saintjay77

On paper the bench last night didn't look that strong. 1st team looked good but thought the bench was a little light weight. Obviously it was strong enough but if we are getting anyone in on loan then IMO they will only to strengthen the squad and as such the bench. That's hardly going to fill the fans full of confidence when we bring in yet another squad member is it? Unless we can bring in someone that will obviously strengthen the 1st team then I doubt and don't think it's worth bringing anyone else in.

Ah so its not been actually decided then. Its just them lot bending the rule book in the direction that suits them best at that particular time. When the votes were needed they were all football creditors. When there is money to be paid out they are not. With the liquidators being a different firm at least there will be a fair shot at the truth coming out. I doubt anything they find will allow HMRC to back track and strike the extra votes off and even if they could it would be worthless as the time bought has already been spent. It might allow for future penaltys to be easier to give but I doubt there will be any kind of back lash for it. HMRC's case of the football creditors rule might just make that rule more clearer and actions from it simpler to follow for all. Could do with that getting done a bit quicker IMO.

When has that been decided? And does that add weight to HMRC's case's?

Ryan Dickson rarely says anything relating to any games on his twitter. Im guessing that its a club policy that if players want to be on social network sites then they avoid talking about their job or the club. The odd time he has mention a match has been because we lost and he says the players are gutted or something.

He was watching the cup final yesterday round Forecast's place so maybe he has dropped down the pecking order a bit.

RIP Deano. Will be missed by many.

I worked in Glasgow for 2 months with a mate and while there the Glasgow rangers team turned up as they played Celtic the next day. Surreal sitting on the mezzanine playing FIFA and the half the Glasgow squad challenging us to a game before someone came and took the tv as the team needed it in another room. We took the ps2 back to the room to the small crappy tv and by the time we came back the team had vanished. Spoke to their sub keeper at the time for quite a while who I think is their number 1 now. Not saints related I know but not like me to be in that kind of situation so worth sharing I thought. )

I think overall Adkins has done well but what I find really frustrating is how he decides the ground is a tough place to go and the pitch is not the best so he resorts to playing hoof ball for about 75 minutes of the match and switches it to passing for the last 15 mins. Only then do we usually look like we are going to get something from the game. It happened at Exeter and again at Hartlepool. It doesnt do us any favours and most of us agree that the team played crap. Sometimes he gets them playing fast passing football on the floor and we can look amazing and ready to challenge for the top spots. He mentioned the pitch wasnt the best at Exeter and I watched us play hoof ball while Exeter passed the ball around us. They looked by far the better passing team for most of the match. The 1st time we played some passing footy there was a neat 1-2 that got N'Guessen in down the left and his cross found Lamberts head for the goal. Every time we are expecting to play on a dodgy pitch we resort to long ball that gets us nowhere. If Adkins can come up with a better solution for playing on crap pitches then I dont think we will have any problems. We would at least look like we are a half decent team and would be able to cause problems.

I'm surprised this is still going. I thought the initial reaction was based on what people thought was said when in reality he was more complimentary and would rather things get sorted out. If he has a problem with what some people say on here then there is nothing stopping him signing up and confronting them or speaking to the admin about anything that might be liable. I'm sure being in the public eye for so long he must be used to some criticism so should be able to get over it. I personally don't think some of the ex players and managers have been too helpful if the previous reports are to be believed but I don't think NC has made 100% the correct decisions with public relations either. Given time and a march up the league I'm sure the petty squabbles that keep distracting us all will get less and less and we can all enjoy some new history being made.

Im not sure they have rules that allow for when a points deduction is taken for these circumstances. They have it in place for -10 for administration in that there is a cut off date that sets the ball rolling for the this season or next season scenario. Go into admin before the date and the points are that season no matter what, after that date and it depends on how far from the bottom you finish as to when the points come off. Tax evasion type points have just been dished out straight away in the past I think but they have usually been enough points to royally shaft the club in the process. Im guessing the FL will either bend over backwards to help out Poopy if further points are taken away or change the rules to make sure they are delt with the same way as they should for going into admin.

News has been a bit slow for them down the road recently. Are the ruskies still sniffing around? Did they get as far as the FAPPT when they were interested in Bompey? That test is supposed to be new and improved so is it improved enough to sniff out the ruskies ties with organised crime and so on?

How about the brilliant lazy guernseyman? Would that qualify anyone as a decent saints fan? When Lowe was at the club you never heard him speak publicly about how Lowe has got things wrong yet no-one fell about themselves backing Le Tiss then in only saying nice things about the club and it's chairman. I seem to remember most people slating Lowe at every given opportunity. Now he falls out with Cortese and some people are hanging on for every word the great man says so they have a reason to have a go at the club. Decent saints fans indeed. :raisedeyebrowemotethingy:

Are you saying he wasnt lazy? Would he himself say he wasnt a lazy player? I think its fair to call him a lazy guernseyman. doesnt mean he wasn't foooking amazing for the 5 or 10 mins he showed up each game though.

But if they find that the previous owners/directors and so on are liable then they can go after money from them which I presume would go to the creditors that were stiffed in the 1st place? If they find nothing then there is no difference. If they find stuff that is worth of points then its something for us to laugh at. but if they find the previous boss's conned the creditors then there is an avenue they can chase for extra funds.

By the time the court date takes place this season will be over so if there is any point deductions they should be implied the following season. What a future they have to look forward to down the road. lol

Yeah I think his is the one closest to club involvment. Manderick's one is to do with payments to a player I think? And Arry's is payments to himself or something.

I think it was overruled because there wasnt really any legal reason why it couldnt go ahead as is. If the rules were set out like I was suggesting after then there would be no need for anyone to object. Administrators should aim to be in top shape and transparrent to be considered by the court. Only reason for any objections should be because the chosen administrator is not compliant with the set of rules and regs and conditions that qualifies them for court aproval. meh, my ideas wont change anything so just rambling. but I think the current system is flawed and leaves enough room for the system to be abused. In this case its nice to see new liqudators coming in who can either verify AA's work or get an eventual better deal for the creditors and HMRC can get a better return to put back in the public purse.

At least there is a chance it will be delt with properly and finally. Had the charges been dropped on a technicality im sure there would always have been a question mark over them and a feeling of a lack of justice. They could get proved inocent and live a full and happy life counting there millions........ If however they get proved guilty I wonder if it would have any baring on the Liquidation of the Poopy company? Would the liquidation have any baring on the tax evasion case? If "things regarding tax evasion" are found in the liquidation but they get away with tax evasion, would that put them back in court? So many questions that will no doubt twist and turn the situation but will provide many more weeks and months of this thread to enjoy.

Talking of Tax...... If you evade paying it you will end up facing charges and get a date in court. Just like wht Arry, Storrie and imagrant have got!!! SNN just said they failed to get the charges dropped so will face court later this year. Back on subject... I cant see the problem with the ticket tax as if things are meant to be transparrent then you need to know its there and how much it is. It might be better if they charged say £20 per ticket and have it state that it includes the £3 tax but that wouldnt give the option of not paying it if you can buy the ticket directly.

Just reported on SNN that Storrie Teller, Bagpuss and Manderprik failed to get the Tax Evasion charges dropped and they will stand trial later this year. Cha-Ching!

Ah cheers for that. I suppose it makes sence as when a company is in strife finacially they could do without extra costs of changing Administrators to Liquidators. On the face of it though it does look to be a massive whole in regulating the whole process. The owners chose the Administrators, which could be as they will benifit the owners the most, the Administrators maximise the business in favour of the owners at the expence of creditors and there appears to be no-one watching to make sure the creditors are getting the best deal or not, if the Administrators have swept anything under the carpet then they are in prime position to cover their tracks if they are also set to become the liquidators. Surly it would make things much better if it was the courts that choose who the administrators will be and not the owners who ran the business into trouble in the 1st place? Potential Administrators would have to be on an approved list for the courts to use and would not to be allowed to have any association with the business they may be administering. It would also be down to the courts to choose a seperate liquidators who would find any wrong doings that may have taken place by any of the former people running the club. All parties would basically be in a position to make sure they did things properly which would in turn put those working above board in a position of trust and not have their name ruined by dodgy administrators.

Is it standard practice for the administrators to become the liquidators? From day one I thought it was dodgy for AA and Co to be able to cover their's and their's masters tracks but it seemed like there was no other option. Now someone else is taking care of business at least there is a good chance that AA and Co's work can be either verified or found out and the creditors can get a fair result.

How about Jay Lucas? He was billed as an amazing player from down under and we got him from woolabong wolverines or something when he was a kid. Was playing for our reserves at 17 but dissapeared off the face of the plannet.

http://opencharities.org/charities/1122431 This has a little bit on the accounts but doesnt really show much. Accounts date Income Spending More info 31 Mar 2009 £20,411 £8,842 What that means I have no idea.