John Smith

I'm happy at speculation that we may sign X Y or Z. I think it's great that we are perceived as the Chelsea of League 1, BUT, what I would like to see is some quality signings for this league that fit into a league 1 structure. Sure, if we can average 12K each home game, then we're in a better position than most around us, and with ML in charge of the purse strings, we may be able to outbid our rivals. But, let's buy CCC players when we're in the CCC. I just don't want ML to chuck all his money away on 'superstars' that are only here for the money. That will be no better than the journeymen that Lowe brought in that were also only here for the money. Got to get out of this idea that we can afford a kings ransom.

Nope, not a civil servant, and yes, am in the commercial sector. But it's not me that's being politically correct, but you that is being rather anal in your approach. Sure, some will take the p*ss, but by far the majority, have in the past and presently, shared their tickets when they couldn't go. If you couldn't, you probably would feel less inclined to go. What about the hooligan element, should we all be considered hooligans because a small minority give our game a bad name? The 'sir' part in my response was because I can;t believe that you are being serious, and that it was essentially tongue in cheek, I was obviously wrong. You're a ******!

Ha Ha, both me and my father have forgotten our ST's over the passed several years, and the ticket office staff were only ever very helpful, quick, polite and efficient. Guess it should tell you something about your attitude.

No disrespect? Surely you jest, you have accused him, and hundreds others of being (sic) 'fair' dodgers. I'm sure there is much mileage in allowing this situation to occur. Because without it, these people, be they young or old, will not commit to a ST IF they cannot go to EVERY game, otherwise, there becomes a point when buying a ST becomes more expensive than paying per game. It is also a commitment up front for money into the club and not a 'possible' income from walk ups on the day that may or may not come. Especially, where young adults or children are concerned, ie, our future, we should 'encourage' ST's not punish them when they can't go. And as for the elder generation that get their discount, after years of labouring and supporting this club they 'deserve' and are entitled to a discount. No disrespect? Disrespectful to the young, the young adultds and the seniors if you ask me. Let's make it easier to support Saints not harder. If someone gets a ST and goes to 90% of those games, they shouldn't be punished by having to find extra money to fill an 'empty' seat. God man, get a life! Tighter ticket controls will cost a lot more money and time than the 5 pound increase in the seat price, let alone the ticket office, the phone call made, the ticket being printed and posted out. You sir, are a jobsworth, get over it, support this 'family' club and stop moaning about people 'turning up'! Jeesh...

Thanks Wes, also, think it's also worth pointing out why I didn't go last season. Because, with Lowe in charge, we would end up with poor management selection, playing the kids, we'd win a few but then lose confidence, resulting in relegation and admin. AND, even though that was my belief, I still got stick on here when I said that I actually wanted Saints to win under Lowe and for us to get promoted, it was just that I didn't believe it was possible, I still hoped we'd survive. At the end of the day, I didn't put us in admin, as many of the pro-lowes insisted, I wouldn't be missed and then all the other expletives that generally followed. I said I would support us in League 1 and that's not why I stopped going, I want us to win every game and will always be disappointed when we lose, that's because I am a fan, and now with my season ticket in my pocket, even GM has to call me a fan again! And there's your silver lining! lol

After the passing of Lowe and a new sense of belief around the club, how could I not be there first thing on Saturday morning, with my father, purchasing 2 ST's for next season. Like I said, I won't be going whilst Lowe is in charge, he's not so I am. Wave to you all this season! And for those Lowe whingers that went last year and moaned all season, watch out, I can give my breakdown on the tactics and the decisions made that influence the game, I know you've all missed them!

Q. Was the money Begbies Traynor were paid part of the deal to buy the club? YES, it was all priced within the transaction. This has always been the bit that has worried me. A bit of a slap in the face for the Swiss, when they were apparently ready for exclusivity themselves, now having to pay for the 6 weeks they sat around twiddling their thumbs, whilst the pinnacle bid faltered. Surely, Big Tray aren't adding that 6 week period into the deal for the Swiss?

Have sat in the back ground mostly whilst this has been going on, particularly since Pinnacle bid was dropped. I've had everything crossed and pray on Fridays. Just goes to show, Wednesday is the new Friday! We seem to have a sensible, well meaning leader. I like the Swiss, particularly with a bit of German efficiency thrown in, if that's the case. Add the English passion and you have a good mix. If we are in L1 at th end of this season, I will not be complaining. This year we will be finding our feet, at all levels and a lot of learning has to be done. BUT, we are all Saints fans and we all wan us to succeed, we will all be upset when we lose and joyous when we win. Let's hope wins outweigh losses this season, let's hope our home form returns, let's hop administration is now a thing of the past! Can't wait to start talking football again, it'll be just like watching Brazil!

Snippets, previously posted by Tony Lynam: 1. Good morning everyone 2. Today is going to be a decisive day in the future of the Club in my opinion. 3. work is also being done to put in place a contingency arrangement so that, with the permission of the new owner, funds can be released to pay staffs wages. Whilst the legal issue is more critical, on a more personal note the wages are at the forefront of my mind. 4. I am aware of some very unhelpful rumours and questions about Mr Fialka and his colleagues 5. Needless to say, there is no foundation in any such rumours, as will be demonstrated when this deal is completed. 6. Anyway, from the start of this, I pledged to you all one thing. Unity. And that is what is needed to overcome the obstacles in our way. 7. I will not lower our standards and have a war of words with anyone, least of all a newspaper. That is what freedom of speech is all about 8. but I have reminded that newspaper this morning that they should do research of their own rather than rely upon others feeding them information before the print inaccurate stories. 9. All the best for now, and keep the faith, its time to complete the deal. Regards Tony Just to add my points, I have added numbers to the quotes. 1. It was, but it isn't going to be tomorrow. 2. Yep, you're not wrong there! 3. this alarms me the most, Crouch paid the staff last time, the sales of DMG will pay the staff this time obviously the 'new owner' wasn't that concerned about them after all. And I bet the wages not being paid is the least of his worries now! These 'new owners' have stung the staff the hoped to employ and they walk away without any of this sh*t sticking because they are nameless wonders! 4. rumours or truths? Getting found out is every conman's worst fear. 5. So, this means there was foundation to these rumours as the deal will not ever be done! 6. So are we more unified? This was the one thing promised! 7. Why announce to them this latest update and then ask people not to elect for their right to freedom of speech and tell these pinnacle people exactly what we think? Isn't that freedom of speech? Tell me why we should treat them with kid gloves? 8. Looks like researching this Pinnacle group didn't go far enough, by Tony OR the newspapers! 9. Yeah right! These people should be named and shamed! Why, because they are apparently 'businessmen' who can't do business. They have pretended to be taking over a 'business' but were incapable of doing so. Many on here challenged their capabilities and not once did they prove anything. For me, these so called backers, are either the worst business men in the world or Sk*tes! Lastly, the reason I am so upset and disappointed, isn't because we may have been duped or conned but because these faceless wonders have possibly allowed staff lose their homes, their holidays, their self respect. Working for nothing. I'm sorry Tony, but if you were conned like SFC was conned, why not name them, they've made you look like an idiot. Mark Fry, are you here to sell the Saints or switch off the lights? Thus far, your 3 biggest buyers have been Pinnacle, Marc Jackson and some mythical Swiss consortium/business/group/company. I think maybe you need to analyze your capabilities, because I am seriously doubting them.

Is this the morale they were trying to get over to us with the film 'Wizard of Oz'? (lol, thinking on those lines, Lowe, Crouch and Wilde as Scarecrow, tin man and Lion, who would be Dorothy? Toto?) Anyway, if deals not done today, I think it never will be. Not with Pinnacle anyway.

damn it! have to waste a post to modify FL to MF! edit!

The delay, with regard to the FL, seemed plausible enough. You could argue one way or the other as to whether these were just delay tactics by Pinnacle and both sides could be as equally valid. The 'unveiling' of MF, doesn't quite give the answers to the 'moneyman', that I would have expected. I'm sure, and you can check this out, that in one of the interviews or statements on here, TL stated that this 'moneyman' would be a household name to some that were in certain circles, or words to that effect. So, I was thinking, maybe horse racing, betting, singing, musicals, etc, ie I might know his name but would know him more for his profession. Now, this FL bloke, what does he do so well, that some would consider him a 'household' name? Perplexing? I am not one that wants to derail this bid, I am also not one who wants this deal to fail OR for a saints legend to be taken for a mug. I'm just calling it as I see it, hopefully, with a balanced view. This 'unveiling', for me, has thrown in a proper curve ball, it just doesn't add up!And that's all I'm saying, no conspiracy, no Pinnacle bashing, it just doesn't make sense!?????????

Your summation is exactly the conclusion that my ramblings the other day, were coming to. I agree with the majority of what you have stated and this is exactly the reason Fl and Pinnacle are at loggerheads. The one interesting point that has drawn my attention is your very last point above, relating to payments due from other clubs, would this also be the case in revers, be it that another clubs demand for 'payment' puts another club into 'admin'? Eg. Dave McGoldrick payments? If this cannot be included, then I totally agree with you as to why we cannot and should not appeal the 10 points or even consider the 'right' to appeal. It is stone cold wrapped up, done and dusted, move on...

load of old rubbish!

I think, we need to remember that these rules are made by the members and the applied by the FL, on behalf of its members. The FL has the right to impose a 10 point deduction on any 'club' it deems to be effectively in administration. It avoids the complication of determining the difference between the PLC and the club in it's rules and applies the deduction based on the meeting it held which deemed that SLH was now effectively the 'club', in all but title. It made this ruling on behalf of its members and represents those members views. In order for the new owners of the SFC to become members, they must agree to uphold the previous decisions of the FL and it's members, in order for it to be accepted. One of those previous decisions was to issue a 10 point deduction on the SFC. By agreeing to this, the new owners, in order to become members, must agree that this decision was correct and in doing so, cannot, in retrospect, appeal a ruling that they have already agreed to, in order to gain member status. Pinnacle cannot appeal the ruling prior to becoming owners and then members of the FL, and in order for them to become a member, they must agree to uphold the rulings of the FL. It's a catch 22. And whereas there may be a legal right to appeal, we will have to effectively waiver this right in gaining membership. Also, the FL actually has a get out clause on our stance, in that the SFC were not effectively in administration, because, in it's ruling, and with it's right to rule 'on behalf' of its members, made the decision that the effect of the PLC gonig into administration, meant that the club were heavily effected by this due to they type of debt currently levied against the PLC, primarily be down to running the club, wages, ground, overdraft etc, and that a 10 point penalty should be applied in accordance with their rules, on the next season. And by saying in the rules that they will not get involved in the legal matters of PLC's and that they will be held to account by the laws of this land, means that, they have the right to make the type of ruling that they have made against us. And so, whilst I dislike this current situation, and, wouold like to see a right of appeal, I don;t think it will do us any good anyway and that we will not win this appeal. We need to accept it, and get on with it! I do, however, agree with whitey grandad, on another thread, where he thinks that the rules should be 'changed' or 'loosened' during this time of economic crisis. I think we are in extraordinary times and that old rules that were set up to install 'fair play' may now be the ones that punish those that aren't seeking to gain an advantage but are falling fowl of this credit crunch. Whether or not, Saints fall into that category or not, is probably too late to discuss, but the rules should be reviewed in order to allow teams to survive through this period, and that the financial problem should maybe be the best punishment and the points to crush them, should be left off for now.

Excellent mail.

With the FL response, it promted my memory as to how this club 'was' structured, it used to be an arm of the SLH plc. For example, the insurance was another arm, the radio station another, and I'm sure there were more. Therefore, the SFC arm of the SLH were a separate entity but governed by the plc. Since relegation to the CCC, SLH had to sell off the other arms of their business in order to survive, to such a point where the SFC became the majority 'earner' for the SLH. Now, I' m not sure but this means that the SLH was always the umbrella company and the SFC, the subsidiary, and as many have pointed out, the SFC was not in administration. Other companies have this and sometimes you see a management buyout where the local managers purchase the only part of the business that can make them money and the parent company uses that money to pay off some debt. I think the reason they can;t then turn around and now say that the SFC is the only money making part of the parent company and therefore is effectively in administration is because they'd have to go back over the accounts and separate the other business debt from the SFC debt. Because they won;t do this and aren't really able to do it, you have to always assume two separate entities between SFC and SLH. The FL rules are therefore very interesting as they keep stating that the 'club' must be in admin, and that they don't get involved in the legalities of the plc administration, just offer advice to the club. I think what is happening here is that the FL awarded the -10 points to the SFC under SLH and in order for the FL to approve the SFc registration under the new owners, the new owners are asked to accept this decision, therefore, in accepting it, the are waiving there rights to appeal. That's why we're getting all this other stuff, because the FL are trying to show that they are run by the members and the members voted on this rule, the FL implemented this rule, and if the new owners want to become members, they must accept the passed decisions of the current members. If they won't, they won't gain membership, eg, no SFC in the FL.

Silly me, and I apologise to the FL, they obviously weren't aware of what the PL allowed us to do and sanctioned it. I do find it ironic that their defence will be to plead ignorance though, because if they were aware of the situation, they should have a. kicked us out of the league when we got relegated or b. altered the rules to allow for this exact scenario. They didn't and therefore, with their actions, or lack of it, confirmed the PL's sanction and thus sanctioned it themselves by allowing us to continue playing. Oh, unless you're just saying that the FL are incompetent?

Personally, I think we're missing something crucial in all of this, and that is the arrangements that lead to Saints becoming a PLC in the first place! I don;t what to drag up old whatshisface, but the simple fact is, the league sanctioned this reverse takeover, and now it's gone belly up, they're sticking their head in the sand and denying the facts, and those facts are stated in their rules AND the law of this land. The FL should back down, allow the takeover to go through, remove the 10 point penalty AND THEN change the rules to capture this loophole or accept that it is legal for clubs to exist and trade in this way! The FL is acting just like F1 on this and it is the fans that suffer, nobody else. Boooooooo FL! Bunch of old timers, running out of time, tick tock, tick tock!

Newcastle

An absolute dream for me if this happens! My first games watching Saints were with KK in the team and I had been a fan of Keegan before I was a true supporter of Saints, a real childhood hero for me. I had hoped this scenario would happen one day, without the League 1 status of course, but I guess it is our current position that has meant that this could come true. Who knows, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed!

So, he's been talking to WGS and both have thought it a good idea, RS buys the club, WGS manages the club, MLT DoF or Chairman, Just need Alan Shearer as first team coach and we have a full set!

After constantly being used by 19C in his arguments and counter arguments I find it comical that he once said that we could quite happily talk over the fence as neighbours and get along quite well. I even defended the 'man' and his 'opinion' (his right to have one) in the early days, and now he just uses me as a straw man to create tension. FWIW, I can't be bothered with such trolling, but I am a little hurt that someone that I used to debate with, is just a sanctimonious troll and 'uses' my comments whenever he wishes in order to make his own point valid. And so, I have decided, from now on, I will refer to 19C as 'Mr Straw Man'.

Nope, I blame the man who put us in the CCC by changing managers too many times, buying too many average players, controlling too much of the shares, not selling, not bringing in investment over 10 years plus, never putting his hand in his pocket, unless it was Saints pocket to buy more shares. Causing divide in the board, sitting in the background until he could smell the chance to work part time for 100k a week (since when was 2 days a week!), getting into bed with the man you say was the cause of the real problem, turning a blind eye to the protests, repeating his managerial debacle and eventually causing the fall from the CCC to League 1. That's not to mention Hoddle, SCW, Wigley, Saha, ets, etc, etc, etc. I feel sorry for the people that went this season, to have to sit and watch the men against boys week in week out, must have been very frustrating! I couldn't go and watch, it would've hurt too much! So, whereas I feel sorry for those ST holders that carried on going regardless, I also have respect, a really tough, tough season. Let's hope for a better one this season, we need a bit of pride restored, it's taken too much of a battering lately, being a Saints fan!

I stopped going because of Rupert. Had my ST application and ready to hand in, then got a whiff that 'he' was coming back. Chose not to go purely because of this one factor. Would also like to say, that the reason I thought Lowe would be such a bad idea was because he would make poor decisions, we'd get relegated and ultimately, admin. I was almost right, just got the events round the wrong way. We are where we are, not because I stopped going, but because Lowe was incompetent!