Crouchie's Lawyer

That's fair enough, but then how do we know about a) him having a medical and being offered a contract and b) the fact that the work permit was refused. Just because there has been no 'official' announcement, doesnt mean the club havent said anything.

Why would they? That I cannot answer definitively, but possibly because feel of fans getting annoyed that he has money but is not willing to spend it on something which is and has been glaringly required over the last few seasons. I completely agree that the club should be run as a business, otherwise we will end up like that smelly lot down the road. But Im sure many fans would say you get what you pay for and would be disappointed with us for not atleast meeting him halfway on his demands to secure the defender we require. The easy option would be to blame it on something which is out of our control, like a work permit issue. I dunno, it may just be the cynic in me, but on the face of it, he should have walked through the WP application as shown above so something doesnt seem right. Again, if they do not appeal it, it doesnt look right either.

Cheers The9, as stated above, it does look as if we stand a good chance of appealing. What I want to hear now is the club saying "small blip, no worries, we are confident an appeal will solve this." If they do not bother appealing, then it is evident there are underlying reasons (i.e he was being too greedy)

They havent commented? No? So how do we know that the work permit has been refused? Where has the 'other sources' got their information from? ... ... ... The club! The club would have told your 'other sources' that the deal is off due to failure to obtain the work permit. My username is an in-house joke which you obviously are not aware of, not a dig at you, but I am not a lawyer. If it was due to a 'work permit' problem then fair enough, but if we see him running out in a Charlton shirt next season, or any other team in the UK for that matter, then, Im sorry, the 'work permit' excuse was obviously not the real reason. If he wanted more money and we were not prepared to pay that, then just say it. It would be respected more than if we found out it was just an excuse to save face.

As it says really. If the deal is dead and no appeal can/will be made, who will we go for now. We need someone in his mould, a big bugger that can pocket strikers and is good in the air. Who?!

Starting to think that is the case yeah, but lying to the fans this early on is not good, especially if he signs for another club next week! We have had enough of false promises and smoke screens in the past. I was hoping the new regime would atleast give us honesty so I will not be happy if this is a covering story.

It was mentioned that AP had other targets lined up in case Jaidi didnt sign. So hopefully we can get one of those in before Sat. But I still want us to appeal and get Jaidi as well! AP has said that Lancashire isnt ready for first team football yet which leaves us with 2 centre backs, one of which is a sick note. Hardly takes a genius to work out we need 2 new CB's!

Yeah I was wondering that. Im sure you can appeal. IIRC didnt we appeal Pahars original refused work permit?! I mean for gods sake, Premiership teams can sign all these non EU players who have only played U21 without problems, yet we fail to get a WP for the Tunisian captain who has been playing footy in England for the last 5 years! WTF?! I bet someone else signs him without issues...

How the hell can someone who has been playing in England for the last 5 (?) years get refussed a f****** work permit! Thats b*******! S*** rules, majorly p***** off on that one!

Worst.thread.ever

I ferkin hate the OS

Booo, he used us by returning to the club citing his wanting of a new deal with us to then play in friendlies and gain match fitness marketing himself to get another club with no actual intention to sign a contract with us. IMO out of contract players (unless obtained away from SFC - eg Murty) should not be allowed to play in friendlies until they have committed to us.

John Tickle

I imagine he realised that after BC didnt offer him a contract and there was limited interest from anywhere significant, he realised that by going back to SFC cap in hand saying he would stay, he would be offered a contract which he could ponder for a couple of weeks, all the while getting fitter in training and also gaining match fitness in preseason while affectively marketing himself to other teams. Showing them he can still score goals and do a job. It has worked. Allegedly, Palar$e are now in for him and he can simply turn around and decline the contract. Rasiak is in a different poistion as I mentioned earlier as he is still under contract.

I was thinking this exact same thing after reading the BBC article on him. Wanted by Barnsley, Donny who yes at present are bigger teams but with our backing and set up, will not be for much longer. He is a proven striker at this level with Scunny and although he is not likely to be cheap, we can surely afford to spunk out on him now we have a bit of dough?! Especially if Johns wages are off the books and Saga's and Rasiaks are likely to follow. The best times of Sharpes career have been in L1, so maybe that is enough to tempt him back. Im disappointed to see John go and it looks as if he realised that he would need to use us for his preseason fitness and also to be placed in the shop window so told us he wants to stay. AP then plays him, giving him match fitness and affectively marketing him while he 'ponders' a contract he knows he will never sign. It's one thing playing him and another playing Rasiak who I believe has time left on his contract, so it is in the best interests of both parties for us to play Rasiak and market him if we are looking at cashing in on him. John should not have been allowed to play until a new contract was signed as he is a free.

Yeah good luck mate let me know how you get on

Sorry I have taken a while to see this thread. Dont get on here much anymore. Yes JL you are in a position to effectively get your loan deemed unenforcable. The simple version is that without the original CCA, technically (if as DSM says the loan was taken out before 01.04.07) you can argue that the loan shouldnt stand. There are a lot of companies out there which will do this for you. Some charge fee's, others seemingly dont. I used to work for one of these companies, still technically do but trying to convince people this is an actual loophole which will write off their debts should they wish to and getting them to part with cash upfront is very difficult. As you can imagine, most people think it is too good to be true. F*ck what people like Rattlec*ck says, as many others have pointed out, the banks will and frequently do screw their clients. They have no regard for banking practises and law and often employ monkeys to do important jobs with poor training so mistakes are also often made. They are very poor at rectifying these mistakes if it will cost them money too. The simple fact of the matter is that they have in many cases, not complied with a legal agreement that they have made with the client. People get off with things on technicalities all the time, just look at our justice system. For what it is worth, if you follow the advice on money experts website, you should be able to do it yourself which will save you a lot of time. If you cant be bothered to do it yourself, then pay one of these companies to do it for you. It will be quicker. In terms of your credit file, the credit reference agencies are only provided information on a voluntary basis from the banks. They do not have to share that information with each other but have agreed to, to basically cover their own backs, however, there is laws (such as the banking code) which permits banks from effectively black listing you (putting a default / CCJ) against you if the debt is classed as unenforcable. However, again, this is something the banks dont give two hoots about. They have broken this rule and even after conceeding that the loan is deemed unenforcable and they wont get their money back, have tried to screw clients by messing up their credit file. If this happens, you can take them to court as they are in direct breach of the banking code. I would also note, that they can and most certainly will still chase the debt after it's deemed unenforcable. They will hope that their pressure and you possible lack of understanding will mean they can recoup some if not all of their money by constantly chasing you and possibly passing the job onto a debt recovery firm. Again, not something they are allowed to do but have total disregard for the laws. You will also need to sever all ties with the bank too because they could get sh!tty with you and be really nit picky with their dealings with you. Finally, I would note that at present, the debt will actually always appear on your credit file. I believe this is something the industry are fighting to have changed and so that when the debt is deemed unenforcable and you have the letter from the bank, it will be removed from your credit file. At present, I am led to believe the debt will still show on your file and if you are familiar with how a credit file looks you will understand the following: Bank Loan Balance £5000 Term 36 months 00000000000000UUUUUUU Im not 100% sure what the U stands for (quite possibly unenforcable, but it has been around for a while now so may not be that) but essentially it means the balance is still there but the loan has stopped. This could have issues when you come to apply for further credit as the monkey assessing your current debts will find this and put it in your outgoings (even though it isnt) so it will further boost your liabilities meaning you will have less affordability which could affect the decision. Hope that helps, if you have any more questions, feel free to PM me, although as I said, I dont get on here much anymore so may take a few days to contact you back.

Woah there cowboy, my (late) grandfathers name was Ted Rogers! I can safely say it is not him though (unless reincarnation can happen?!) However have people seen our Wikipedia page? 'Southampton fc' under the boardroom section. Appears to have been edited today to say the Pinnacle bid is falling apart and next in line are Fat Boy Photocopier and another German/Swiss consortium. I added the very last bit to that section though

So nobody else went straight down the bookies and put money on that then? Meh, your loss, I made an easy ton!

That is all

No, like every other bloody thread on this site, the initial question/point never really gets answered and you have to trawl through posts and posts of useless tripe not associated to Saints let alone the original topic and 9 times out of 10 ends up in a Lowe/Wilde/Crouch argument or whether you were a 'stay away fan' or not. :roll:

Did you not think that both cretins (Lowe & Wilde) knew about the financial mess the club was in and that in no time at all, the PLC would go into administration and they would lose the value of all their shares? Had they invested into the club (something I know they do not comprehend, after all a football club is for taking from right? Not putting into, thats absurd) we would have staved off administration and potentially come out of it smiling. While I agree it could have just delayed the inevitable and Lowe & Wilde would have eventually lost the value of their shares and the £2m, they were not prepared to try, and rather loved sitting on their perches pretending to be gods. Cutting your nose of to spite your face perfectly sums it up IMO. Crouch is the only one to have put his hands in his pockets and I think most intelligent fans appreciate this and applaud the man.

Who has the highest ranked brute? My one is 10600 in the world

Peep's still playing this? I just wee w!lly winkled all over Barfy74. Bring it bi@tches! http://i-enjoy-pain.mybrute.com

And strange lack of right nipple...