benjii

But a St Mary's spokesperson said: "It is a relatively small amount of money for us so we are prepared to take the risk rather than cause any bad feeling." Very admirable but I think we should have shafted them.

I still think the massive charity "Skate Aid" cheque would be amazing too!

Shame we conceded from a set piece. We didn't play particularly well but caused them some problems in the first half and scored a decent goal. Fonte and Seabourne continue to impress. Time for Harding to come back in though. I would defy any team, any team, to dominate possession on a pitch as bad as that though. It was probably the worst pitch I've ever seen in person in professional football. The whole thing had a kind of surreal feel as though we were playing a team from several divisions below in the cup. Play-offs are massively unlikely this year. Let's win a cup, beat the skates and deveop for next year.

Add a couple of thin stripes to the sash and this is the winner IMO.

They are morons.

Didn't end up in St Pauls luckily but the driver either didn't know where he was going or was being a complete dickhead. So I got out.

I had a bad experience with a taxi in Bristol yesterday. Fact.

Hilarious interview with Jim Devine on Channel 4 news tonight. It was genuine LOLism. I reccommend trying to find it on Youtube.

Storrie seems to have gone from complete darkness to remarkable financial lucidity rather quickly. I thought he was out of the loop?

Wonder how many Saints fans will be in the home sections?

Storrie is clearly quite thick. He should have stepped down ages ago. If the **** really hits the fan he could be in a fair bit of doo doo.

WTF is PFC doing guaranteeing the rent of some other company?

Got to laugh at that delegation They seem chuffed with themselves that the league have agreed to give Chanrai a hard time. PMSL. Are they thick or what? They genuinely don't realise that he, or some new owner yet to be identified, is the only thing stopping the football club from ceasing to exist on Wednesday.

Trophy means Jack Didlly Squat. A trip to Wembley to play Leeds (not some little scrot club like MK Dons) in front of a sell-out crowd would be class though.

'Spose it's a nice touch though.

I stood on a freezing terrace at Elm Park watched us get two red cards and lose to Reading.... I stood in Krap Nottarf and watched them put four past us... I've seen us lose to countless lower league teams.... I've spent hundreds, thousands of pounds watching Saints.... what do I get? Jack ****.

Quite simply, if a company owes a debt, the company is the debtor. The owners are only relevant if they guarantee it. If you have shares in BA, for example, you aren't responsible for their pensions defecit. That's the whole point of a limited company. The members' liablities are limited to the value of their shares. To take an analogy closer to home, you didn't get Aviva or Barclays writing to the owners of SLH PLC asking for money. SLH PLC owed the debt; not the owners. Yes, it is possible for directors to become liable for things under varous statutory provisions but this has nothing to do with the terms of any loan. EDIT - I've just reread your post and we are basically agreeing with each other!

The liquidator can't override his security - he would still get the lion's share of the proceeds of sale of those assets (assuming the security isn't subject to challenge under the Insolvency Act).

Avram lent over and very tenderly explained to John that he was going to be asked to relinquish the ****'s armband.

Bizarre isn't it?! Spending 91% of turnover on player wages and then not being able to find a billionaire to finance that. Yeah, truly unique. No club ever financed player wgaes on the never-never.

I expect that is exactly what has happened. Couldn't get any answers from Faraj so decided to get his feet under the desk and have a look himself. The next few days are pivotal for the future of PFC. Will Chanrai give the thumbs up or the thumbs down?!

You don't become personally liable for a company's debt simply because you own the company. This seems to be a common misconception round here.

Standard practice to take a legal charge over a share holding by way of security. He has exercised that charge and is now the owner of the shares (subject to any dispute about whether the right to exercise the charge arose). My guess is that he doesn't have a definite plan. My guess is that he leant the money without the full knowledge of the situation he would have liked to have had in retrospect (apparently not knowing about the PL's right to withhold tv money for example). He has been trying to get to the bottom of the club's finances but has found Al Firage to be unresponsive. As a final throw of the dice he has exercised security so he can get his feet under the desk, have a look at the finances and decide what to do. He may conclude there is no point doing anything or he might decide it's worth keeping the life-support on. Just a guess and devoid of conspiracy theories involving Gaydamak but it seems to fit the "known" facts. EDIT - what is interesting is that a company can refuse to register a new owner of shares. If they genuinely do dispute Chanrai's right to do this then things could get very messy indeed.

Think I might play: ------------------KD----------------- JO-------Fonte-----Seabourne-----Mills Antonio-------MS----PW-------Puncheon ---------Barnard-------Waigo-----------