saintsdan

Good shout, 19 wickets in an Ashes test is pretty impressive. I think there are two different discussions going on in this thread. The original comment was about the possibility of Tom Watson winning the open at 59 i.e. a one off event as the greatest sporting achievement and I think Jesse Owens or Lance Armstrong (for his first tour win) both deserve a shout. For Armstrong to come back from where he did with cancer in his lungs and brain, having been given a 20% chance of survival and undergone chemotherapy and brain surgery, to win the toughest sporting event of all was an incredible achievement. As for Jesse Owens, 4 track and field gold medals at one olympics in probably the most politically hostile environment a sportsman has faced, a black American athlete in Berlin in 1936, was also some achievement. As far as greatest sportsman Richard Fox and Tiger Woods, are clearly both great sportsman but both, and any one else, would have to go some to beat the record of Eddy Merckx (as mentioned by Bungle), whose achievements included: - Most career victories by a professional cyclist: 525. Most victories in one season: 54. Most stage victories in the Tour de France: 34. Most stage victories in one Tour de France: 8, in 1970 and 1974 (shared with Charles Pélissier in 1930 and Freddy Maertens in 1976). Most days with the yellow jersey in the Tour de France: 96. The only cyclist to have won the yellow, green and red polka-dotted jersey in the same Tour de France (1969). Most victories in classics: 28. Most victories in one single classic: 7 (in Milan-Sanremo). Most Grand Tour Victories 11 (He won all 3 at least once). He was also world road race champion 3 times, and one of only two men to do the double of world amateur champion and world professional champion, and held the world hour record.

Jesse Owens?

Rumour has it that he was prepared to take a pay cut last year before being sent out on loan. The condition was that he wanted some guarantee that he would be playing (rather than warming the bench).

Trouble is Nick, if my understanding of other people's comments on the subject is correct we aren't able to attain a CVA, and not because of disagreement with creditors. A CVA relates to the process of coming out of administration with the support of the creditors, unfortunately in our case noone is coming out of administration. The football club itself has never been in administration and therefore cannot exit administration and cannot obtain a CVA while the PLC is being liquidated and hence not leaving administration with a CVA. Hence if the league request a CVA there won't be one, cue additional deductions; -15 or -17 points (Bournemouth and Rotherham both had -17)

You sure about that? I'd reckon it was between 1hr 30 and 1hr 45

1.) I'm fairly confident they did. I stand to be corrected but my understanding is that the club were offered the site that Toys r Us is on back in the 80s but they turned it down. 2.)Quite possibly, yes. 3.)You've spotted the major problem Southampton and its planners have in that statement. The major obstacle with developing the waterfront is, and always has been, ABP. ABP have for many years been difficult to work with and aren't very accommodating of the council's plans for the waterfront. Putting pressure on them to spend money on a proper development of facilites as you suggest is unlikely to work because they won't put money into facilities that don't benefit them directly i.e. facilities for passengers and freight coning through the port itself. Southampton also suffers because it is not a 'rich' city is indicated by sommebody above. While it has some wealthy areas it also supports 20,000 students and a particularly large number of council estates given the size of the city. Additionally it is expected to provide services and facilities for a far larger populationthan pays council tax to it. The populations of the waterside, Totton, Eastleigh, Hedge End, Botley, Hamble, Netley, Locks Heath and Park Gate amongst others do not pay any coucil tax to the city but expect it to provide the facilities they would expect from the regional centre. In fact it would be interesting to know how many of the people who have criticised the city council and particularly the lack of investment in the sorts of facilities discussed here, both on this thread and many previously, actually live in the ity itself and pay tax to it. I accept that the city coucil does not always help itself, being such a politicised authority strategy is all to often short term and constantly changing long term. I agree we have a wealth of heritage, the parks and an extensive waterfront that could be better exposed, supported and developed for the benefit of the city as a whole and as someone with an archaeology degree and a keen interest in the cities waterfront and heritage I would love to see the sorts of facilities discussed in the original post. However, the city does have a number of issues that limit its ability to provide the facilities we desire that a lot of people just don't consider. Apologies for moving away from the original questions about the club itself but this is a subject that iritates me every time this sort of thread comes up.

I see your point and I'm not trying to suggest he is an uber fan or indeed that he is entirely blameless, but, while he was chairman of the football club for a large proportion of that period I don't believe he had control of the purse strings and I wouldn't have thought he had the power of veto either (happy to be corrected if someone knows better). Also I don't think the loaning out of Skacel and Rasiak (however he tried to dress it up) could be regarded as pandering to the demands of the fans.

I won't dispute that however!

Not sure thats true. My understanding is that Leon Crouch was effectively in control from November/December 2007 to May 2008. The only contracts signed during that period were Andrew Davies, Chris Perry, Chris Lucketti, Richard Wright and of course Nigel Pearson. Only one of those individuals is still at the club so I struggle to believe that those contracts have 'strangled' the club, particularly when you consider that during that period George Burley left the club and both Rudi Skacel and Gregorz Rasiak went out on loan. While Leon Crouch has made a number of errors during his association with the club, notably his initial support of Michael Wilde and his executive team, which has been shown to be a mistake, and a number of ill thought statements and comments, I don't think this particular criticism can be fairly labelled at him.

Posted this on the SSN thread but probably more relevant here. This may be a very daft question but... Mark Fry has said that the seriuosly interested parties (is it 2, 3 or 4?) are carrying out due diligence ahead of a potential bid. Given that Rupert Lowe was chairman up until a month ago, would his knowledge of the club's financial position mean that it would be unnecessary for he or a consortium involving him to carry out due diligence? If so it would suggest that it is unlikely any of the parties carrying out due diligence involve Rupert Lowe.

This may be a very daft question but... Mark Fry has said that the seriuosly interested parties (is it 2, 3 or 4?) are carrying out due diligence ahead of a potential bid. Given that Rupert Lowe was chairman up until a month ago, would his knowledge of the club's financial position mean that it would be unnecessary for he or a consortium involving him to carry out due diligence? If so it would suggest that it is unlikely any of the parties carrying out due diligence involve Rupert Lowe.

No one seems to have spotted this bit, local interest (even if based on the channel islands)? Saints fan??

If you're talking about Baj's thread at the top of the page then you might want to consider that as the owner of the forum he is liable if the forum is sued. I would suggest therefore that he is perfectly entitled to threaten (and impose) infractions if people reproduce information on here that is copyrighted, in the same way he is entitled to infract people who type libellous comments.

If only the bridge floated!

If you're ever in Sholing.......

Forest 1 up

So why is the debt on the stadium at the same level now as it was when it was built? This is one of my main issues relating to our current debt. I am struggling to understand how we have effectively paid off none of the debt in the 10 years since SMS was built, especially if as you suggest the mortgage was reduced considerably in the first 2 or 3 years after moving. With regard to your comments about Lawrie, I agree with you totally and would like to add, in reference to the original post, that I don't believe the level of expenses he claimed in his ambassadorial role have ever been officially stated. It has also been suggested on here recently that they were substantially lower than was rumoured at the time.

I believe they are yes. A well run club that have completely turned around since the supporters trust took over following their relegation from the football league.

Hmm, Leeds were a club with a PLC as parent company when they went into admiunistration. Didn't stop the league from deducting them points in addition to the normal penalty. I wouldn't be quite so confident.

Personally I think it suggests the opposite. They are fairly sure that the club and the PLC are one and the same in all but name (which in my opinion they effectively are!) and are looking to see if the club can provide any evidence to the contrary.

Thank you. You've explained that far better than I did.

It must have been. I'd be amazed though if someone decided to take out an interest only morgage on a debt of £24 million. Especially when they had premiership income and claimed to have some business acumen!

I can't say I've seen the piece on sky but I think the question must be why we neither paid off much of the debt or invested more in the squad? If we had been paying off significant chunks of the stadium debt then the lack of investment following the cup final would be understandable; but we did neither. I am struggling to comprehend how the debt on the stadium is the same now as it was when it was built given that we have been making mortgage payments on it for 10 years!!

Also a piece on the BBC website, accepting some responsibility for the current situation; for what its worth. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/7979976.stm

I have to agree with Gemmel, if that statement is true then it is by far the mot concerning thing I have read with regard our finances. As has been said by others it is not in Barclays' or Aviva's interests to put us into administration as long as we are actively looking to pay off the debts, even if we're struggling to do so. Revenue and Customs is a completely different issue though as they are far more likely to put us into administration. If they are one of the major creditors then, from my understanding, it would also give us problems coming out of administration, if we are able to do so, because they are unlikely to accept the payment of football debts before their own (I believe the settling of football debts, for example any money we owe to Notts County for McGoldrick, is required by the football league for the club to retain its registration). They are also unlikely to accept a CVA so on coming out of administration we can expect to see a similar 17 point deduction to the one suffered by Bournemouth and Rotherham this season.