Weston Saint

If it as anything but that I would not have put my name to it. If the meeting tomorrow moves away from this idea in any shape or form I will be withdrawing my support.

Well you have set out your position well. I will not be there tomorrow. I have other commitments but yes Stu, I was asked by Derry to give him some support. IF, this is the only way left in the event of no bids and it is succesful I will not be part of any group running the club. I have enough to keep me busy.

I think many of you have missed the point. This initiative is not an alternative to a bid from another party, it is a last ditch back up if no bids are made to save Southampton Football Club. It is a case of drawing all active parties together and pooling ideas, experience and resourses in the unhappy event that there is not an alternative. Why the Saints Trust? Because it is a vehicle that has legal trust status and has the backing of the national supporters association. Forget the past. This needs to be a united effort or all will fail. TO REPEAT, THIS IS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE. IT IS NOT BEING SET UP TO CHALLENGE ANY OTHER BID. IT IS THE FALL BACK SHOULD ALL ELSE FAIL. On that basis if you do not support the idea you do not support Southampton Football Club when all other avenues fail.

Agree with this. Also have no problem with Crouch/McMenemy calling for support.

It has been in place for many years. More severe on points deduction in the last 2 seasons though. Used to be something like 0.5 per over before I seem to remember The scorers take into account delays on the field, wickets (about 2 minutes per wicket) and then negotiate with the umpires at the end of the game so that a fair assessment is taken. Hants had no excuses. Pothas will need to learn to manage this better in future.

Hampshire were deducted 3 points because of their over rate. It does not matter that the game was over in 3 days. The laws state that 16 overs need to be bowled an hour and the calculation is then applied over the whole game. Hampshire used their fast/seamers all the match. Pothas and the team would have been aware of the fact as the main score board showed they were -3 overs for much of the game. They could have used Dawson and Carberry to try to speed it up (that is what normally happens) but it was a low scoring pitch and weather threats. More important to get the win than worry about the over rate. All delays and loss of wickets are taken into account. In fairness to the team, they did run to the other end after each over.

There is no "nothing" option. We are only interested in information from those who wish to pledge support of last resort, not those who will pledge nothing.

Not me.

Thanks

Thanks Morph, are they bids with proven funds or just form filling bids at this stage?

Assuming it is between us and Forest on the last day, Sky will be there with live coverage. sigh

My information does not come via David Jones. As Financial Director of the plc, nor should it. As you say the AIM and Shareholders come first. It matters not now anyway. My sources are no longer sources.

That is not what I was told. The overdraft was reduced by the club back end of last year but rising again thereafter. That was when the "goalposts" were moved it has been told to me. If Dave Jones has told you different I would be interested to know.

As far as I can tell it was Barclays action that put us into Administration. Having told the club that the present overdraft would be ok until July they then recently moved the goal posts and reduced that limit insisting on immediate action to reduce. Frantic work by Lowe, Cowens and many behind the scenes failed to find the money required but even the day after the points deadline they were still working to save the situation. Then came the bank bouncing cheques. That was the signal we were no longer a going concern. Even on the day of the announcement the decision was delayed to give one avenue a final attempt to prove finances. Sadly that too failed. Administration is a disaster but we cannot turn back the clock. Let us hope that this is what a friend of mine calls "a detox of the club" We may come out of it fitter financially but, in my opinion, we will be frail and scarred IF we have a club at all. My friend does not share my pessimism. I hope he is right. Let me point out I am not having a go at Barclays. There are many factors but they pushed us over the cliff

I am an Administrator of Plastic Saints. Not sure why you get the web page but cannot read. Try going into http://plasticsaints.myfreeforum.org/ and search from there.

Thanks Steve

I severed all contacts when I agreed to join the new SOS group. In any event only the Administrator will know the real facts. I am aware that one potential "bidder" may no longer be interested as previously indicated by FF. Edit: When I say severed contact I meant relation to information, I still speak to them but they respect my decision to not want information on SFC

http://plasticsaints.myfreeforum.org/sutra63546.php#63546

A good balanced post. What a shame this forum is being ruined by snipping posts from many rather than enhansing it with posts like this. How about everyone call a truce and get this forum back to a high quality debating medium with a touch of light heartedness.

The full Save Our Saints section will appear here later today (Good Friday) - please check back for updates! This message needs updating or we will fall before the first hurdle.

Might simply have been a wake up call.

Good points. Seems to me there is an unheathy obsession with LLS again at this time. If he introduces a bidder that bidder will have to prove funds. If they can genuinely do that then why would it be bad? I appreciate LLS has a "history" but to suggest he might personally influence anything the Administrator or other bidding parties might do is pure nonsense in my opinion.

As FF is not available today I will put up a holding answer. He has no contact with the Administrator who will act professionally and not disclose information in private. One of the prospective parties has not had his nose put out of joint or is making mischief. That person/persons are more honorable that that. LLS has no influence over the Administator. He was seen by um pahars in the vicinity of the directors box. I can tell you the Administrator did not talk to him before/during or after the game last Saturday. How do I know? Someone who was there told me by phone later that day. Due diligence will need to be carried out as you say. That is why the process will take time. No leakage is coming from the Administrator. It is important this point is made. FF will confirm he has no contact with the Administrator or aware of anyone who has received information directly or indirectly from him. Nothing to do with the collections or the bun prices Hope this helps

They are unlikely to negotiate debt for equity. I believe the club may have tried that in January but Aviva not interested. I cannot see their position change now. They would have been aware how desperate our position was at that time. I also believe they were approached by someone interested in buying SLH Group prior to Administration but the offer made was not acceptable. On the question of Barclays, I believe they are a secure creditor as some have indicated. I am of the opinion that the same buyer for SLH approached Barclays with an "offer" on the discharge of the overdraft but were rebuffed by them because they were a secure creditor.

Mr Doncaster will not be involved in the decision process if Norwich are an interested party. He will remove himself from the decision making.