Wes Tender

So the original story, whether right or wrong, says that Al Fahaj is only in it as an investment with a short time return of 6 months, when he would have found other investors to take over the reins. In the meantime, loans to pay players' wages have been secured against Pompey's property assets rather than coming from borrowings secured against the Al Faraj brothers' personal wealth, which is apparently much less than thought. But then there is another story stating that the other fake sheik, Fahim, who first appeared to be the clown prince, might not have been as stupid as first thought, as he claims to have secured the rights to the property assets for a fairly minimal amount. (I was going to say for the contents of his piggy bank, but he wouldn't have one of those, would he? ) Now, the implications of that would be that if true, those property assets would not be available as security for a loan without Fahim's agreement. The further implication is that the Al Faraj brothers would appear to be confused as to what they had bought, if they thought that there was profit to be made by exploiting the property assets themselves or using them as enticements towards external investment. I was going to say that they might have been sold a pig in a poke, but again one has to be careful with such analogies. So the questions need to be asked as to whether any of these press releases have any substance at all, or are they mischief-making and for what purpose? Whatever the situation, it does not exactly instill confidence. It is very disruptive at a time when Pompey need unity and allied to the stories that the chief executive is being investigated for tax fraud as well, PFC looks to be a poisoned challice that most potential investors would do well to steer clear of. If they are relegated, which seems increasingly likely, then they are truly sunk, as the main attraction for investors would be their Premiership status and once that has gone, there is very little left of any real value, especially if the property assets are used as leverage towards increased debts.

I posted the original Guardian link within minutes of the story breaking, onto the thread about Pompey - our position or theirs. But I had to dig for that thread which had almost disappeared off the face off the earth into General Sports. As that thread could easily have been updated on here instead of starting another thread, why can't we leave it up here on the main board? If the Mods consider that it is not Saints related, then IMO they are wrong. The thread generated so much interest purely because Pompey are our main local rivals. Surely from that perpective, they are irrevocably linked to us and what happens to them is of interest and related to us one way or another, often at a personal level where fans of both teams work together.

It is you who are being pedantic. I said that the guy was immobilised, i.e. he had ceased to be a threat and was probably curled up in a ball to defend himself from the kicks and stamps aimed at him by those cowards. Is it a prerequisite for you that it is OK to continue kicking the sh*t out of him until he is unconscious - or dead?

You are not right. You appear to have missed the point spectacularly. The Yeovil fan WAS immobilised. And yet the attack continued. There was no possibility of that guy retaliating. It was finished. Over. What don't you understand?

Interesting article in the Guardian (not that I'm a reader) just come up, that says that Al Faraj doesn't know the first thing about football, was only in it for a short term investment, is not a billionaire, is looking for additional partners and had to borrow the £5 million to pay the wage bill. Oh dear, oh dear. :smt046 http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/oct/22/ali-al-faraj-portsmouth

Something like this happens perfectly legitimately. It's called Rugby.

I'm with you on this. It's all for the benefit of us and the MK Dons. The MK Dons fans, manager and players get a confidence boost from knowing that we respect them and it might give them false hopes and rising expectations. Perhaps if we humiliate them though, the fall is harder for them and affects several other results for them afterwards. Our own fans lessen their expectations in case we lose, but are even more impressed if we win, which is the best way to be going forward. What Pardew tells the players is the really important part and I'd be surprised if he has told them the same thing. Although he will have been realistic about our chances, I bet that he's told them that provided they play with effort, passion and conviction, they can beat a team like MK Dons. I believe that it is easier for us to get something against the footballing teams than against the cloggers. Pardew says that we will have to expect that they might get more possession than many teams we play. Why? We have the ability and the players to make sure that is not the case if we close them down and stifle their game whilst playing to our strengths.

Petersfield is a really lovely little town and not the sort of place that you would normally associate with such a cretin as Westwood It would be understandable if he lived in the depths of Fratton amongst the pond life there, but Petersfield? One wonders what sort of impression he gives to customers of the bookshop who are suddenly confronted with this tattooed oaf.

Blimey, MB, you're right. I saw the original elsewhere. Also, showing an almost fatal fascination to studying the tats that the halfwit has, is that one on his right arm bicep of the Skate fan p*ssing on the Saints' shirt? Incidentally, the bookshop in Petersfield that he owns, is the same one where Erica Roe worked, the bint notorious for getting out her ample baps and streaking at that England Rugby match in 1982. What do they put in the water in Petersfield that the inhabitants have to make themselves look like tits at sporting events?

Surely you're kidding that the sign "Danger-stupid person" appears on the original? You've got to be; otherwise Westwood would be made to look an even bigger idiot than he actually is.

Do you know these people from Adam, Stu? Is your loyalty for them just because they might wear a Saints shirt, regardless of the actions they take? That would indeed be an absurd position. Perhaps you defend them because you do recognise them...:confused:

Markus seems to be perfectly willing to invest the sums required to get us up into the division above to begin with. I'm sure that greater investment will be forthcoming when we have a chance of getting from the fizzy pop into the Premiership. Birmingham have the parachute payments, making it worthwhile to plough them into the equation. We blew our chances and wasted them.

I agree entirely. I can recall no evidence at the time that Lowe was shouting from the rooftops that he wanted anybody to put investment into the club. If anybody knows any different, I'd be much obliged if they would post links to anything that disproves it. Therefore, on the face of it, our opinions that he didn't want any serious money invested into us because that would mean the erosion of his power base, has not been challenged by any credible source. Of course, anybody investing a sum larger than the shareholdings of the Lowe clique (about 25%) would not unreasonably want to be chairman himself. At that time, about £12/£13 million would have given a majority shareholding, but the stadium debt and other debt would still have been there. As an investment proposition though, we were well placed in the Premiership in 2003 so that can be balanced against buying us from the administrators without debt, but having to invest in returning us to the Premiership.

The essence of our upward progress is epitomised in the thread about the number of former captains in our team. Pardew has been astute enough to fill the team either with leaders, or those players who are able to follow leaders without question or attitude problems. This extends to the management structure he has assembled under him too, with Wilkins and Downes. Ultimately, IMO the foremost attribute that a manager can have is the ability to command the respect of his players. This respect is earned from the players' knowledge of his record as a player and as a manager elsewhere, the way that he treats the players, as the respect must be mutual to work and the recognition that what the manager expects of the players is achievable. He must have a vision of where he wants the team to go and he must tell the players what he thinks their part in that will be. He must lead by example. For the younger players, he should be like a father figure, guiding them. Sometimes he must be firm and appear to be hard on them; at other times, an arm around the shoulder and gentle words work better. As far as it is discernable, the teams spirit is good, there do not appear to be divisions in the team, the respect seems to be there, as well as the desire. So from those perspectives, Pardew does appear to be a good man-manager.

Well, I for one would say exactly the same thing. Do you reckon that the rights or wrongs of it change just because it might be our fans acting like d*ck heads instead of theirs?

What I hadn't realised until I did some digging, is that there actually is a real painting of the tw*t that has been exhibited in our City Art Gallery. This is news to me and I really can't think why the curators of the Gallery could be so completely and utterly gormless as to allow it to hang in our city. Frankly, it is an insult to the Council Taxpayers many of whom will support our local team and who will view this as an insult. Westwood must be laughing like a drain.

Love it! :smt046

So let's hear what you have to say on the subject then...

So on a par with being in the Itchen, Kingsland or Chapel, then?

I'm glad that you chose to add that Nick. That was apparently the line that was crossed with one of those Yeovil fans and as you say, there really is no excuse that justifies that behaviour. The repercussions could have been very severe both for the victim and his attacker, in that the victim might have died or suffered brain damage and the perpetrator could have therefore justifiably been imprisoned, with the resultant grief that would have ensued for both of their families.

Fair distinction between two different sets of circumstances. However, SRS didn't make that distinction clear himself when he made his "you shouldn't grass a fellow Saint" statement. As others have pointed out, regardless of whether there was provocation, in fact whatever the circumstances, the line has been crossed when somebody kicks somebody else in the head. In nature, many species will discontinue their attack on one of their own species if that rival assumes the prone curled-up position, signifying surrender and defeat. It must be a particularly cowardly or mentally sub-normal specimen who presses on to inflict serious and potentially life-threatening injury on his victim under such circumstances.

It is not an opinion, it is a code of conduct that ought to be followed by any sensible, intelligent citizen that wishes to live in a well-ordered and civilised society. If caught, those so-called fans, (who I would prefer to call yobs) will get everything they deserve. If they end up in the nick, lose their jobs and are banned from football, it bloody well serves them right. If banned, we'll be well rid of them too. I have never had a fight in a pub, but the way that you speak, I feel sure that you have. With luck, these people who you are attempting to defend, are actually not really proper Saints fans, but are using us as an excuse for a punch-up. There seems to be a growing trend towards this currently and it needs to be nipped in the bud before it spreads. I would have not the slightest qualms about "shopping" anybody who acts in this way. They certainly wouldn't be friends of mine, so quite why I should have any sympathy or compassion for them just because they might be wearing a Saints shirt is beyond me.

I think that such an attitude is childish and puerile. Any decent law abiding citizen should have a duty to report any law breaking, rather than follow some playground code in preference.

Funny really that the article makes out a case for James continuing because of his ability to put over a pin-point cross. What a pity that it isn't common enough knowledge for the TUI staff (whoever that is) to realise that Murty was probably putting in quality pinpoint crosses when James was still wearing short trousers. Even though he only played a few games at the start of the season before his injury, it was clear to see his ability and as soon as he is back to match fitness, he should be our number one right back with James as cover for him or in midfield.

A really good "fred", this, Pilchards. Nice one.