Gemmel Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 If Richard Fry knew that he was going to BT at the time he withdrew the overdraft he effectively arranged to put business in the way of his future employer. I'm not surprised that his picture has disappeared. Barclays never withdrew the overdraft and Barclays didnt appoint the administrators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Have just phoned Begbies London asking for Richard Fry's email. They gave it to me. Suggests he does work there. So why have they taken his details off their website? Funny that, I've just wished Richard well for his future via his BT email account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Barclays never withdrew the overdraft and Barclays didnt appoint the administrators Let's not let a few facts get in the way of a conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Funny that, I've just wished Richard well for his future via his BT email account. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Let's not let a few facts get in the way of a conspiracy. I think confusion getting in the way to be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamo Naive Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Same point was made by The Guardian several weeks ago. Good to have it reiterated though. David Conn at the Guardian told me on Friday: " I hope to have a look at the saints situation as soon as I can." Would be interested to see if he can shed any light on the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Let's not let a few facts get in the way of a conspiracy. Barclays "forced" SLH into admin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Barclays never withdrew the overdraft Bouncing cheques isn't far off the same thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Barclays "forced" SLH into admin Er, well that's arguable. We turned down offers for players in January. Our ego-maniac stupid **** of an ex-chairman forced us into bankruptcy. In any case, SLH PLC was free to appoint whoever it wanted. In any case, Richard Fry didn't work for Begbies at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Bouncing cheques isn't far off the same thing... It's massively different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Er, well that's arguable. We turned down offers for players in January. Our ego-maniac stupid **** of an ex-chairman forced us into bankruptcy. In any case, SLH PLC was free to appoint whoever it wanted. In any case, Richard Fry didn't work for Begbies at the time. Completely agree with that. My personal opinion is that lowe played chicken with Fry ..............and lost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saints foreva Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Who the hell is Richard Fry? Anything happened today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Nelson Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Barclays never withdrew the overdraft and Barclays didnt appoint the administrators Am I wrongly informed that they reduced the overdraft? Barclay didn't appoint the administrators, but which firm of administrators are specialists in the field, dealt with a well known team dressed in blue, and has got an office in Southampton? It wasn't pot luck that they were appointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Er, well that's arguable. We turned down offers for players in January. Our ego-maniac stupid **** of an ex-chairman forced us into bankruptcy. In any case, SLH PLC was free to appoint whoever it wanted. In any case, Richard Fry didn't work for Begbies at the time. Good lord, you need some more cynic in you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Phil I managed to find this on my computer by searching the cache. This has the photo of Richard Fry on it. Is this what you are talking about? http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:tvJeMwkXB4EJ:www.begbies-traynor.com/richard_fry/29+richard+fry+and+begbies+traynor&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk Yep. And one then asks why is that not there on their OS anymore......... Now all we need is an ex SLH Board member to pop up and say - yes that is definitely the same Richard Fry who sat in on our Board Meetings, or perhaps an ex SMS employee. personally I am pretty sure it is one and the same, good work guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Yep. And one then asks why is that not there on their OS anymore......... Now all we need is an ex SLH Board member to pop up and say - yes that is definitely the same Richard Fry who sat in on our Board Meetings, or perhaps an ex SMS employee. personally I am pretty sure it is one and the same, good work guys There's a much more interesting link than that Phil, provided by Bates. I wouldn't have thought there are too many people called Richard Fry who worked for a 'high street clearing bank', and specialise in football clubs. http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=richard+fry&d=76310053793481&mkt=en-GB&setlang=en-GB&w=79ab535e,b75eb856 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Nelson Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Er, well that's arguable. We turned down offers for players in January. Our ego-maniac stupid **** of an ex-chairman forced us into bankruptcy. In any case, SLH PLC was free to appoint whoever it wanted. In any case, Richard Fry didn't work for Begbies at the time. The notice period for Fry is likely to have been three months. He could have been appointed and started to work off his notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 The notice period for Fry is likely to have been three months. He could have been appointed and started to work off his notice. Wouldn't there have been some sort of restriction placed on him? I've had this put on me in the past - not to contact former clients sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 (edited) Er, well that's arguable. We turned down offers for players in January. Our ego-maniac stupid **** of an ex-chairman forced us into bankruptcy. In any case, SLH PLC was free to appoint whoever it wanted. In any case, Richard Fry didn't work for Begbies at the time. No..but as the account manager, he knew what amount of reduction to the overdraft, would cause us problems..............then walla!!!, the overdraft is reduced..............there is a horrible smell starting to waft out of St Mary's......it really does need a close looking at. Edited 2 July, 2009 by Gingeletiss Missed an 'n'.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint lard Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 The notice period for Fry is likely to have been three months. He could have been appointed and started to work off his notice. Just about to make that point myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 The notice period for Fry is likely to have been three months. He could have been appointed and started to work off his notice. Well if anyone can provide any evidence that Richard Fry called in our overdraft in order to push work to Begbies Traynor, then clearly that stinks. But they haven't. If he was working his notice I expect he would have been taken off the management of such matters or put on gardening leave in any case. It remains the case that SLH PLC could have appointed anyone they felt like as IPs. Yes, Begbies have an office in Southampton but so do Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG etc....... As Gemmel said; much more likely that Fry got so exasperated from having to deal with Lowe and seeing us turn down offers for players - (do you think we would have got more than £400k for Dyer back then? I do) - that his patience ran out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Am I wrongly informed that they reduced the overdraft? Barclay didn't appoint the administrators, but which firm of administrators are specialists in the field, dealt with a well known team dressed in blue, and has got an office in Southampton? It wasn't pot luck that they were appointed. In December Barclays wanted the overdraft reduced by a million (I think) which with the transfer window about to open, meant we would need to sell a player or two. We didn't, infact we added to the squad. Not sure what your point is with the last bit, you seem to be suggesting they were a natural choice based on their experience, which would scupper any conspiracy :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 No..but as the account manager, he knew what amount of reduction to the overdraft, would cause us problems..............the walla!!!, the overdraft is reduced..............there is a horrible smell starting to waft out of St Mary's......it really does need a close looking at. ..and an explanation on how a Finance Director of a failed PLC company can remain in his position during administration....so someone that was in that position can even be ALLOWED BY THE F.L TO REMAIN IN THAT ROLE POST ADMIN is plainly shocking. I have a BIG problem with that given his long term association with Lowe going back to Secure Retirement...that he may still show loyalty to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Nelson Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Wouldn't there have been some sort of restriction placed on him? I've had this put on me in the past - not to contact former clients sort of thing. Whatever restrictions was put on him, the only thing he needed to do was to make sure that SLH couldn't pay the bills. That has got nothing to do with BT, but he would have known what that would lead to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 (edited) ..and an explanation on how a Finance Director of a failed PLC company can remain in his position during administration....so someone that was in that position can even be ALLOWED BY THE F.L TO REMAIN IN THAT ROLE POST ADMIN is plainly shocking. I have a BIG problem with that given his long term association with Lowe going back to Secure Retirement...that he may still show loyalty to him. What the hell are you talking about? David Jones is not still in his position at SLH PLC. Look everyone - I am not saying there is no potential scope for misdoings in this, or a similar, situation; clearly there is. But ask yourself what is more likely: A) A large scale conspiracy, dependent on the happening of certain contingencies, involving misconduct on the part of several parties; or B) A complete **** of a tosser annoying his bank manager. Edited 2 July, 2009 by benjii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Website's still going strong though: http://www.pinnacleproperty.net/ What a beauty it is! Isn't it a doozy! According to who-is search Pinnacle's web site was registered by a certain Spencer Farmer Esq!! It's interesting that on one of the web site's few pages there is a pic of that cheeky Leprechaun Fry complete with email address and mobile number. I wonder if anyone has taken the time to call him to express their feelings about the sterling work he has done (and according to some reports is continuing to do) for the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 I would also like to point out, that there is a very real risk of some of you defaming named individuals, and I would urge you to stop unless you can back up what you are inplying with some evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soggy Bottom Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Just asked my magic 8 ball if Saints would be taken over, YES was the answer, good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Isn't it a doozy! According to who-is search Pinnacle's web site was registered by a certain Spencer Farmer Esq!! It's interesting that on one of the web site's few pages there is a pic of that cheeky Leprechaun Fry complete with email address and mobile number. I wonder if anyone has taken the time to call him to express their feelings about the sterling work he has done (and according to some reports is continuing to do) for the club? If you want a real laugh, check out the Pinnacle Asset Management website - not a contact detail in site on that one (although there are plenty of "please contact us" and typos). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 It's looking like 'A'...............IMHO of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 What the hell are you talking about? David Jones is not still in his position at SLH PLC. Look everyone - I am not saying there is no scope for misdoings in this situation; clearly there is. But ask yourself what is more likely: A) A large scale conspiracy, dependent on the happening of certain contingencies, involving misconduct on the part of several parties; or B) A complete **** of a tosser annoying his bank manager. So I guess that David Jones no longer has anything to do with the finances of Southampton Football Club then as well? Sorry, but in any other line of business where all the other directors are asked to leave upon Admin, what makes Jones so special that he gets to stay and run the company? His links to the previous 'failed' regime are too strong. I'm not alluding to anything, but the whole 'large scale conspiracy' you talk about wouldn't have any legs for us to go on if there had been a complete clean sweep.. But that wouldn't be Saints would it? I'm not happy that we still to be in the midst of smoke and mirrors, and a lack of forward movement since...ummmm...yes....1997. Admin was supposed to clear the decks..yet again I'm left with the feeling of deckchairs been moved around....what was it Johnny Rotten said... 'Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 So let me get this straight:- Richard Fry, as our Barclays Bank manager, insisted we reduced our overdraft back in October. Rupert resisted the temptation to raise any cash in January. Cash crisis approaches towards the end of March. Rupert begins discussions with Begbies Traynor and seeks their advice(?). Begbies have been singled out by WH Ireland as a "company to watch". We exceed our overdraft limit, cheques are bounced, presumably with R Fry's knowledge. Rupert, having lost the support of the bank, then appoints BT as administrators. Then we find out that R Fry has moved to BT, but not yet publicly announced? A perplexing series of events, n'est-ce pas? Can't be arsed to look but do I also recall that Ken Tointon was placed onto the board of SFC Ltd at the request and/or advice of Begbies Traynor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 So I guess that David Jones no longer has anything to do with the finances of Southampton Football Club then as well? Sorry, but in any other line of business where all the other directors are asked to leave upon Admin, what makes Jones so special that he gets to stay and run the company? His links to the previous 'failed' regime are too strong. I'm not alluding to anything, but the whole 'large scale conspiracy' you talk about wouldn't have any legs for us to go on if there had been a complete clean sweep.. But that wouldn't be Saints would it? I'm not happy that we still to be in the midst of smoke and mirrors, and a lack of forward movement since...ummmm...yes....1997. Admin was supposed to clear the decks..yet again I'm left with the feeling of deckchairs been moved around....what was it Johnny Rotten said... 'Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?' Well, I understand why people are sceptical as we have been done over badly in the last few years. I suppose we'll all just have to wait and see as I don't for one minute expect any one on this board to post "the answer" to what has happened. I imagine the reality is much more mundane than people like to think, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestSaint Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Trying to keep up, but I believe what is being said is that the Executive at Barclays who oversaw our overdraft and eventual demise by reducing our overdraft facility - Mr Fry - has now joined the very same Begbies Traynor who are now benefiting financially from the Administration of Southampton Football Club which he himself had a contribution towards. Begbies Traynor themselves being recommended as a stock by W H Ireland in January !! A bit incestuous is it not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Nelson Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 In December Barclays wanted the overdraft reduced by a million (I think) which with the transfer window about to open, meant we would need to sell a player or two. We didn't, infact we added to the squad. Not sure what your point is with the last bit, you seem to be suggesting they were a natural choice based on their experience, which would scupper any conspiracy :confused: It doesn't scupper the conspiracy, in fact, it makes it. If the business could have gone anywhere, then it scuppers it. If Fry knew that the business was bound to go to BT - don't forget the WH Ireland/Lowe/BT tip angle here - that's when it becomes interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 It's massively different Not really when set in the context of a year. When Lowe returned last May, recall that SLH were overdrawn by £1.3m on a facility of £5m -that was no problem for R. Fry; in November, Fry unilaterally reduced the overdraft to £4m and effectively forced us to get rid of players (hence John's departure - of course, no fans showed any sympathy then but now blame Lowe for not getting rid of players in Jan). Nonetheless, we did make credible efforts to stabilise our debt. In April Barclays bounced £6,000 worth of cheques on a £4m overdraft - crumbs given the way Barclays had been happy to act. If you don't think that's inconsistent and aggressive on the part of Barclays, you're blinded by Lowe hatred (I cant stand the man either but can see Barclay's role in events). I know that behind the scenes MPs had been writing to Barclays to hold off given the looming sale of STs etc but to no avail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestSaint Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 It doesn't scupper the conspiracy, in fact, it makes it. If the business could have gone anywhere, then it scuppers it. If Fry knew that the business was bound to go to BT - don't forget the WH Ireland/Lowe/BT tip angle here - that's when it becomes interesting. The business was not bound to go to BT but WH Ireland recommending the firm with Lowe being their chairman does give a hint as to who the administrators may be. It would be unusual to recommend a firm of administrators to clients and then not use them yourselves when called upon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Not really when set in the context of a year. When Lowe returned last May, recall that SLH were overdrawn by £1.3m on a facility of £5m -that was no problem for R. Fry; in November, Fry unilaterally reduced the overdraft to £4m and effectively forced us to get rid of players (hence John's departure - of course, no fans showed any sympathy then but now blame Lowe for not getting rid of players in Jan). QUOTE] Nottm Forest did not want to buy McGoldrick in Jan as they were not guaranteed to be in the CC so loaned Blackstock. Similarly with Wolves they had been tracking Surman for sometime but bought him now they are in the Premiership and have money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Not really when set in the context of a year. When Lowe returned last May, recall that SLH were overdrawn by £1.3m on a facility of £5m -that was no problem for R. Fry; in November, Fry unilaterally reduced the overdraft to £4m and effectively forced us to get rid of players (hence John's departure - of course, no fans showed any sympathy then but now blame Lowe for not getting rid of players in Jan). Nonetheless, we did make credible efforts to stabilise our debt. In April Barclays bounced £6,000 worth of cheques on a £4m overdraft - crumbs given the way Barclays had been happy to act. If you don't think that's inconsistent and aggressive on the part of Barclays, you're blinded by Lowe hatred (I cant stand the man either but can see Barclay's role in events). I know that behind the scenes MPs had been writing to Barclays to hold off given the looming sale of STs etc but to no avail. Can't disagree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webby Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Admin, isn't all this WAY off topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintPaddy Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 From the Echo 11 May - Sorry if this has already been posted:- THE company who helped send Southampton Leisure Holdings PLC into administration has announced a massive profit. Saints’ parent company went into administration at the beginning of last month after Barclays Bank refused to continue supporting the club. Barclays yesterday announced a net profit for the first three months of 2009 of £826m. That was up 12 per cent from £736m. Those figures will come as a slap in the face to Rupert Lowe and his supporters. Lowe has publicly blamed the bank for their actions in forcing SLH into administration. Lowe had cut the club’s overdraft facility from £5m down to £4m, but it had started to creep up again. A source close to Lowe’s former PLC board has confirmed that Barclays’ actions at the end of March came as a bolt from the blue. “You never thought Barclays would do what they did,” the source told the Echo. “It’s a company that ploughs around £40m into football through supporting the Premiership and here they are chasing a Championship club for £1m. “The directors had reduced the overdraft by around £2m, but the bank weren’t prepared to support the club anymore. “I don’t know why they couldn’t have waited until the end of the season and given the club a chance to sell some players to bring money in. “If the bank had held on, we could have held a couple of concerts and they could have raised a lot of money. “It’s so short-sighted what has been done.” Barclays’ actions also shocked former Saints board members. Among them were Keith Wiseman, who was acting chairman of the PLC board during Leon Crouch’s tenure as football club board chairman. Wiseman told the Echo that the bank manager, Saints fan Richard Fry, used to attend board meetings at St Mary’s. “I just can’t imagine where it’s all gone wrong,” said Wiseman. “Richard Fry was the Barclays Bank manager based in Reading who we used to deal with when Leon was football board chairman and I was acting chairman of the PLC board. “Richard Fry was totally onside with us, he used to come to all our board meetings and he used to come to home games. “It was obvious he was very much working with us. “Banks don’t really do this to football clubs, do they? Banks know many of their customers are football fans. “I can imagine the pressure people like Richard Fry must have come under with regards to the credit crunch, but still … “Every player we brought in we went to Richard Fry for his approval. You can’t do it any other way. “It’s not rocket science. “He was very much involved with what we were trying to do. “We would only do what he would let us do. “He had a say in everything we did, and we were perfectly content with that. “We knew he was really in charge of the club.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Seems to back up the proposition that a change in SLH leadership may have soured the relationship somewhat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer Engine Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 All this just points to the folly of a running a club on an overdraft - it effectively makes some jobsworth from some high street bank the CEO and DoF. In an us or them situation banks don't give a $h1t about their customers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 (edited) delete Edited 2 July, 2009 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Not really when set in the context of a year. When Lowe returned last May, recall that SLH were overdrawn by £1.3m on a facility of £5m -that was no problem for R. Fry; in November, Fry unilaterally reduced the overdraft to £4m and effectively forced us to get rid of players (hence John's departure - of course, no fans showed any sympathy then but now blame Lowe for not getting rid of players in Jan). QUOTE] Nottm Forest did not want to buy McGoldrick in Jan as they were not guaranteed to be in the CC so loaned Blackstock. Similarly with Wolves they had been tracking Surman for sometime but bought him now they are in the Premiership and have money We did have a massive clearout in the summer/autumn 2008 (Viafara, Idiakez, Safri, Licka etc while high-wage earners Rasiak, Saganowski and John were loaned out). I think Lowe genuinely thought that he didn't need to get rid of anyone in January (not only wolves and forest were interested in our players). He took a calculated decision that keeping our best players together was the best way of preserving our championship status and the money that went with it. I dont think it was a reckless gamble given Barclays cried wolf over 6K and we always had the option of selling our higher-profile players in the summer anyway (as we have done). I would go further and say that by waiting a few months for summer rather than selling in the Jan transfer window, teams as a general rule can get more for a player, because, as you say teams are more certain about their prospects and there are more buyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 All this just points to the folly of a running a club on an overdraft - it effectively makes some jobsworth from some high street bank the CEO and DoF. In an us or them situation banks don't give a $h1t about their customers. Well the blame for that lies clearly on the plate of Mr Wilde. It his his s hit or bust tactic that spent every penny of the overdraft at the start of the play-off season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaroid Saint Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 (edited) I have a rumour. A new rumour. And it's about the Swiss bid... ...ooohh, Can I? Can I? Can I? I'd love to post it, but if it's anywhere near true then I don't want to scupper it! Actually, what am I saying, it's about as likely to be true as Michael Schumacher being unveiled as the Stig on BBC's Top Gear!!!?!!! Edited 2 July, 2009 by Polaroid Saint I've been ech_ichen to post this all day (thankfully slipped through with no reponse). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 Well the blame for that lies clearly on the plate of Mr Wilde. It his his s hit or bust tactic that spent every penny of the overdraft at the start of the play-off season. Yes but then it was compounded in buying Saga Euell and John in the following season which the Execs then noticed towards the end of 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Octopus Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 No news then! http://www.searchviews.com/wp-content/themes/clean-copy-full-3-column-1/images/sad_clown.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorpie the sinner Posted 2 July, 2009 Share Posted 2 July, 2009 I have a rumour. A new rumour. And it's about the Swiss bid... ...ooohh, Can I? Can I? Can I? I'd love to post it, but if it's anywhere near true then I don't want to scupper it! Actually, what am I saying, it's about as likely to be true as Michael Schumacher being unveiled as the Stig on BBC's Top Gear. Sorry, was that a rumour about you having a rumour!?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts