Victor

Let me ask you feeble-minded people who think we are in admin because of the stay-away fans one question - who do you blame for relegation?

Don't know if he's been mentioned so far but I would give Gary Speed a chance. He would also play a few games and actually score some goals. Playing in midfield he could make one of the other younger midfielders captain - Gillett, say - who would learn so much from him. Our second Alan Ball.

Rochdale

What the f... does a 'parody of PR' mean? Anyway, PR is bull**** by definition and Lowe is the expert. Intelligent people will make up their minds from a number of sources and over a period of time and certainly won't do so from the contrived, agenda-ridden questions of a poster on this forum.

Aaaah, just felt your tackle from behind.

Brilliant! Slag off someone who made an obnoxious generalisation about 'Southamptoners' with an even more obnoxious generalisation of Austrians and Austrian women. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

You seem a little confused. A minute's silence is to remember the dead. Improvement of football stadiums is a cause for celebration. If it is a case of remembering the dead, I am with those who say 'no' as those at Heysel etc. are equally deserving and. sadly, the list of tradgedies continues to increase.

Well, actually what they say is "no news is GOOD news". Which is bad news for your opinion, but good news for the rest of us who are sitting here waiting for news that will surely come when there is something to tell. Just be patient, because something certainly is happening.

Surely if the holding company can sell the club to pay off the holding company's debts it could be argued that effectively the club IS in administration. I suspect this is the point around which the legal arguement will revolve.

Fair enough, there are no restrictions, but you have confused me as to who owns it - SLH or SFC (in my world 'Saints' is SFC, not SLH)? And what guarantee is there that SFC will have a stadium?

There are a lot of things that I am unclear about but which seem to have a relevance on the money that Fry will be able to raise and the value of the football club. e.g.: The stadium – I believe is owned by another arm of the Plc. Who will own it when the dust settles? How much will they charge the football club for using it? Will the club have guaranteed use (presumably Fry will have to obtain assurances that it will be available to the club & not knocked down for development otherwise SFC will be worth no more than its existing assets, less its debts)? Jackson's Farm - which part of SLH owns this? I don't believe it is SFC and therefore will not affect SFC's value. Did not the Corbett family donate it with provisos that affect its use, and therefore value? Does anyone know the situation regarding these? These things are interlinked, will affect the value of SFC and will have to be considered by Fry, but at the end of the day IMO it will be the highest bidder gets the club.

This post is just a cover-up for your wife's benefit - you left it on that tart's bedside table, didn't you!

And who was responsible for organising your expensive education ..... Rupert Lowe?

The number of bids should not slow the process. They are bidding for the club - Fry's remit is to maximise the money raised on the assets of the Plc, of which the club is just one. As I see it, his only criterion is to take the highest bid, provided he can satisfy himself that the bidder has the funds. He doesn't care what happens to the club after he has got the money, so he only needs to look at the highest couple of bids - or even just the highest if they show they have the cash.

'double escape'? Your post seems to include a double contradiction which has left me totally confused. And 'attempt at joining the 92 club'? We are a member aren't we? Do you mean getting kicked out of the league to the lowest of the FA pyramid leagues and starting all over again? If so, I suspect AFC Wimbledon will shortly create a record that will be extremely hard to beat. But maybe I have totally misunderstood what you are saying.

I 100% agree with alpine. Bloody Hell, did I really say that?! (I am, though)

You may jest, but I actually believe this is the case. Quote from the Telegraph: "However, while the apparent loophole is likely to spark a wider debate regarding the status of holding and parent companies, a Football League spokesman said: 'The league rules are very specific, it has to be the club which goes into administration for points to be deducted'." Quote from the Times: "The League will want to consider whether the effect of the holding company going into administration is tantamount to the football club doing the same thing. If it believes that it is, then it could try to impose a sporting sanction". And I did read somewhere else that the League had actually added a rider to their rules that gave then power to act if they felt a club had indulged in deliberate hanky-panky to avoid a points deduction. A points deduction seems certain. Examples from the Premiership are irelevant - a different league.

One spare ticket available (from group going by train from Brighton). PM me if interested. Can meet at turnstile.

Since Barclays are experts in setting up companies so that they can evade paying taxes to the country within which they (used to) make vast profits, saving themselves billions each year whilst at the same time taking handouts from the government of that country, surely they could have invested in SLH as a loss-making business and still fiddled it so that came out better off.

Have I missed something, but did the administrator not say that all the directors of the club are still in position? Therefore Wilde (Chairman), Lowe, and Cowen are still entitled to be in the stadium and are still running the club. Please tell me I am wrong.

OK, I will accept a million pounds if they don't.

Surely they will be a day older.

Actually, to be pedantic, would picking Appy up for poor English be pedantry?

No, but it helps. I think being old helps as well. Thankyou for showing an interest and making a note of my posts. (actually, I'm not that big a pedant, otherwise I would have picked up Appy for saying "may of been". I did have to restrain myself , though, as I find "should of", "could of", "must of" etc. particularly irritating. Is it teaching standards that have dropped, or do they simply not teach English in schools anymore?).