Dark Munster

These aren't necessarily increases in debts, but rather the "uncovering" of previous debts (read Gayboy's "loans"). Not if he's paid for and the lapdog of the present owner. Hypothetically of course. Putting all these pieces together .... a leopard doesn't change its spots. CHEATS The most damaging criticism of Andronikou is within a High Court ruling in December 2008. An appeal judge overturned an attempt by Shami Ahmed, the founder of Joe Bloggs, the clothing company, to avoid bankruptcy through an individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) handled by Andronikou. 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. At an appeal by Tradindex, the judge took a different view and disallowed £5m of these family loans, thereby overturning Ahmed’s IVA, and he was forced into bankruptcy. The judgment said: “Mr Andronikou’s conduct in these proceedings, particularly in relation to evidence filed by him on behalf [of Ahmed and his family], was manifestly inappropriate.” The judge also found that Andronikou “did fail to meet the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent insolvency practitioner”. Andronikou told The Sunday Times that the vote-rigging allegation was “absolute bollocks” and explained he had relied on his underlings to assess the validity of the Ahmed family claims.

That's the bottom line. Whether or not he's self-serving or a buffoon, he's a Saints' hero in my eyes.

It was another match. And we didn't win.

Not if he does a runner first! Having said that, an honourable, above-board, respectable, administrator would never do that. oh .......

Just to think, if that duck hunting bastard had taken us into administration just a few days earlier, it would be 3 behind with 10 to play. :rock:

I am willing to bet the opposite. Sky money is even larger now, and Saints were living within their means when they were last in the prem. Yes, they had a debt (stadium) but it was sustainable even then (before relegation). Sorry, I wouldn't call going into administration a few days after the carry-over date honourable. I'd call it vindictive and spiteful. :mad: Can I nominate this for the rant-of-the-year award? Love it. :smt041

What about those who commit suicide?

Me too. And despite the Lowe luvvies excuses ("he had no choice", or "he thought he could get away with no points penalty because it was just the parent company in administration", blah blah blah) I maintain that the rosy cheeked one did it purely out of spite.

I liked this comment: "I don't see why so many people feel sorry for the fans. If the club had been run properly they'd have had nothing to celebrate - no Premier League, no FA Cup win, no European nights against the likes of Milan. If they hadn't 'cheated' to drink at the top table then they would have probably spent most of that time in the bottom half of the championship (where they no doubt are heading). I'm sure the fans of those clubs who have spent the last few years living within their means and as a result have had no success at at all would give their right arms to have enjoyed what the Pompey fans have. Especially as the 'punishment' will be just to return to their rightful level."

You seem to be assuming that use of subs is always tactical. What if some or all of the subs were used because of injuries? I do remember that the third (at least) of Saints subs against Newcastle came on because of an injury (before Bart got injured). And so we ended up with 9 outfield players, a non-goalie in goal, and a healthy goalie on the bench. Game over, and a "punishment" that did not fit the crime. What harm is there having 3 outfield subs, plus one separate goalie sub spot? And if your goalie gets sent off then the goalie sub can still come on for an outfield player.

Indeed. And if we don't quite make it, but finish within 10 points of 6th place, then going into administration just a few days after the carry-over cutoff date means........

I wonder if it was anything to do with AP's recent criticism of a fellow referee (the Tranmere dwarf)? Honour amongst refs, and all that?

I've been wondering about this too. No way would he work for free. Tax free "image rights" payments to an offshore account maybe??? I wonder how much he would get paid for "image rights"? Surely there must be a great demand for his images.

Hopefully since the Blackstock fiasco they have someone prepared as an emergency keeper, not just having the team choose one by bullying one of the youngest and weakest on the field to get the job that no-one wants! But I doubt if they have learned their lesson. I think the rules should change so that a team is allowed 3 subs PLUS a goalie sub. In Derby's case it would have made no difference, but Saints were unfairly penalised when Blackstock had to go on against Newcastle in the cup to replace the injured Bart: Saints had used all their subs (some due to injuries, not tactical), so couldn't bring on a sub goalie, so were forced to play with 10 men and a non-goalie in goal.

Well, let's see what that could imply. Possibility 1: No-one has secured future parachute payments from a loan to the skates: AA: "Has anyone secured future parachute payments from a loan to PFC?" PFC: "Absolutely not. Here is all the documentation you need regarding our debts." Possibility 2: Someone has secured future parachute payments from a loan to the skates: AA: "Has anyone secured future parachute payments from a loan to PFC?" PFC: "Err, umm.... that's a very difficult question to answer. The situation is very complicated. We'll have to get back to you on that."

Have loans been secured on the club against future revenue ie Parachute Payments or Season Ticket money? MK - Honest answer is that he doesn't know at present, but is looking at it as we speak. So if, as I suspect, loans have been secured on future parachute payments, why the **** has there even been a suggestion that the PL may advance these parachute payments to the skates?

Hope he doesn't wake up to find one of these in his sleeping bag.

"They have used players they cannot afford against clubs who have been paying their bills on time." That one sentence sums it all up. Bastards. :mad: Rather unlikely that the north London yobbos would want to move it away from WHL and lose home advantage!

Unless of course you play Fulham (who would be the weakest of the possible opponents). I wouldn't be surprised if that happens, jammy bastards. I'm beginning to think that the blue few have a pact with the devil.

.... as well as the FA Cup. Kick the bastards out and give Brum a bye.

Quote: Originally Posted by S-Clarke don't quote me on this, it's just a rumour - but apparently he has been told by Nicola that if we don't get the top 6 by the end of the season - then he's off. talk about pressure. Well, if Saints miss out on the playoffs, but end up within 10 points of them, there is but one person to blame.

Well, if Saints miss out on the playoffs, but end up within 10 points of them, there is but one person to blame.

To be fair to the skates fans, at the time they didn't know that the FA Cup was bought with a massive (unsustainable) debt. They were quite happy to think that the Cup being was bought with filthy, bloody, child-maiming, arms money. :smt070