hughieslastminutegoal

Perhaps someone can explain why, if SLH's revenue is almost exclusively generated by SFC, and it not being able to continue as a going concern, why SFC isn't in administration itself? The only way that can happen is if SFC isn't paying its "rent" on the stadium. If it were doing so then SLH's revenue (via the stadium co.) wouldn't have changed significantly. As I understood it, its repayments on the stadium loan were at a fixed percentage, so neither will its costs have changed significantly. So I still don't understand how SFC isn't in administration, unless it has a rent on the stadium payable (directly or indirectly) to SLH that varies according to the gate, which would be a very strange thing to do as it would have made SLH directly vulnerable to failure on the pitch, and strips SFC of some or much of any surplus revenue it generates from playing success.

But many experts now say you may. And another thing: It's a question of style. Because it's done for emphasis. But then again style is something Saints fans have not seen much of recently. Is it. (Rhetorical question, so no ?)

Yes - but more lid than cup.

Same as me then Grandad. And from what I can remember one of the ends at Leyton was all grass and railway sleepers.

From that, what he meant to say was we have the lowest number of home and away wins for a team that has won more away than at home.

I broke a fingernail at Leyton Orient when climbing one of their floodlight columns in 1966.

We seem to have specialised in buying ones that are injured and spend the next two seasons after their arrival trying to get them fit, and then usually fail. Just occasionally we are really lucky enough to unload them again.

Where on earth did you learn your politics? If only things were that fair. The law is more often than not drawn up by monied interests in favour of monied interests. Otherwise we'd have a generation of bankers doing an awful lot of porridge at the moment - and we have ... virtually NONE.

You give him too much credit for understanding what was meant - he's spent all season telling us lowe was doing a great job, we had no choice, blah blah. Says it all, really.

He's an international striker who can't score in Denmark or in the CCC. He isn't international quality and I doubt he'll get a decent contract anywhere else or play more than a game or two more for Poland. We were warned by a bloke in France as soon as we gave him a contract.

From the last bit it sounds like Oakley has some inside knowledge which he can't really divulge (yet).

I think Arizona might like Phoenix Park (as long as something does arise from the ashes).

I can't see how that helps - you are just making 18 teams "officially" the new 2nd tier. Most of the money will still be focussed on tier 1 - and if it isn't then sure as eggs is eggs tier 1 will break away, rename itself the Supa Dupa Prem and negotiate separately with Sky. We are on an inexorable slide to a tiny home top division who's teams have bags of time for more and more euro matches in a euro league, and stuff anyone else.

You weren't a student then, I take it.

Surely for it to be binding it has to be part of a contract where there has been consideration on both sides. The consideration would have been given by the parties to the contract - presumably SFC or SLH - which brings you back to whether the new owners (should there be any) of SFC/SLH could be bothered about what ex-employees said about an ex-shareholder/chairman/chief exec/control freak.

Does anyone know if any bookies are offering odds on who might buy the club? 5-1 on a consortium with Souness in it would be worth a punt IMO.

Great news. We can get back on track with SCW and Clifford with sports science and their advanced coaching techniques which just were not given a fair chance first time around. And we can carry on with revolutionary management, which was just financially unlucky this season. Given a few more months, the Academy conveyor belt will get back to where it was and resume producing the starlets we were getting so used to seeing in quantity.

"Shareholders said that there was a tacit understanding at the time that the consortium bought its stake that a new chief executive would need to be found. " --- that chief executive being one of those mentioned in: " The stockbroker said that both men had informed the board of their plans to vote against the re-election of four other directors at WH Ireland's annual meeting next week. The four directors include Richard Ford, the chief executive, Rupert Lowe, the chairman and Roland Rudd, the chief executive of Finsbury, the City PR firm."

"But the Football League ruled that the holding company, the stadium company and the football club were "inextricably linked as one economic entity" and only became insolvent when the football club's debts were taken into account." -- So SFC and the Stadium company are trading while insolvent even though they aren't in administration? That's odd.

The difference seems to be that West ham's holding company is/was more than a holding company for a football club. Maybe we should have kept the radio station and the insurance business after all.

What? Apart from Bale and Walcott, what have we really made good money from? Baird? Do me a favour - we were very, very lucky. Best and Blackstock? Nearly everyone on here was glad to see the back of them. Just because Walcotts and Bales can happen once or twice a decade doesn't mean you gamble your future on it, since most clubs at our level do the same from time to time. "Someone" at the club thought they were Midas, and look what happened to his family.

It is NEVER that simple.

So tell us, noddy, how many managers failed to do just that at Liecester under Mandrake?

I'm glad to see that at long last you've accepted that it's been the execution of the ideas that has been the problem. The idea was to get some commercial additions to a football stadium - singular failure so far as Stonham was concerned. Had to settle for a radio station and an insurance business - notable failures. Put your belief in the Academy to produce enough good players to give a successful first team in the CCC- failed. Have a revolutionary coaching structure - Woodward/Clifford - failed. Dutch duo - failed. Have a conveyor belt of players to sell on at a big profit - failed - result no better than the majority of other 2nd rung clubs. Have a business model that requires Premiership survival - failed. Perhaps you could enlighten us all as to who failed on all these counts?

"I told Lowe I could handle a 'hand-to-mouth' existence, but it does make giving out touchline instructions a bit difficult".