benjii

TBF Bournemnouth are a two-bit outfit of no-hopers. We are Premier League in all but league status. :^o

I don't get the thread title.

Forgot about Gillet - yes, I'd keep him too. Haven't seen enough of Gobern to be honest. I wouldn't advocate jettisoning the likes of him and Paterson, I just haven't seen enough to endorse them. As for Lallana, I'm just not sure. He seems to have trouble kicking the ball.

I don't know about Bournemouth. If they were then I presume they're just stringing Jackson along so he doesn't start gobbing-off on the tele again?!

The other bidders feel inferior as they haven't got Barry and Beckham lined up.

Ok - thanks for clarifying and sorry if the tone of my last post seemed confrontational. Don't forget that the administrators deal with serious corporate players all the time. They will soon see Jackson etc for the non-entities they are. That said, they have a duty to treat any enquiry as credible ab initio even if it is quickly shown to be otherwise. I'm sure it will settle down soon. Anyone put-off by a few shenanigans on matchday needs to look at the bigger picture.

Of the regular first teamers: KD James Holmes DMcG Of the nippers: Mills McLagon

Sorry, FF, what are you taling about? A "bunfight" in the boardroom? Before Lowe left or after? If before, then who gives a toss - he's history. If after, then the only people left in the boardroom are Dave Jones and the new chap - I doubt that's who you're refering to. I think you either need to elaborate or not post this kind of thing as it is largely unintelligible.

Nigel Pearson?

It certainly sounded as though he would jump at the chance if offered it.

on the radio earlier said that he has applied for the Saints Manager job several times over the past 10 years. Apparently he has all the relevant coaching qualifications etc... He also said if he and Merrington had been appointed at Christmas they would definitely have kept us up this year. Now, clearly the second pargraph is pure conjecture but the gist of his interview does reinforce the painfully obvious point that there were numerous cheap alternatives available to Lowe and that appointing a bizare nobody under the apparent instruction of a mysterious "Mr Fixit" was not the only option. Anyone who still thinks our league position has been dictated exclusively by the finances is just plain odd IMO.

On Radio Hampshire they said they had to edit his interview before it was suitable for broadcast. I think he's trying his best, it's just not good enough and people like Wotton and Saga let him down today.

If someone would like to explain how a holder of 6% of the share capital of a small, publically listed company can prevent one of the richest men in the world from getting hold of it then I am all ears.

I thought administration was brilliant?

It's ok - I've already been exposed as spouting a load of dross!

If goal difference is level does it go down to post-hits? I thought it was corners?

I heard it was this bloke:

Lol - indeed it does! My mistake.

Nonsense. It's nay'sayers like this that are responsible for most of the problems in the world.

There will be a negative pledge in the loan documents which prohibits it, so unless they consent, they effectively do have the right to block it by threatening to take action upon the default if the negative pledge is breached. My understanding is that the overdraft is unsecured. Probably why Lowe feels justified in calling the bank "irresponsible" and why their actions seem so strange at this moment in time. Your other points are correct in as much as the banks could have come to an agreement regarding a priority position (and indeed if Barclays do have security, most certainly will have). I agree that usually you would expect all the companies in the group to be part of the security structure. Given, however, that the administrators seem pretty confident of avoiding the points deduction, something leads me to believe that this might not be the case.

I can't believe some of you lot. You're the same people responsible for Allen walking away and IMO are more at fault than the stay-aways and the plastics. Carlos, I know you'll be reading this so can I just say on behalf of all the true Saints fans, we welcome you wholeheartedly.

Whether it's a public company or not is utterly irelevant IMO. Why do you think it's significant?

So what's the problem? If people don't want to go they won't and he won't get any money. If they do want to go they will and he will get some money.

Barclays only supply the overdraft. Aviva wouldn't have let them take an all-encompassing debenture. To the best of knowledge, Aviva are the only secured creditor and quite what that security covers is unknown. I have indicated elsehwere that noises almost seem to suggest the loan is provided on limited recourse but that seems quite odd. If anyone wants to check the point re Barclays they need to have a look on the company charges register.

Those are the rates charged by the firm, not recouped by the individuals who work for it.