benjii

No way? On here? Other fora maybe, but here....? Never!

Shall we have a sweepstake on who is Wacko-Cherrylifelongtoodlepipsaints' "international manager"? My guess is:

Yes, you are right of course. It was a joke point - I don't want to start a "Rupert thread". I think it's fair to say that the announcement came as a shock to Lowe BUT something must have seriously happened to sour the relationship. Brinksmanship couple with unfounded arrogance on the part of Lowe? Surely not.

I agree with the sentiments but (apparently): 1) We're not asking for the points to be reinstated; we're simply objecting to being asked to waive a right of appeal - why are we being asked to do this? It seems odd, arbitrary, and somewhat despotic. 2) Is it right for the FL to refuse to allow a purchase to go ahead unless the purchasers make a huge concession like that? The points have been applied; the new purchasers will live with that unless they win an appeal - why isn't that enough. 3) We didn't "bend" the rules or seek to "cheat" them. Our parent company went into admin. The rules were badly drafted. The FL has made a decision that cannot be justified by reference to the written agreed rules. Now, there may be some disconnect between the moral option and the option prescribed by the rules, but that is the fault of the rule makers and is due to short-sightedness and/or bad drafting, it is not the fault of SFC. SFC hasn't come up with some Byzantine form of corporate sourcery; it was part of an established structure which exists throughout the world of business and is shared by many other clubs. and one more (cheeky one) for good measure.....! 4) If Lowe hadn't ****ed this all up so badly in terms of timing, it wouldn't be an issue!

Standard response of no use whatsoever. TBH, I'm surprised they even bothered sending that though. I like the reference to the Insolvency Policy applying when "clubs" suffer an insolvency event though. As we all know, SFC has not "suffered an insolvency event".

His interview was unclear but his comments were misconstrued IMO. In any case, they are not remotely relevant given that he wasn't involved with the club at the time or when the structure was put in place and further that the structure predated the League's insolvency rules by a good few years. I really wish people would let it go on this point.

Surely the longer this drags on the more incumbent it is upon the FL to achieve a solution, not Saints (assuming someone is willing to cover monthly overheads). It's their competition that will be screwed up if they have to change everything at the 11th hour.

Sounds dodgy. Probably skates then.

This is precisely the point that I've been making on here for a while. When those idiots announced that "the rest of the FL insolvency provisions would apply" they just showed their inability to understand the situation. The provisions can't apply because they don't apply! There's a massive hole in the drafting that doesn't work in this situation. That was obvious from the start and they've just backed themselves into a bugger's-muddle of a position with no logic or reason that supports it. They should have admitted they had messed up the drafting of the rules or had forgotten that some clubs had parent companies and got on with it. Dimwits.

If this numpty is trying to rock the boat then I think it only fair that people see some of his PM handywork: Hi I am just sick of the people who wanna knock others on here. I went to club yesterday (i do a lot business with the club ) and saw my best contact face to face. He confirmed the following which has been confirmed by two other sources before i even told anyone on here. 1) the deal will be done in 4-5 days 2) it is paul allen still 3) the ruski story was fed to the echo by the pr guys to push the price and his hand. 4) the club are buying there on shares on the fse at the mo to push thro 51% with roops shares from the board to give him immediate total control. happy days. thats the PM ive been sending benji additionally ive been told that seymour pearce are buying the shares on behalf of the club maybe the single protected purchases that have been popping up. the whole point is i think to deliver 51% immediatly to pa upon agreement of his offer.Any lets say grey areas are then nullified upon recommendation by the board it si then in effect a forced purchase of the remainder Seriously, that's what we're dealing with.

Apologies for typing "FA" rather than "FL" earlier. Basically, the longer this drags on the harder it is for the FL seeing as the fixtures have been released. I reckon we should stand our ground.

Yeah, its quality:

All a bit odd if true. The FA have never claimed that the penalty is routed in law. It's not. SLH PLC and SFC Ltd are separate entities. That is a fact. It is not up for debate. The penalty comes from a rather liberal interpretation of its own rules by the FA. What the FA relied upon was the contention that they were "inextrciably linked". That is also, quite frankly, a fact which can hardly be up for debate. The only question is whether the FA rules allowed them the discretion to exercise such a judgment. The issue at hand is a simple one of construction of the FA rules. The legal reality of the SLH umbrella cannot be questioned. If the FA are getting worried about the legal strcuture of the deal with respect to the points penalty then they are missing the point completely and don't seem to understand their own conclusions.

Exactly.

I don't agree with that sentiment. If you live far away and don't want to go to many games but want to ensure you have a fighting chance of getting a ticket for a certain few, you get a Membership. If all the super fans who have been to loads of games want to ensure you don't get in there instead of them, they get a membership too (and many of them probably would anyway). A membership is a form of allegiance that elevates you above the regularly attending non-member. On top of all that, it's easy money for the club. If they have some innovative new proposal then great, let's hear it before judging, of course. On the face of it, it seems odd though. I would have thought Membership was one of the easiest ways of generating cash. If you're going to maintain a customer database in any event then there appears no reason not to try and charge some of them to be higher up it!

If I post in capitals and say the same thing enough times you had better all believe it even if I have a track record of talking gash

Well that would be commercially stupid. I was quite willing to hand over a crisp £20.

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=13891

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/Membership/0,,10280,00.html Well, I was going to buy one this year (unlike the past few). Moving away so don't want an ST. A lot of small away sections, prospect of play-offs ( ) etc... membership was looking attractive. Maybe they're planning on dirt cheap STs and flogging loads of them.

Fulham.

Shearer?

Spot on! (for once )

Dunno. Might well be. I'm conditioned to assume it's a Friday.

Speaking as someone who lived in Nottingham for a couple of years and went to see Forest in League One and County in League Two a few times.... both were about £20.

Yeah, Mike Wilde would never post on here