The9

Tell me about it... did you actually fix it ?

My new iPhone is now crashing my PC just like the old one did, super. Just the 29Gb of space to fill and no way to sync ! Anyone found anything about drivers (I think its either the Avira AV software or some random camera drivers I may have added) which cause a blue screen whenever I plug the iPhone USB in ? The bluescreen is usually JUST after my laptop displays "found new hardware - Still Camera" in the system tray. Doesn't make any difference if I have iTunes running or not, or if the phone has already been detected and is starting to sync, it will just crash the laptop when it catches up with the various other processes it hasn't done. The only way I've found to avoid it crashing the laptop when the USB is connected to the iPhone is uninstalling AppleMobilDeviceSupport which allows me to use the iPhone as a camera via Explorer but then of course won't recognise the iPhone in iTunes cos there's no handshaking drivers. For some reason it seems to work fine the first time I use iTunes with a new device, then it goes to poo after that.

Why would the FA be interested in taking control of the game when they've got money coming out of their ears ?

Leeds' appeal had to go through the "duress" issue and yet was dealt with the same season - albeit late enough in that season that the FL undermined their League One table in the run-up to the end of the season in 2007/8. It is in the FL's interest to get it all out of the way before the season starts, which is one of the reasons they're asking for the "non-appeal".

Newport AFC (now Newport County AFC) successfully regained the right to play English non-league pyramid football in (ahem) Wales following a victory in the High Court on the grounds of restraint of trade in the mid 90s, after the FAW refused to let them play matches in Gwent affiliated to the FAW and they'd spent two seasons playing home games under the auspices of the Gloucestershire FA at Gloucester City's ground. That went all the way to the High Court, with no arbitration process, but that was because it was a ruling on restrictive practices within EU employment law in the early post-Maastricht days. Vague "membership" parallels but not much more.

He was briefly a Premier League representative on the FA Board (along with his mate Sheepshanks). It's mentioned in the link below, from just after Sturrock went - it takes some reading with hindsight, talking the respect fans had gained for Lowe, about Lowe taking difficult decisions to preserve the club's financial stability, and being a future FA Chairman... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/3489097.stm

Along with Sc\/nthorpe. And Hamburg.

As I've just said on the other thread, if that's the case we may as well wade in with a starting position of "we'd like a ten point head start please" and go from there.

This is where we should start any negotiation...

The fuss when Leicester did it (to get back to the Prem, and were then relegated the following season) was addressed by the FL introducing the points deduction rules in the first place. The fuss when Leeds put themselves in admin when already relegated, thus avoiding the 10 points having any affect, was addressed by a tweaking of the rules to the situation we not find ourselves in, relegated when supposedly in Admin (according to the FL anyway) and not deducted 10 points until the following season in order for the punishment to be a proper punishment.

Indeed.

Two wrongs don't make a right ? Any further deduction to Stockport would be as a result of Stockport failing to agree a CVA, and the "exiting admin via CVA" process is itself so tangibly "unfair" that even the FL have changed the rules regarding the taxman to help prevent it occurring in future. The Bournemouth, Rotherham and Luton deductions can basically be traced to HMRC losing their preferred creditor status by the government and is nothing to do with the FCs at all (other than their failure to recognise that HMRC would vote against all CVAs as a result, and to prioritise HMRC for payments prior to administration). They'd claim it was unfair, we might think "it's the rules" - but at least for them there's a precedent consistently applied - we're arguably not even in administration.

You can at the very least argue that the penalty was unforseeable, given that the FC was never in Admin and the -10 ruling contradicts the legal status of the club. The fact that lodging an appeal as the FC would have been tactic acceptance (catch 22, paradox etc) of the situation is also a defence against the appeal expiry process. In fact we might have to appeal against the appeal expiry rule on those grounds first... ...long and short of it is the league can do what they like until we challenge it in a court of law, and even then they can still change the rules as they wish pending legal challenge. Clearly they should rewrite the rules AGAIN in this case because something doesn't add up - where's our CVA ? We don't need one ? Why not ? Because we're not in administration - but there's a penalty for not exiting admin with a CVA and the League says we're in Admin... but we don't have one cos we're not... etc. The League hasn't dealt with this situation in this season's rule changes, choosing instead to address the HMRC/CVA issue. 4. Is weak as it is undermined by Stockport's case (and numerous others where the points deduction has no effect) and this season we'd be penalised compared to Stockport despite having done (at worst and if proven) the same thing. 5. That's for the courts to decide.

It worked for Leeds in order to get their appeal. As for your "fairness" argument, there are a million permutations of "fairness" and it's always a subjective concept. Where's Stockport's punishment in practical terms ? How is that enforcement of the rules "fair" even between clubs in the same situation in the same couple of months ?

I don't agree. The Football League are trying to stop us appealing because to do so would take the results of their competition out of their hands and open them up to a swathe of legal challenges in the multitude of examples of places where their competition rules are unenforceable. It was always a FL and FA rule that clubs were not permitted to challenge the organisations in court (even before the days of the Premier League and the FA/Prem League placing money ahead of football) - of course, this is one of the illegal "rules". Personally I'd take the -10, sign the agreement not to appeal and then appeal anyway, using the Leeds "duress" defence. Not that they won, but I suspect that has more to do with the weakness of Leeds' case compared to Saints', which I feel is pretty strong, if based on a technicality that the League still hasn't closed. The League of course will find a bunch of other ways to get us back for it - as it happens Leeds still don't have FL voting rights, IIRC - but for the sake of the 10 points it's got to be worth a go.

I think everyone is aware of the utter cobblers Crouch can spout when his brain disengages. There isn't an ounce of truth in Crouch's statement, and who knows why he felt the need to spout something not only untrue but which also served as easy propaganda for the case against as well. Instead of dealing with the issue in hand (SFC not being in Admin), a phony media war aimed at turning support against Saints would focus on that quote and that's all they'd need. IIRC the reason Leeds were "the bad guy" was a combination of going into admin without an effective points deduction by being already relegated (the rules were subsequently changed and we've been punished by a liberal interpretation of them), and Ken Bates' CVA shenanigans which breached well established CVA rules -allowing him to seize control of the club back. That reflects poorly on Leeds (and Bates), compared to the League issuing a dubious edict contrary to the legal reality (SFC not in Admin) and then trying to stifle an appeal they have already said the club is free to make at the possible expense of anyone taking over the club, which of course reflects poorly on the FL.

Yeah, I see it, we're saying the same thing. Except the article at the top says "Mark Wotte's Contract runs out on June 30th". No it doesn't. Mark Wotte ceases being Head Coach then, he's still got a contract. So it isn't true.

You're not the only one.

Did he buy extra Patrick studs ?

What, that if more supported people were ignored in a **** up of a situation with the team chair, Lowe wouldn't find himself, man ? I'm not sure I follow.

I've already said I'd bite the bullet and put up with him, it's not about the afro, it's about the team.

Are they playing ? Which one's going to be number 77 ?

I'm sure Pinnacle can afford it. I think that's my new catchphrase, should sum up the delirium surrounding Keegan nicely.

If you believe the OS, specifically what Wotte said, his contract with the club as "a coach" continues whether he is manager or not. He was most explicit about that. He is a Saints employee on July 1st even if he's not the "Head Coach" - unless he gets bought out. Here we go : Rolling contract and can continue as Academy Director : paragraph beginning "my own future is not so important..." ironically enough. http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10280~1649761,00.html

Or pay for an entire set of new design Umbro training kit for the squad for a one day pre-training session last Monday when we haven't even had adult size home socks in the club shop since February... Good value that, the difference between me "meh"ing it off and me going, I think.