egg

Mate, I'm not interested in a pointless debate about recent geo political history. Whilst I'm always interested in opinions on what actually hit the pentagon that day, and how the 3rd tower fell down, but I'm more concerned about what's happening in the Middle East and the all buy inevitable conflict to come. To answer the inevitable next question, no I don't swallow the boll0cks the media feed us without thought or investigation.

This could be the start of a keeper clear out. We have 8 Pro keepers I think which is nuts. Lewis has shown potential but I doubt he's seen as a number 2. Ditto Rose. It may be that we ship loads out, Mccarthy included, and bring in competition / cover for Gunn. Wtf we do with Fraser is another matter.

No idea mate, I rely on facts and evidence before I take a view and I'm unaware of the facts there. She may well be guilty but I have no opinion on it.

Do I have to go go there to understand how to view a map and understand that Iran is on one side of the ship? Jesus. I see that you boldly proclaim that "Iran did it". Please link me to the evidence to that?

Agree with this. The anti Iran rhetoric is being ramped up big time. The damage being on the starboard side is telling - even more so is the evidence of those on board saying what hit the boat. There's no evidence it was lympet mine from Iran or anyone, but evidence it was a fired weapon of some sort that struck from the non Iranian side of the strait. America will either go to war with Iran, or encourage and arm others to do so. All that's needed is an excuse that can be dressed up as justification.

Can you translate this into an understandable point please. I'm really not sure whether or not you're trying to say that buying players represents an investment to the owner if it's the owners cash being ponied up. If that is your point, if it were Gao money that paid for Hoedt and Carillo please explain the investment part. To me it looks as though the money was spunked away.

There's no comparison between Vokins and Shaw whatsoever. Physically there's almost half a foot between them, and Shaw is as strong as an ox. Defensively Shaw is more solid. He also has more pace and better delivery. Apart from that they're just the same.

This. As an owner of our club he has done nothing wrong whatsoever. As you say he's binned off Les and Hockey Ralph ; binned Hughes decisively ; hired Ralph ; spent a load of cash last summer ; started spending this summer already. Judge the man based on his actions as our owner, not perceptions and amateur detective work.

So now your flapping cos based on your Web research, he's not as wealthy as the Bournemouth and some other owners, and that we're in a mess if we get relegated? Your fear of the latter seems to be based on the fact that we won't spend as much as you would like, ie we're back to the expectation that the owner plows cash into the club without any prospect of a return. Business doesn't operate in that way. You ask what has been sustained if we get relegated. If my house was or car was in danger of being repossessed I would fight to preserve my asset and avoid financial loss. Do you seriously think that Gao wouldn't do the same to preserve his? Of course he would - he won't sit back and watch us regress and see his investment diminish in value. You mention my optimism. That's based on a) the fact that I can't do feck all about our club and its ownership so I don't waste my energy flapping about stuff I can't contol, and b) there is no evidence whatsoever that Gao has done anything that could jeopardise our future. This thread began, and my initial position was and remains, that Gao's desire for us to be a self sustainable club is a reasonable desire. Its seems that you and many others think a) that's unreasonable (the verruca salt "daddy I want another pony" syndrome - just remember where we were a few years back - assuming you were dragging yourself to midweek winter games in the league 1 days) and/or b) unrealistic cos of your perception of Gao and his financial position, or whatever. I'll leave it here cos this has been done to death. If you want to have the last word, fill your boots but I'll relax and look forward to the season ahead.

This is tedious. Once you've bought a self sustaining football club you don't need money to run that self sustaining football club cos it's self sustaining, thus his wealth is academic. As for trying to guess a man's wealth, jeez.

Appears so.

With RB being 30 soon and a short contract I doubt we'd get much more for him than Targett who imo isn't quite good enough so selling Targett makes more sense. That said, I think Mcqueen will really suit RH style and him and Vokins is a great prospect too. Something has to give and if we don't get decent offers for Targett I could see RB being moved on as we can't have 4 LB's.

No idea what's going on with the thread - it looks like I'm replying to myself!!

Yes. This was years ago and led to the 1st trial in 1991 ish. The investigation resumed many years later leading to the recent conviction and sentence.

This all came to light when Merrington was travelling back from a game with youth team and heard the lads talking about what was going on. Merrington stopped the bus, asked what was happening, then blew the lid on it.

Fair points and understood. I'm less emotional than that and am evidence based. Currently I see that we haven't got a Marcus type with obvious passion and a plan. On the other hand I'm not seeing an owner who's being reckless and prejudicing our club. Let's see how we go but currently I'm no more than wary of Gao.

Thanks, I get all of that and it's helpful to have some clarity from you rather than opinions of personalities. The bit I've highlighted "sub-optinal ownership and lack of executive direction in an era of power-house ownership will lead to regression" is an interesting comment. I'm not sure how those matters would lead to regression, or indeed how a lack of "impetus" (which I interpret to mean capital injection) would necessarily lead to regression. If, however, income is not used to enhance the playing staff then yes regression and ultimately relegation are a concern. However, suggesting (in a very roundabout way, whilst disputing a sense of entitlement) that an owner should be expected to inject capital absolutely represents nothing but a sense of entitlement. The owner wants us to be self sufficient and there's no reason why we cannot be competitive within our mini league in the premier league. Our issue has not been monies for players, its been recruitment. Other than what I've said above I'm not sure why anything else you say is a concern and how it could impact on our club. Gao's credibility, or lack of if that's the case, doesn't impact on the football club.

What are you actually advocating if it's not a theory/concern/conjecture that the club are somehow in jeopardy/exposed by something to do with Gao? Frankly I haven't got a clue what your point is, and if you have one, what is based on.

Benjii, where's the link between some apparent loan overseas and the club? And don't say Gao, I mean an actual relevant financial/contractual link that would jeopardise the club if the apparent loan was not serviced. A sensible/factual response would make a welcome change.

You say: "If the HK company defaults then Saints could end up being owned by the HK bank" That's the kind of scare mongering that makes threads like this carry on. It's wrong. Individuals and companies are entirely separate legal things and unless there are charges, debentures, loan agreements or other contractual links they have no impact upon each other. There is no evidence to suggest a link, just conjecture on here.

Wow, proper sentence is that and nothing less than he deserves. I know a lad involved in this and the impact of Higgins behaviour has changed lives but hopefully all victims can now have a degree of closure. Big respect to Merrington too. Had he not stopped the bus that day and demanded answers from those boys, and then blown the whistle, this would have carried on.

Ha!! Your wish to scare monger and suggest it's armageddon does you no favours. As has been pointed out, our club has no registered security to Gao. None. Nil. Zero. Yet despite that idiots like you seek to suggest that we are/may be/could be exposed by our mysterious owner. Why? What is the basis of your worry? Ignorance probably. When you have some evidence that we as a club are financially exposed come back with a link to the evidence. If Gao has issues (if) it doesn't mean the club has to worry - it is self sufficient and doesn't need outside money despite our spoiled fans believing our "community club" deserves it cos Bournemouth got cash form their owner. In what way is Gao "useless". Binning off Hughes? Securing Ralph? How about moving Les and the other Ralph out of our club? That's all useful imo. Let's assume Gao is indebted (of which we have no proof). How does that impact on our unsecured club? Please remember that Gao and teh club are separate legal entities so if Gao has personal debt then that's not the club in debt. There's been a few sensible posts above re the clubs lack of security. Try reading them. If you don't understand what they mean ask and people who do understand will explain. Apologies if that's condescending but for a fella who likes to shout the odds and patronise you seem to lack understanding. In the meantime, wind your neck in and don't shoot down people who look at the facts rather than forming misguided opinion.

Undoubtedly it's very likely. We know that there is no secured borrowing against the club, but that doesn't mean no borrowing / directors loans. If there is its nothing unusual - businesses borrow and directors loan money. There really is a load of worrying over nothing here.

Yep, seriously. Businesses borrow. Business owners loan monies to their businesses. Those businesses repay that borrowing. It's tax efficient to do so. Assuming (and that's all we can do) that we are repaying an affordable amount to our owner to repay monies dues, I repeat the question, what is the issue?

Just catching up with the thread. What's the issue with him borrowing to fund the purchase and the club then repaying his loan? If the club can afford to do so I'm struggling to understand the issue.