stevegrant

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Out of date by at least a year.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.

I think what people mean by Salz "getting involved" isn't so much coming in and working with the people currently in the boardroom, but more like joining forces with like-minded respected individuals who would be in a position to actually make changes at the top. There are supposedly a large number of wealthy individuals who each hold a great deal of kudos who could get involved (even if they - understandably - didn't want to put much/any of their own money in the pot), but I suspect the majority of them will have already been sounded out and haven't been interested. It's quite likely that the "investment" Wilde pledged when he removed Lowe in 2006 was due to come from these individuals, and with the global financial position having slumped since then, I can't see them wanting to have anything to do with it this time around.

I suspect their long-standing reputations in various high places are more important to them than their "love" of SFC. I think Salz is more than happy to sit in the background making noises about how he "might" get involved at some stage, but at the same time hoping that someone else steps up to the plate and puts in the time, effort and expense of actually doing something. Arguably, it's the same sort of "empty" promise that Leon Crouch seems to favour, along the lines of making a pledge to people in private (knowing that it'll get leaked to paint him in a good light) that he knows he'll never have to follow through.

Was that before or after he renewed his season ticket at the Emirates? Your original post is by far and away the most sensible, logical and well thought-out idea that has been mooted in recent times to effect change, particularly as there's no suggestions in there that would instantly pass any moral high ground straight into the hands of the "opposition".

4-1, if I remember rightly, Scott and I were clean through 3 or 4 times between us only to be cynically hacked down by one of their centre-backs safe in the knowledge that as it's only a friendly, they won't get sent off. They were also a bunch of whinging tossers.

We won't be playing QPR. What's the point in playing a so-called "friendly" when all the opposition do is cheat?

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree entirely with this, so I'd rather Pompey win today.

On who?

That would be against FA/Football League rules, as you would effectively be allowing third-party control over the player's appearances. It's a bit different when the player is on loan and therefore cannot play against their parent club, because by him playing in that game, there's a clear conflict of interests. On this occasion, there would be no such conflict as he's owned by Fiorentina, not Norwich.

On what basis? While he's clearly not the best striker in the Championship, he's still our top scorer by some distance, which isn't a complete disgrace given that he's either been playing as a lone frontman with bugger all support or as a wide midfielder giving no support to a different lone frontman for the vast majority of the season. 9 goals in 30 starts isn't a hideous record by any stretch of the imagination in a team that's only scored 29 goals in all competitions this season. He says with his 4021st post on Saintsweb without a hint of irony...

Could be a wireless network card receiver?

Oh, and here's a rather amusing article which sums up the hypocrisy of the likes of Emma Thompson and Alastair McGowan pleading "green" issues... http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1507&Itemid=59

The problem with the Thames Estuary site, as far as I can tell, is that a) you'd only be able to take off and land at the east end of the runway as the west end would then get in the way of flight paths from the other London airports, and b) the environmental issues in terms of endangered species etc are far greater in that location than they are on the proposed site of T6/R3 at Heathrow.