Dark Munster

But what if Gaydamak's debt is just smoke and mirrors, just an excuse to extract money from the p**p*y carcass? He'll be happy to get 30% of this imaginary "debt". Spot on. Not to mention Crouch's disallowed goal.

A bit premature? If Saints finish 6th you'll be wrong. :cool:

=D> I think we need you to give us the winning lottery numbers... The controversial Wembley surface - treacherous all afternoon with a host of players losing their footing - struck again as Spurs defender Michael Dawson slipped allowing Piquionne to stab home. I think that's what they were also saying about us in 1976.

Pinnacle used the -10 as an excuse to pull out. The real reason is that they didn't have a pot to piss in. Wow, I can't believe I actually for once agree with the professor.

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=683102#post683102 CHEATING BASTARDS

So if we miss out on the playoffs, but finish within 10 points of the playoffs, the -10 would have had nothing to do with it? I think you'll find that if Lowe had taken Saints into administration a few days earlier Saints would have 10 more points, would be currently in a playoff place, and 8 points behind 2nd (with a game in hand).

:supz: :smt044:smt044:smt044

Oh, you can bet that if the skates somehow beat Spurs, then the 6 or so players who wouldn't be able to play the remaining meaningless PL matches, will "heroically" offer to play in the final and forgo any contract extensions, bonuses, etc. that would otherwise be triggered by playing extra games. And that doesn't include the handful of "injured" players who only become miraculously fit for the cup matches. CHEATING BASTARDS

In normal instances that's true, but what if (hypothetically, of course) AA determines that Gay boy has the magical 75%, and since this debt is, ahem, exaggerated, he is more than willing to accept 75% of whatever AA can extract from the PFC corpse (they do have future parachute money, in theory)? New debts, yes. But not if the administrator uncovers previously "unreported debts" (which appears to be happening, with the debt somehow going up to about £100 million). Also, AA has a past record of inflating the status of select creditors: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/portsmouth/article7069905.ece HMRC and a spread-betting firm then known as Tradindex had opposed the IVA, which needed approval from three-quarters of Ahmed’s creditors. The fashion boss had run up more than £4m in gambling debts. But the IVA was successful because Andronikou had accepted the validity of £8m in alleged loans to Ahmed from members of his family, thereby making them creditors and giving them a vote on the IVA. Don't be too sure. I wouldn't put anything past that cesspit of a club. CHEATING BASTARDS.

Don't bet on it. I wouldn't be surprised if AA is busy working on getting Gay boy's unsecured creditor status above the magic 75% mark. Or just one, if 75% of the unsecured debt is owed to that particular "creditor". http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=677803#post677803 CHEATS! :snipe:

If we miss out by 10 points or less, it would be really hard to take.

Then I hope your source passes on this info to someone at SFC (preferably AP himself, unless AP is your source!) Which means we can now officially blame the duck hunter - for going into administration 4 days late. :smt071

As some have already mentioned, almost certainly next week they'll miraculously have a full squad for the semi-final. CHEATS

p 13 w 5 d 2 l 6 Average points per game: 1.3 Better record than most Saints managers .... simple as that. :smt047

That's strange, I thought Wurzel took us to mid table security, left the next season after just 2 matches (W1 L1), and we got relegated after a disastrous season under Wigley and Saggy Chops. I must be losing my memory.

So let's hope that the semi-final gets postponed due to weather for a few extra weeks!

+1 Well said. :smt038:smt038:smt038:smt038:smt038:smt038:smt038:smt038:smt038:smt038:smt038

They truly are a stinking, horrible, offensive, nauseating, foul, repulsive, disgusting, rotten, filthy, corrupt, dishonest, repugnant, festering, putrescent, fraudulent, obnoxious, cesspit of a club. Oh, I forgot to mention CHEATS.

They'll all be miraculously fit for the semi-final. For the first time I'll actually want saggy chops to win.

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=660952#post660952

These aren't necessarily increases in debts, but rather the "uncovering" of previous debts (read Gayboy's "loans"). Not if he's paid for and the lapdog of the present owner. Hypothetically of course. Putting all these pieces together .... a leopard doesn't change its spots. CHEATS The most damaging criticism of Andronikou is within a High Court ruling in December 2008. An appeal judge overturned an attempt by Shami Ahmed, the founder of Joe Bloggs, the clothing company, to avoid bankruptcy through an individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) handled by Andronikou. HMRC and a spread-betting firm then known as Tradindex had opposed the IVA, which needed approval from three-quarters of Ahmed’s creditors. The fashion boss had run up more than £4m in gambling debts. But the IVA was successful because Andronikou had accepted the validity of £8m in alleged loans to Ahmed from members of his family, thereby making them creditors and giving them a vote on the IVA. At an appeal by Tradindex, the judge took a different view and disallowed £5m of these family loans, thereby overturning Ahmed’s IVA, and he was forced into bankruptcy. The judgment said: “Mr Andronikou’s conduct in these proceedings, particularly in relation to evidence filed by him on behalf [of Ahmed and his family], was manifestly inappropriate.” The judge also found that Andronikou “did fail to meet the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent insolvency practitioner”. Andronikou told The Sunday Times that the vote-rigging allegation was “absolute bollocks” and explained he had relied on his underlings to assess the validity of the Ahmed family claims.

That's the bottom line. Whether or not he's self-serving or a buffoon, he's a Saints' hero in my eyes.

It was another match. And we didn't win.

Not if he does a runner first! Having said that, an honourable, above-board, respectable, administrator would never do that. oh .......