benjii

The team: -------------KD--------------- James-----Perry----Size------Skacel -------------Wotton------------- Lallana---------------------Surman ------------DMcG--------------- -----Euell----------------BWP----

Have you been drinking what ART drinks?

Oh, ok. That's actually not a bad idea. I applaud the club's spirit of invention.

Nice afternoon for spending a bit of time in the garden. Need to do a bit of work too. Off to the gym this evening then it's Hell's Kitchen and 24 on Sky+. COYR

If that's true it's a disgrace. No wonder we're in trouble.

Good question. Surely Norwich should be bailing us out to make sure this doesn't happen. Come on Delia - let's be 'avin'ya.

I've heard that the Parkinson's Society have requested that his name be changed.

Me too - they're hilarious!

Not sure if I can be bothered really. £24 seems a bit much. It is a nice day though so haven't ruled it out yet.

Great post that some plonkers on here would do well to digest.

I have yet to hear a sensible argument as to why this post isn't spot-on.

I agree completely. That's why I would have no hesitation in making a bold sub quite early ie. half-time, if we're not in the lead and drag off one of the starting CMs. Your team of Wotton at RB with James at CM gives us better passing from the middle but I just can't imagine Wotton offering anything in terms of link up with BWP down the right.

So who are the two better options for the left slots then? Overestimated or not, I don't think we have two better left sided players.

Wotte himself confirmed that we had bids for Surman and Lallana and Swansea went public stating they wanted to sign Dyer. Even if we did get "peanuts" I'm sure it would have covered the £500k we apparently desparately need and it may well have convinced Barclays to relax a little.

That eleven, picked regularly and coached properly would not be anywhere near the bottom three of the Championship IMO.

-------------KD------------- James---Perry--Size---Surman BWP----Euell-----Wotton----Skacel ---------DMcG-----Saga--------- If we aren't winning after a while get Wotton off and stick Smith or Holmes on the wing, moving Skacel behind the front two.

I forgot to mention that we fecked up majorly with respect to not selling any players in January.

This is a valid question. Whatever did or didn't happen, to have to enter administration just a few days after the deadline due to a couple of bounced cheques smacks of a major ****-up by someone.

and Hone. And Saintlee.

I work in the professional services industry. I know what the charges are. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. They don't do 5 minutes work and bill it as an hour. Solicitors typically bill in 6 minute "units" so 1 unit = 1/10th of their hourly rate (although some US firms do take the **** a bit by using 15 minute units). As for the anecdotal story in the Times - they firm isn't named so who knows who it was. Maybe it was one of the two-bit shysters I referred to?

I'e never seen the point of that statistic though. It may be an interesting distraction but is pointless. You don't get any bonus points for having sold out. From a purely commercial view, a sell-out may in fact suggest that your pricing is too low. Losing 5% through the gate but charging the remaining folk 10% more is better for the club. I'm not advocating high prices, I just don't see any point at all in the attendance as a %age of turnover statistic as stadium capacity is not easily altered, nor is it subject to fluctuations, whereas attendance clearly is. Hitting a figure of 100% is not desirable. If you're hitting 100% week in week out, you should be seeking to enlarge your ground or raise prices.

I agree completely. One thing that does strike me as odd though - Bruce Grobbelaar: I may be missing something, but is there not more than a strong whiff that he didn't exactly "give his all" when he was at Saints? Seems odd that he should be involved in something like this.

Yes, I agree.

Don't you remember Scooby?

I think they are in a bit of a pickle because of the FA rules really. They are probably worried about making some sort of public statement that prejudices the case against avoiding the points deduction. It seems rather odd to claim on the one hand that the club is solvent and so no points should be deducted, but on the other that it needs to be gifted £500,000 in the next month to survive. Surely that indicates that it is, unless extraordinary funds are received, unable to pay its debts as they fall due: ie. insolvent. Let's face it - we're going down and we'll get a points penalty. If we get a new buyer then good - a fresh start. I fail to see what difference donations are going to make in the meantime.