benjii

What a farce.

Why on earth didn't you bury the hatchet with Crouch instead of teaming up with that incompetent buffoon?

Next season? The one after?...

I agree about the radio and insurance companies. Pretty irrelevant really. Especially as it was Saints radio and Saints branded insurance! I just can't see the point in this sham investigation. It would have taken them about 5 minutes of looking at the published accounts to realise what we all know! Or look at the website! By the sounds of what Fry has said, they were exceeding their brief at the end. Sounds like they finished what they were purported to be doing and then started digging around looking for "irregularities" etc... The fact is, the rules don't appear to allow for this BUT because of the nature of the organisation and the fact that without membership of it, clubs are buggered, they will probably get away with it. Would be funny if someone dragged them through the Lords and European courts one day but frankly, that would cost too much for a cash-strapped company.

Thief!!;-)

So if Salz takes over and is popular we can finally lay the ridiculous class-prejudice arguments to rest?

Nearly allowed it to eat in to the revision too much in the Summer of Allen.

I'm tempted to email 5 Live and ask them not to call him again! I respect what he's done for Saints and his commitment but a mouthpiece, he aint!

On a further point - there is now no incentive for the football club to stay out of admin if there is a buyer on the horizon (unless they really do want to appeal).

Well, indeed. I agree and ultimately that is what they have done. If they felt the need to spunk a load of money on forensic accounting that's their choice but by "legalising" the process they actually make our case stronger IMO. If they had just said, "this is manifestly unfair and it is obvious to the sense of justice of all proper people that a penalty needs to be applied as the holding company only exists because of the football club" they would be in a stronger position.

p.s I don't think Crouch meant to suggest that the corporate structure was put in place to avoid a penalty in these situations. I just don't think he expressed himself very well. The reasons for this belief are: 1) The corporate structure predates the league's insolvency rules 2) The structure was put in place becasue the original stadium finance was provided on a limited recourse basis 3) We needed to back into a listed company If Mawhinney thinks Crouch's comments are in any way useful evidence he is an idiot because: 1) Crouch had nothing to do with the establishment of the corporate structure so how would he knw anyway; and 2) the reasons above.

Point f effectively apes standard boilerplate clauses in commercial / financial agreements, the point of which is to act as a sweeper in the case of some other procedure analagous to an English insolvency event taking place - hence the reference to "any jurisdiction". It also anticipates a change in English law ie. "Administration" as it is now, changes into something slightly different but similar etc. It would not be designed to move the goalposts of the preceeding clauses but merely to capture events that are not strictly defined therein. If they are relying on point f to catch us, they are changing the goalposts as there is no other jurisdiction involved and there is no analogous procedure. Basically, they fecked up the drafting or didn't anticipate this scenario. Or didn't care because they are such a clandestine troupe of old-ties that it makes bugger all difference to their sad little boys club in any case.

I expect they'll be terrible.

Certainly the use of "suited" seems to suggest someone with a footballing or more specific Saints/local connection IMO.

A company is insolvent if it's liabilities exceed its assets or it's unable to py its debts as they fall due. What are SFC Ltd's liabilities? I would imagine they are the staff costs - hence this depserate scrabble for some money before wages are payable. In any case, until such time as it cannot pay its debts it is solvent. I don't think they are the overdraft? I don't think (in fact I'm 99% sure) they are the mortgage repayments. Clearly the holding company's activities are all football related - there is no doubt. However, that is where the liabilities seem to lie, either directly or through other subsidiaries, not with the football club. It may be morally offensive. It may be a bit sly. But, if their rules are a pile of ****, that's their fault.

I think he has a bee in his bonnet about bankers/lawyers/accountants/anyone cleverer than him..... On a related point, I've just watched the Mark Fry press-conference on the Beeb site. I liked his reference to the FL appeal procedure which he said involves a bunch of QCs sitting around and considering the issue. He welcomed this as it meant that the process was being considered at the "right intellectual level" - almost a Loweism, but a point well made in any case.

Any notion that Lowe gave a stuff about genuinely wishing to atone for past errors and engender some unity went straight out of the window the day Pearson was sacked.... (which in Lowe's mind was probably the day he was appointed).

Sacking Pearson, closely followed by appointing Wigley, closely followed by sacking Sturrock at that particular time.

Don't care, I'll be dead.

Where did you paste this shower of guff from?

Brilliant post =D> (worth quoting if only that those who have limited attention spans have a second crack at reading it.)

Wonderful stuff. Well done GM.

That second one is wee-weeing, not filthmongering

A clean sweep ****ing underwater Being half-asleep, half-awake and dribbling