Dark Munster

If P****y go bust after the playoffs have started, that is true. But if they go bust before the playoffs, it is conceivable that there would be 3 automatically promoted teams, with 4-7 in the playoffs. But I did say that it was unlikely! Worth finishing 7th just to avoid being sick if the unlikely event occurred. :cool:

Actually they should try to finish 7th, in the unlikely case of P****y getting thrown out of the league and the FL giving one extra promotion spot for L1 to make up for the missing spot in CCC. :cool:

Simon said... Pompey don't deserve the success they've had this year - they're a small town club, and should be looking forward to another season in league 2 rather than the UEFA Cup. The team is full of mercenary players that have come for the high wages they can get, and the whole thing is going to fall apart. The chairman is clearly going to pull the plug any day now, leaving them £100 million or whatever in debt, and unless they get the next Abramovich in, the descent to the Conference will be a speedy one. Nothing against the team, just think it's unfair on the other clubs who really try properly hard. Reply April 17, 2008 at 04:30 PM Look at the date. Wow!!! :smt038

You're back to try to nab the 25,000th post aren't you? :cool: A delightful thought (although weren't you convinced they'd get away with it? Now entertaining more optimistic thoughts, I see ) Anyway, if P****y get liquidated or not get admitted into CCC, unfortunately the FL would probably take the easiest path by having one less team relegated in each of CCC-L2.

I don't think so. I think they just used that as an excuse to back out. The sticking point was that they didn't have a pot to piss in. :smt041 Thank you. That's what I've been trying to get some to understand.

Great thread! Source, please? If this was true, are you saying Barclays lied to them? Or that the board didn't bother to contact Barclays just before the deadline to clarify Barclays' position? Interesting! Thursday March 26th was the crucial deadline day. We went into administration on Wednesday April 1st (how appropriate). So according to Gemmel, Lowe knew administration was inevitable by at least by Saturday March 28th. Here are the possibilities: A) On or shortly before Thursday March 26th Lowe, knowing full well that SFC needed further loans to continue running (salaries coming up., etc.), contacted Barclays to discuss in detail that the March 26th deadline was approaching, and whether they (Barclays) would be able to support them. Barclays responded by saying yes, and a few days later in effect said "Nyah, nyah, we lied" and "pulled the plug" by bouncing a small cheque. B) On or shortly before Thursday March 26th Lowe, knowing full well that SFC needed further loans to continue running (salaries coming up., etc.), contacted Barclays to discuss in detail that the March 26th deadline was approaching, and whether they (Barclays) would be able to support them. Barclays responded by saying no, but Lowe ignored this (for whatever reason), and a few days later Barclays "pulled the plug" by bouncing a small cheque. C) Before Thursday March 26th Lowe, even knowing full well that SFC needed further loans to continue running (salaries coming up., etc.), didn't bother to contact Barclays, crossed his fingers, hoping, or arrogantly assuming, that Barclays wouldn't pull the plug. He was wrong and a few days later Barclays "pulled the plug" by bouncing a small cheque. D) Before Thursday March 26th, Lowe knew full well that administration was shortly inevitable, knew Barclays wouldn't continue to extend the loan, but deliberately waited until just after the deadline to write a bounced cheque (giving him a scapegoat for the disgraceful timing). The attempt to use the parent company loophole was probably a genuine attempt, but was no excuse for not going into admin a few days earlier (as an insurance). Lowe luvvies are telling us A). I believe D). Considering the -10 may cost us promotion, a hell of a lot of us give a flying **** actually.

Call me greedy, but I'd be much happier with losing no points and gaining a billionaire.

If someone hid a bomb under your house, with a timer to blow up one year later, would it be an obsession to be pissed off at the time it blows up, even though the bomb was planted a year earlier? Our "obsession" will officially be over if Saints: a) finish more than 10 points behind 6th, or b) make the playoffs and get promoted, or c) make the playoffs and fail to get promoted, provided they had finished more than 10 points from 2nd.

It's conceivable we'll just miss out on the playoffs, and be within 10 points of 2nd at the end of the season. If that happens one person at least will be laughing his head off.

If that **** had been replaced by a half-decent centre back we wouldn't have been relegated imho. So he is near the top of my list. Crouchy scored the penalty that knocked the skates out of the cup. He was given a lot of stick by Saints fans before he even played a game, but I thought he had a good season (when Saggy Chops finally picked him): 16 goals in 33 matches for Saints. Why is he picked for England? Maybe it's 20 goals in 37 internationals (many as sub)? :cool: On the other hand, this lot are worthy of contempt: Delap: Saints' record transfer fee for a pile of crap, who went on a free transfer. His long throws were crap for us, but infuriatingly they have now turned into lethal weapons for Stoke. Dixon and Speedie: Br*****t's disastrous signings, and the worst possible replacements for Shearer.

Brilliant blog.

Others have already pointed out the little hole in your argument. But to be fair, if Millwall didn't have a chance of automatic promotion, I think there is a good chance that they would be happy to lose to Huddersfield for the reason you mention. So it's a good job they do have a chance of automatic promotion, isn't it? :cool:

But what if Gaydamak's debt is just smoke and mirrors, just an excuse to extract money from the p**p*y carcass? He'll be happy to get 30% of this imaginary "debt". Spot on. Not to mention Crouch's disallowed goal.

A bit premature? If Saints finish 6th you'll be wrong. :cool:

=D> I think we need you to give us the winning lottery numbers... The controversial Wembley surface - treacherous all afternoon with a host of players losing their footing - struck again as Spurs defender Michael Dawson slipped allowing Piquionne to stab home. I think that's what they were also saying about us in 1976.

Pinnacle used the -10 as an excuse to pull out. The real reason is that they didn't have a pot to piss in. Wow, I can't believe I actually for once agree with the professor.

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=683102#post683102 CHEATING BASTARDS

So if we miss out on the playoffs, but finish within 10 points of the playoffs, the -10 would have had nothing to do with it? I think you'll find that if Lowe had taken Saints into administration a few days earlier Saints would have 10 more points, would be currently in a playoff place, and 8 points behind 2nd (with a game in hand).

:supz: :smt044:smt044:smt044

Oh, you can bet that if the skates somehow beat Spurs, then the 6 or so players who wouldn't be able to play the remaining meaningless PL matches, will "heroically" offer to play in the final and forgo any contract extensions, bonuses, etc. that would otherwise be triggered by playing extra games. And that doesn't include the handful of "injured" players who only become miraculously fit for the cup matches. CHEATING BASTARDS

In normal instances that's true, but what if (hypothetically, of course) AA determines that Gay boy has the magical 75%, and since this debt is, ahem, exaggerated, he is more than willing to accept 75% of whatever AA can extract from the PFC corpse (they do have future parachute money, in theory)? New debts, yes. But not if the administrator uncovers previously "unreported debts" (which appears to be happening, with the debt somehow going up to about £100 million). Also, AA has a past record of inflating the status of select creditors: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/portsmouth/article7069905.ece HMRC and a spread-betting firm then known as Tradindex had opposed the IVA, which needed approval from three-quarters of Ahmed’s creditors. The fashion boss had run up more than £4m in gambling debts. But the IVA was successful because Andronikou had accepted the validity of £8m in alleged loans to Ahmed from members of his family, thereby making them creditors and giving them a vote on the IVA. Don't be too sure. I wouldn't put anything past that cesspit of a club. CHEATING BASTARDS.

Don't bet on it. I wouldn't be surprised if AA is busy working on getting Gay boy's unsecured creditor status above the magic 75% mark. Or just one, if 75% of the unsecured debt is owed to that particular "creditor". http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=677803#post677803 CHEATS! :snipe:

If we miss out by 10 points or less, it would be really hard to take.