the day, the media always go to him when they want a quote or an interview. That's not his fault - as the chairman of the supporters group with the largest membership, you would expect him to be the first port of call, but - having spoken to a few people I know in local media circles - he's pretty much the only fan who a) has made himself available to the various media outlets, b) is almost always available during the day when said media outlets want interviews, quotes, etc, and c) also has a "position" within a supporters' organisation which (believe it or not) does give credence to the views he expresses. If there were more options who tick those boxes available, there would be a much more varied take on matters. Journalists, by their very nature, are lazy. If they know that 99 times out of 100 an individual will be available to help them fill column inches or TV space, they'll use that individual, because he/she is reliable. Until other fans put themselves forward for it, the media will continue to go to Nick for Saints-related opinions, whether you or I like it or not.

If Lowe wanted to commit corporate suicide on a Ratners scale, he'd consider it. The likelihood is slim to none, I imagine.

Bloody hell, that's Stanley AND SaintRobbie I've agreed with in the same thread. Nurse!

So much so that you went to the trouble of creating a thread and copying and pasting his entire article into it...

Out of date by at least a year. I've not been involved for a year, Steve Godwin is the same.

Given that you've called for "militant, aggressive action", I would suggest that a "peaceful" protest might not be your highest priority. They wouldn't prosecute - it wouldn't be worth the hassle - but they'd be well within their rights to remove you from the premises and impose a ban if they so wished.

I'd probably personally go as far as to say don't be a **** and do something illegal, but otherwise spot on... I think I need a lie down, I've agreed with you on something It hasn't come from anywhere other than us noticing a few posts that have hinted at getting a bit close to the wire. You've paid to enter the ground on the condition that you agree and accept the ground regulations. Invading the pitch, bringing prohibited items into the ground, etc are all against the ground regulations and the club are well within their rights to remove you from the premises (forcibly, if necessary) if you break those rules.

No, my criticism is reserved for the three of them in equal measures. Their behaviour, both publicly and privately, in the last few years has been an embarrassment and a disgrace, and I cannot wait for the day when all three of them cease to have any involvement with SFC. I think we're all in agreement that the bank basically call all the shots right now. If they were aware of this offer and wished for it to be pushed through, either in the form that it originally took or with acceptable modifications, they'd have done it at the earliest opportunity. The sooner their risk reduces, the happier they become and the fewer leashes they need to wrap around the club's neck. They must have their reasons for not having done so, if it was Lowe and/or Wilde putting blocks on it, they'd have just taken the situation out of their hands by whatever means possible.

If the bank were aware of it "at least a month ago", why haven't they appeared to have been putting any sort of pressure on the board to accept (or at least negotiate!) the offer?

That merely emphasises the point, to be honest. He knows Lowe and Wilde won't be able/willing to match it, so whether it's in writing or not, it's still pretty empty, in my opinion. The knowledge (or, more importantly, the release of the knowledge into the public domain) that the offer has been made gives him a moral standing, but it would be very interesting if they were to call his bluff on it, although I wouldn't expect either of them to take that risk as I don't think they could afford to do so.

While I agree with you, for that to happen, we'd actually have to win a home game first... Administration would not guarantee the departure of Lowe and/or Wilde. All it would do is make the club available to the person(s) who offer the largest monetary return to the creditors, after numerous assets have already been sold. The person(s) who make the largest offer could easily be Lowe and/or Wilde and their associates, and then they'd own 100% of the club rather than a smaller percentage of it as is currently the case.

Not all of them have the ability to receive PMs. Besides, a timely reminder to the masses isn't necessarily a bad thing.

No - it's a pre-emptive strike on our part

The highlighted bit is the key part, and that is what was implied in Baj's post. There have been hints and suggestions on various threads of things that are/could be construed as illegal, and as alpine_saint says, with the spotlight likely to be on this forum right now, we felt we needed to emphasise a couple of points (that are already present in the forum rules) which can often be ignored/forgotten in the heat of the moment. I have no doubt that 99% of people on here do know where the line has to be drawn, but that post was probably more for the 1% who don't.

As a PLC, directors' liability is limited by definition, so unless they did something negligent, they wouldn't be financially liable for anything.