saintjay77

I think your last point would probably have been more sensible but no matter which way it ended up I think there would still be debate about it. The OB could have gone steaming in with battons and horses to split up the croud which would of no doubt caused a backlash as most fans there would have through it would be unnecisary and the OB's actions would have done nothing but agrivate the situation. The press probably didnt help matters by dramatising things that bit more which may have left the OB thinking they had to make more of a statement. But out of all of this the fact remains that the OB charged them as they did and in court when defended by Barristers they still ended up getting what we think are harsh punishments. What were there Barristers there for? Did they not point out that there clients did nothing more than shake a fence or shout angrily? Are they planning an appeal? Although it looks harsh to us and a charge of threatening behaviour seems more reasonable to most, they cant get away from the fact that had they walked away like most others they wouldnt be in this situation.

When the maximum sentance is 5 years and they only got 1 I would say they got off fairly lightly. That doesnt take much understanding IMO. They were unlucky to be charged with Violent Disorder for on the face of it, doing not allot. I dont know why I have to explain almost everyone of my posts to you but if you really want me to get off "your" thread just ask. This being a Saints Forum and me being a Paid member and a Saints fan I thought I have every right to post and give my opinion. I am not trying to state anything as fact but trying to be objective. If you have a problem with that then hit the ignore button and feck off. x

Very true. And I am sure there will be more that gets released in the coming weeks as various people hacked off with having there name dragged through the mud so poopy can edge a few more £'s out of the local business's and charity's comes to light.

Some of that works in Rugby.

I think it sucks that some from the poopy lot were not also charged with similar offences but im guessing that being the minority group may have had something to do with it?

No of course your right. 5 years would have been so much better than 1 year. Violent disorder Title: Public order Offence: Violent disorder Legislation: Section 2 Public Order Act 1986 Commencement Date: Mode of Trial: Either Way Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: 5 years Get back in your box FFS

As others have said, the Holding Company was set up 7 years before the FL rules were set up to cover clubs that go into admin as opposed to clubs that had holding companys who went into admin. Our holding company owned a few companies including SFC, A Radio Station and Insurance/credit card company. The latter were sold off or ditched as they wernt making the money that was hoped and the Holding company was just left with SFC. When we went into Admin the FL looked at us and without the other companys to support the holding company SFC and SLH were linked as one and the same. so they imposed the penalty on us and changed there own rules to cover the same situation in the future. Most on here thought it was a cheaky way out if we managed it but could also see that by the letter of the then current rules we were well within our rights to try it. I cant see anywhere in the above that would suggest we were cheating. Badly managed yes, under financed yes but not cheating. When we went down we had sold the family silver in order to stay afloat and in the end owed the mortage and an Over draft. we did not owe local business' and charitys or the Tax man. We did not owe other clubs transfer fee's or players wages or loan payments. We did not owe any ex manager's money for services given and we did not owe any staff there weekly wage. We also did not use the money that would have paid the above to bring in more players on expensive wages. When your administration is over have a thought for all the above that took 20% of what they were due while the players and clubs that helped you through the past couple of years got 100% of what they were due. TBH if Saints had acted in this way i would be disgusted. I was pretty embarresed by the way we acted to get us into our mess but truely thankful that we at least tried to do the right thing by the local comunity before we looked after any mercinary footballers.

Most of those were gone a while back now and since most left you also brought in the likes of Ricardo Rocha, Jamie O'Hara, Quincy Owusu-Abeyie, Dusko Tosic, Hassan Yebda, Tal Ben-Haim, Mike, Williamson, Kevin-Prince Boateng and Aruna Dindane. So if the club is hemerigeing money and its shed some of its players to balance the books it looks like the club are sticking 2 fingers up at everyone it owes money too by bringing in all these players. We got rid and used what was left at the club. Bringing in people just wasnt an option. Even on free transfers and loans wages wold still have needed to be paid and we didnt have the means to stretch to that. We splashed out in an attempt to get back to the prem and maybe the season after we should have tightened our belts a bit more. That might have meant we avoided administration or at least seen it off for a bit longer. Your club just kept going with there heads in the sand and now are looking to right off over 80 million of debt. Using Administration as a way to get out of running the business worse than a 5 year old playing monopoly.

I agree with all of that but just to make a point. The Sentances were pretty good when you consider they were looking at a maximum of 5 years inside. The charges while technically correct were probably on the extreme side and im sure there could have been different charges used that would have carried a lower sentance. As for letting them out at the same time or not, I guess they thought that after investing in a fence to seperate the fans it made sense to them to use it by letting them out together. If they wanted to let them out seperatly I doubt they would have put the fence up and just shepparded them into the ground then then just left them for an hour befole letting them on there way. Just a guess mind as I dont know if a fence has been put up elsewhere and staggered exits used or not. Either way, Saints v poopy is always going to be a game under the spot light and the OB were always going to try to be seen as being tough on Football related crime so they were bound to get a result in there mind. Makes anyone that stepped over the line a little more stupid IMO as it was not as if it wasnt expected.

I agree cause I skate on skate's. Ice or Roller but not board. Play skater and ice hockey as I cant run for sh it.

The debt on the stadium probably didnt help but it wasnt what took us into admin. The repayments were manageable on CCC funds and they could have probably been re-negotiated to be affordable in League 1. The power struggle at the top cost us the most and the over spending in all directions during that period left us with nothing in the bank and a big (for us) overdraft. As soon as we hit that wall we went into admin. The difference between us and poopy is when our game was up we took admin. Poopy just carried on sinking choosing to ignore any problems that may be there and let there debt get to 130 mil. The stadium mortage and the bank OD were pretty much the only debts we had and were covered with full and final settlements from ML based on around 20 mil. That bought ML everything with no debt. Can anyone imagine someone getting poopy for that kind of money? Would anyone think its worth that kind of money? Even with no debt I think its a struggle to believe it would be a good buy for 20 mil. Maybe cause I am biased but trying to be sensible about it, after the 20 mil it would need a shed load spent on players, ground, training facilitys and building up a trust with its fan base again. Not a purchase that anyone should take lightly IMO

I have gone to the control panel and switched to the YMCAOMFG thingy-ma-jig and type appears perfectly as it should. If there is a way of making that option the default for all I would think that would sort the issue. If anyone wants to use the standard way then you wont know of too many problems cause they will all be waiting for there type to appear.

wow shed loads of info. most of it is above me lol. Stange that Clapham suggests he and others think AA give there business a bad name but nothing is done about it. I guess he always manages to act within the lines of those documents.

You would have to have a strong arm to throw it at me then. If you want to call them by there proper name then do it. Skates is another word that we use and as I am and have been for years a skater I dont like to insult my 4 wheeled footwear by labeling them down the road with the same word, i choose a different word that makes it both clear who I am talking about while also thinking of sh it.

It seems strange that there is not someone above making sure the rules are followed to get rid of dodgy IP's. I know Clapham has stated a few times that AA makes the IP business look bad. But who regulates that business?

Agree completly but that just highlights up how stupid the sentance was for saints v yeovil. If these tougher sentances are the new bench mark and are followed up with more tougher sentances for future problems then it should reduce the problems in and around footy. If the sentances carry on like they did for the saints v yeovil incident then its not really going to deter mindless idiots at all is it?

Nice to know my opinion is utter BS. Im sure there is a label for your opinion too but I cant be bothered to get into that. Had I taken my kids I would have expected the poopy lot to be kept in after so if my route home takes me anywhere near the away end (which when im staying in Southampton it does) I would have walked right out and been not far from the problems. Plenty of familys there your right but I still wouldnt have been happy looking after 3 kids when all that was going on. What actually happened wasnt that much but the courts have delt with it in such a way that the liklyhood of it getting worse next time is greatly reduced and maybe next time I will take my kids along. Had they done naff all the chances are that next time may be more serious would mean I would be less likly to take my kids. The police didnt do enough to stop it happening clearly as they let the poopy lot out at the same time but they did enough to keep the 2 sets of fans apart. Maybe they should have just sat back completly and let the mindless idiots beat each other to death. then dish out a few banning orders for being very naughty boys.

TBH I wouldnt expect any problems sitting in the family stand. But outside the ground with a bunch of moronic poopy fans near by I would have half expected things to be thrown and saints fans to react. I just dont fancy putting 3 kids under 11 into that kind of situation. Taking my kids into a potenial riot situation to show I have grown a pair doesnt seem like the way forward to me. With all that said, the OB should have done better but it still doesnt excuse the mindless idiots getting involved.

Text seems pretty quick on quick reply now too. Slow text must only be in the standard mode.

Aha smileys are now there. Also when in advanced mode my text is coming up instantly which is nice.

Nothing on the right either but on route to CP to see if that helps. )

If thats how not known trouble makers get treated then the likly hood of known trouble makers turning up to cause trouble is much lower so yes I would probably feel a little safer and more likly to bring my kids.

Personally I wouldnt have taken my kids to a saints v poopy match just to make sure they dont get injured by mindless idiots lobbing coins and chairs around. I would have more expected it to be from the blue mindless idiots but none the less I thought it would be sensible to pass that game by and watch it on the tv. Maybe the next time Saints play poopy the mindless idiots will be a bit more thoughtfull in there actions and I might think there is less chance my kids could get hurt. Derby games are what its all about and to get one over your rivals and be there to be a part of it is amazing. So I would love my kids to experience it. Not going to happen as long as there are mindless idiots there intent on turning a footy match into a riot though. As long as the OB are being harsh on Football related crime the more chance my kids have of going to one of these games. Or would you rather the PB did nothing and wait for full scale riots to occur before they stepped in with a few slapped wrists?

I get nothing on the left but I can see at the bottom that Smileys are on. Not that I use them much anyway but there we go.

OK I am confused again. Poopy go into admin suggesting around 30 mil of debt I think, that quickly rose to around 60 mil and AA wanted creditors to prove they are owed the money so he could then proceed to work out the details of a CVA. Once creditors proved what they were owed the debt went up to around 130 mil and the CVA was based on that proven debt. Why now is AA asking creditors to prove what they owe again after the CVA has initialy been approved? Would that CVA be worth anything at all if the amount of debt were to be adjusted again? If he has proposed to pay a creditor 20% of the debt that he has already agreed that is owed how can he now argue it again? Im sure he is making it all up as he goes alone, trying to drag it out as long as possible but I dont get what reason he can have that would make his position any better? For such a high profile job you would think he would want to be seen as to be doing the job as best he can in order to secure future work and make a shed load of wonga.