Bumped into Mr Fulthorpe yesterday...

[trousers]

Could be a composite bet though.

I'm staggered that anyone bothered to look it up.

 

No need to be staggered when there are "2+2=5" idiots like me on here

[Mole1]

Could it have been a football bet? After all he said he was at a football game. Sort of score and scorer combined?

 

It's a scorecast. You pick the first goalscorer and the final scorer. As Saints first goal was an own goal no scorecast would've come in for this match. IMO it's all bull****.

 

On a brighter note my £20 accy comprising of Man Utd, Plymuff and Leicester (all homes) came in netting me just over £70 from a £20 stake.

[ottery st mary]

Actually the odds are about right for a Saints win.

 

You are right it is Saints to win or come second and the Each way was in case Saints only came third.

 

Not quite understanding this betting lark boss.

[Weston Saint]

How about 2-0 Saints win with Surman to score? :cool:

 

Yep I have spoken to someone I know. Ladbooks were offering 125/1 on a Saints 2-0 win with Surman to be first Saints scorer. I pointed out first goal was an own goal. Ladbrooks say the first saints scorer was still treated as Surman.

 

So there you are folks. Mystery cleared up.

 

I would have thought the bet was a real Long Shot Well done to him taking money off the bookies.

[Weston Super Saint]

Obviously Fulthorpe is a very astute businessman if this report is true. Just as he is about to try to buy shares from Lowe, Wilde and any other substantial shareholders who he needs to persuade to sell, Fulthorpe meets a complete stranger at a bookmaker's table, and tells him about his plans to bid for shares in SLH plc. Excellent way of getting the share price up.

Or......maybe Long Shot's other assessment waas correct - Walter Mitty attention seeker.

 

WOW!

 

Agreeing with Professor twice in a month must have long lasting consequences #-o

[Window Cleaner]

You are right it is Saints to win or come second and the Each way was in case Saints only came third.

 

Not quite understanding this betting lark boss.

 

 

I think it was only about 3/1 for the win actually.(I looked it up)

[stevegrant]

It's a scorecast. You pick the first goalscorer and the final scorer. As Saints first goal was an own goal no scorecast would've come in for this match. IMO it's all bull****.

Own goals are simply disregarded as far as scorecasts and first goalscorer bets are concerned. If the game ends 1-0, the winner on a first goalscorer bet would be "No goalscorer". If there are more goals after the own goal, the person who scored the next goal would be classed as the first goalscorer.

 

Individually, I suspect a 2-0 away win on Saturday would have been somewhere around the 10/1 mark, with Surman at 25/1 for the first goal. Multiply the two odds together and you get 125.

[Weston Super Saint]

Yep I have spoken to someone I know. Ladbooks were offering 125/1 on a Saints 2-0 win with Surman to be first Saints scorer. I pointed out first goal was an own goal. Ladbrooks say the first saints scorer was still treated as Surman.

 

So there you are folks. Mystery cleared up.

 

I would have thought the bet was a real Long Shot Well done to him taking money off the bookies.

 

The only issue I have with that, is that anyone who believed Saints would win 2-0 on Saturday [before the match], with Surman as the first scorer, would probably believe any made up takeover story as well

[Mole1]

WOW!

 

Agreeing with Professor twice in a month must have long lasting consequences #-o

 

There is of course the other scenario of longshot being a windup merchant. Until he tells us what "the bet" was i'd tread very carefully as i think he's full of ****.

[Weston Super Saint]

Own goals are simply disregarded as far as scorecasts and first goalscorer bets are concerned. If the game ends 1-0, the winner on a first goalscorer bet would be "No goalscorer". If there are more goals after the own goal, the person who scored the next goal would be classed as the first goalscorer.

 

Individually, I suspect a 2-0 away win on Saturday would have been somewhere around the 10/1 mark, with Surman at 25/1 for the first goal. Multiply the two odds together and you get 125.

 

Well, 250/1 at least

[Window Cleaner]

Own goals are simply disregarded as far as scorecasts and first goalscorer bets are concerned. If the game ends 1-0, the winner on a first goalscorer bet would be "No goalscorer". If there are more goals after the own goal, the person who scored the next goal would be classed as the first goalscorer.

 

Individually, I suspect a 2-0 away win on Saturday would have been somewhere around the 10/1 mark, with Surman at 25/1 for the first goal. Multiply the two odds together and you get 125.

 

 

Not 250/1 then

[trousers]

Yep I have spoken to someone I know. Ladbooks were offering 125/1 on a Saints 2-0 win with Surman to be first Saints scorer. I pointed out first goal was an own goal. Ladbrooks say the first saints scorer was still treated as Surman.

 

So there you are folks. Mystery cleared up.

 

I would have thought the bet was a real Long Shot Well done to him taking money off the bookies.

 

I can understand why two other people would take someone's tip on a horse race, and back the same horse as the tipster, as there is always the chance said tipster knows something about the horse that others don't. Horse racing after all is more about individual horse performance.

 

However, someone saying that Saints will win and Surman will score first can only be a random thought off the top of their head given it's a team game.

 

So, why would three people suddenly bet on the same outcome as someone they've just met when it's 100% luck (as opposed to 90% luck (or whatever) in horse racing)?

 

Fulthorpe: "Look, I'm putting a tenner on Saints to win and Surman to score first"

 

3 mates who have just met Fulthorpe: "Wow, did you hear what that guy just said, let's all put our tenners on the same outcome"

 

Hmmmm....

Edited 29 September, 2008 by trousers

[stevegrant]

Not 250/1 then

I *think* that because you'd be putting £2 on the two separate bets, the odds would actually be 250/2, and therefore 125/1. I may be completely wrong though... :smt048

[Window Cleaner]

I can understand why two other people would take someone's tip on a horse race, and back the same horse as the tipster, as there is always the chance said tipster knows something about the horse that others don't. Horse racing after all is more about individual horse performance.

 

However, someone saying that Saints will win and Surman will score first can only be a random thought off the top of their head given it's a team game.

 

So, why would two people suddenly bet on the same outcome as someone they've just met when it's 100% luck (as opposed to 90% luck in horse racing)?

 

Fulthorpe: "Look, I'm putting a tenner on Saints to win and Surman to score first"

 

3 mates who have just met Fulthorpe: "Wow, did you hear what that guy just said, let's all put our tenners on the same outcome"

 

Hmmmm....

 

 

I'd personally feel ill at ease with a "chairman" who bets on his own team's results. Is that ethical-not that he's chaiman of course. Do Rupert and Mike bet on matches?

[Window Cleaner]

I *think* that because you'd be putting £2 on the two separate bets, the odds would actually be 250/2, and therefore 125/1. I may be completely wrong though... :smt048

 

 

Too complicated for me all this betting I'm afraid.

[TopGun]

Personally I never bet unless I know more than the rest about the market.

 

I bet I'm right about Long Shot's win... Any takers?

[Weston Super Saint]

Or maybe inaccurate reports. I can't claim to know the liklihood of the takeover involving his consortium, but JF is certainly not an attention seeker in any way and I don't believe for a second he'd comment on it unless he was confident a deal could be done.

 

Apart from the fact that he has told at least five other people on two seperate occasions of his intentions to buy the club, and yet nothing has happened....

 

And that's just the people that post on this site

[Mole]

I can understand why two other people would take someone's tip on a horse race, and back the same horse as the tipster, as there is always the chance said tipster knows something about the horse that others don't. Horse racing after all is more about individual horse performance.

 

However, someone saying that Saints will win and Surman will score first can only be a random thought off the top of their head given it's a team game.

 

So, why would three people suddenly bet on the same outcome as someone they've just met when it's 100% luck (as opposed to 90% luck (or whatever) in horse racing)?

 

Fulthorpe: "Look, I'm putting a tenner on Saints to win and Surman to score first"

 

3 mates who have just met Fulthorpe: "Wow, did you hear what that guy just said, let's all put our tenners on the same outcome"

 

Hmmmm....

 

It's got match fixing written all over it. Did everyone at the ground notice, like i did, that the ref gave the penalties before anyone in the stands called for penalties?

[Weston Super Saint]

Personally I never bet unless I know more than the rest about the market.

 

I bet I'm right about Long Shot's win... Any takers?

 

If you've got a time machine, put £10k on it for me

[John D]

I *think* that because you'd be putting £2 on the two separate bets, the odds would actually be 250/2, and therefore 125/1. I may be completely wrong though... :smt048

 

its because the bookies reduce the odds because the two events not mutually exclusive. ie they are linked. a saints 2-0 win is more likely if Surman is the first scorer and at the same time surman scoring first is more likely to happen if the final score is 2-0

[Long Shot]

There is of course the other scenario of longshot being a windup merchant. Until he tells us what "the bet" was i'd tread very carefully as i think he's full of ****.

 

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Mr Mole;)

Myself and two friends were having lunch at the Rovers hospitality suite pre-match. Fulthorpe approached our table as he knew someone on it. At that precise moment I didn't know him from Adam. As he took his leave he said to us (he presumed we were Saints fans I guess) that he reckoned Surman to be the first Saints player to score and us to win 2-0 at 125/1 was an excellent bet. I agreed and my 2 friends and I decided to have a tenner each (£30 for the sake of Mr Mole). Coincidentally when we took our seats we were sitting next to JF and as the 2nd half wore on we found out his identity and the fact that he too had a tenner on his "tip".

 

When Saints got their 2nd pen their were some mixed feelings in our camp and probably it was the only time I ever wanted Saints to miss - which they did. So that's the story. Because of JF's tip we thanked him in the bar afterwards and asked him what was going on with the takeover (as no doubt most of you would have done). I decided to share the info on here leaving out some small bits which are too sensitive for a forum. I find it amazing that by doing so one poster feels that I am full of s***. Sad, but I hope the majority of you appreciate the info which is 100% genuine. I also hope when other people come on here they are not intimidated by such comments to post genuine info.

 

So TopGun is spot on and so is Steve Grant. Ladbrokes do not count own goals so the bet on first scorer stays alive.

 

And I relieved £3780 from Ladbrokes in Shirley High St this morning if anyone wants to ring to check. 3 x 1250 plus £30 stake back and no I did not collect JF's winnings. Hope that clears up the mistrust.

[waggy]

USA/Germany/Canada.

 

That worries me more than anything, USA PLC is broke, you can buy a billion dollar bank for 50p and a rail card. Germany's economy is going down faster than a cheap street-walker and Canada...

 

In other words a buch of people getting together to put money into a speculative business venture. Don't like the idea of it. Could have more personalities involved than we've had chairman in the past coupe of years

 

Now if he had said "Sovereign Wealth Fund" or owner of a major corporation, game on and likely to work long term.

 

All in favour of a take over, but it HAS to be sensible, we can't afford a leveraged buy-out in this climate or another let's go Wilde

 

Strangely enough the Canadian economy, like the French, is not as badly effected by the 'credit crunch' as they have tighter credit and mortgage controls than most. Somebody in Canada could be looking at Europe/UK for a 'bargain basement' deal, lets face it we can't get much Lower.

[Badger]

A few questions.

I was actually sitting very near Mr Fulthorpe and Mr Crouch. Mr Lowe and Cowans and Mr Richards were ony a few feet away in the director's box. Andrew Cowans came over and shook everyone's hand but (as far as I noticed) Rupert Lowe did not acknowledge either man.

 

Mr Fulthorpe made it clear that he is only a representative of the so called "consortium".

 

Yes his background is planning (he has in fact just retired) and although he didn't say this I have heard from friends of his that there is some sort of development aspirations.

 

I know nothing about John Cousins other than he was there on Saturday sitting alongside JF.

 

I believe RL is onside with JF's plans but quite understandably has now said "show us your money" before progressing further and undoubtedly that is a prudent position because all we have had so far is lots of talk.

 

Thanks for your reply to my post.

 

So can anyone shed any light on my original question if JF is part of the consortium itself,or an agent acting for client investors ?

 

WTF is John Cousins ?

[Weston Super Saint]

Or maybe inaccurate reports. I can't claim to know the liklihood of the takeover involving his consortium, but JF is certainly not an attention seeker in any way and I don't believe for a second he'd comment on it unless he was confident a deal could be done.

 

Because of JF's tip we thanked him in the bar afterwards and asked him what was going on with the takeover (as no doubt most of you would have done). I decided to share the info on here leaving out some small bits which are too sensitive for a forum.

 

So, just someone with the inability to keep his mouth shut over sensitive negotiations then....

 

What exactly would you call someone who will freely share 'sensitive' information about a takeover with complete strangers whom you have never met before?

[RoswellSaint]

I'd personally feel ill at ease with a "chairman" who bets on his own team's results. Is that ethical-not that he's chaiman of course. Do Rupert and Mike bet on matches?

 

More of a problem, I would think, if you bet on your team to lose.

[ottery st mary]

Too complicated for me all this betting I'm afraid.

 

3/1 is something with the donkey having only three legs and no tail to pin anything on, so I was told. This is probably why Blackpool beat us at St Marys as they brought better Donkeys with them than we have at St Marys, on the day, that is . Not sure about Doncaster.

Possibly better looking as well, not that I am an expert on donkey racing or beauty parades for donkeys of any sort.

 

Not that it helps with betting/gambling but just in case you go to Blackpool for the away game and visit the beach and fall in love with a donkey. Best to rember they can't all run, so you might be lucky.

 

Bet your impressed with me.... he haw

[Window Cleaner]

3/1 is something with the donkey having only three legs and no tail to pin anything on, so I was told. This is probably why Blackpool beat us at St Marys as they brought better Donkeys with them than we have at St Marys, on the day, that is . Not sure about Doncaster.

Possibly better looking as well, not that I am an expert on donkey racing or beauty parades for donkeys of any sort.

 

Not that it helps with betting/gambling but just in case you go to Blackpool for the away game and visit the beach and fall in love with a donkey. Best to rember they can't all run, so you might be lucky.

 

Bet your impressed with me.... he haw

 

I went to Blackpool once, has the most scary fairground ride of all. A big dipper where you're just sat on a wooden horse.Been there, done that for most attraction parks, but that one-not sure that I'd have another stab at it.

[ottery st mary]

More of a problem, I would think, if you bet on your team to lose.

 

Didn'T DO too well betting with their shares.

[Foxy]

I went to Blackpool once, has the most scary fairground ride of all. A big dipper where you're just sat on a wooden horse.Been there, done that for most attraction parks, but that one-not sure that I'd have another stab at it.

 

I once had a fairly scary ride there after meeting a bird from Wigan in a nightclub :-z

[ottery st mary]

I once had a fairly scary ride there after meeting a bird from Wigan in a nightclub :-z

 

I went out with a girl from Wigan once who said she had a ride with a scary bloke called Foxy on the carousel at Blackpool.

[Weston Super Saint]

Well I don't know if those comments are true, so I can only base it on what I know.

 

And if they aren't then Long Shot has made it all up :shock:

[Window Cleaner]

I once had a fairly scary ride there after meeting a bird from Wigan in a nightclub :-z

 

Yep I've had a few scary rides with those Northern Girls as well.

Pulled a WPC in a club in Preston once, a bit quick with the handcuffs for my liking,not velvet lined either.

[Foxy]

Yep I've had a few scary rides with those Northern Girls as well.

Pulled a WPC in a club in Preston once, a bit quick with the handcuffs for my liking,not velvet lined either.

 

Wasn't she? oo-err

[Weston Super Saint]

Wouldn't be the first time someone made something up on here! My point is though, that I know nothing about Long Shot, so have no reason to believe him, whereas I know about JF and in my experience he's not just an attention seeker.

 

Is he a Walter Mitty as well - sorry, couldn't resist

[Window Cleaner]

Wasn't she? oo-err

 

The handcuffs man, pay attention.

[SaintRobbie]

I really hate to start another "takeover" thread but at the same time it is important that this forum gets up to date "report back" if it is going to be taken seriously. I was lucky enough to be a guest of corporate hospitality at Doncaster yesterday. Also there was J Fulthorpe and, because we had both placed lucrative bets we fell into an interesting conversation around the Ladbrokes desk, post match.

 

Without going into the nitty gritty he insisted the takeover is still alive and could happen this week. I told him that everyone was fed up with the "its about to happen any moment" rumour and now was the time to deliver or shut up. He accepted that criticism and said things had been awkward recently (Rupert) but he was confident "it" would happen. I asked him where the money was coming from and if the credit crunch problem would harm things. Apparantly the "money" is from the USA/Germany/Canada.

 

This is the first time I have met JF and I have to say although I felt him to be a friendly and avuncular man I do think he could be regarded as a bit of a "Walter Mitty". I hope I am wrong, fair play to him for being there alongside John Cousins. Apart from that the only other person I recognised sitting nearby was Leon Crouch. During the match I sat near him and Andrew Cowan greeted him as our seats were very near the director's box. (Rupert Lowe and Mike Richards were present but no sign of M Wilde). I am going to make no further comment on this thread, indeed I was reluctant to make it in the first place but I do feel a certain duty to let the fans know what I witnessed yesterday. Personally I don't think a takeover with JF will happen but I think the bloke has at least tried to broker something and after all he is at least a fan who wants what is best for our club.

 

Thanks Long Shot. It is posters like you that make this forum valuable. Please disregard the cynics who will and would get stuck into you for daring to raie hopes etc. Every post like yours inserts another piece of the jigsaw puzzle and I would point fans to the bold piece I have highlighted above as being most important.

 

What we - the fans - do about Rupert's inflexibility is worth a debate. Personally, I'm off to try and get odds on Shearer as next Saints manager...unless anyone's beaten me to it? What do you think at this stage 10/1?

[Weston Super Saint]

Thanks Long Shot. It is posters like you that make this forum valuable. Please disregard the cynics who will and would get stuck into you for daring to raie hopes etc. Every post like yours inserts another piece of the jigsaw puzzle and I would point fans to the bold piece I have highlighted above as being most important.

 

What we - the fans - do about Rupert's inflexibility is worth a debate. Personally, I'm off to try and get odds on Shearer as next Saints manager...unless anyone's beaten me to it? What do you think at this stage 10/1?

 

Again, I must stress I'm not Rupert's biggest fan, but telling a bunch of tyre kickers to plss off unless they can prove they've got any money is a good move isn't it? Anything that singles out the likes of LLS and Barry the Briefcase must be a good move surely....

 

To suggest that the club hasn't been taken over because Rupert has made things difficult by suggesting that proof of funds is required is a little ridiculous isn't it?

[Wade Garrett]

Thanks for your reply to my post.

 

So can anyone shed any light on my original question if JF is part of the consortium itself,or an agent acting for client investors ?

 

WTF is John Cousins ?

 

Apparently he is an expert at developing brownfield sites.

[SaintRobbie]

Again, I must stress I'm not Rupert's biggest fan, but telling a bunch of tyre kickers to plss off unless they can prove they've got any money is a good move isn't it? Anything that singles out the likes of LLS and Barry the Briefcase must be a good move surely....

 

To suggest that the club hasn't been taken over because Rupert has made things difficult by suggesting that proof of funds is required is a little ridiculous isn't it?

 

As I say Weston, it is just another part of the great jigsaw puzzle and soap opera that is Southampton Leisure Holdings plc and youth team.

 

Given the plethora of other moments of history within the declining plc under Lowe's direction (I refer of course partly to lack of shareholder and market confidence generated by the ever falling share price as well as other great Lowe mistakes and constant awkwardness over the years...) my intuition tells me that that piece of the jigsaw has a very good chance of being correct.

 

Problem is, why? Personally methinks when you're a nobody handed a small building business and some retirement homes and you suddenly become a 'somebody' when gifted shares in a club that means nothing to you in sports terms or as a fan, I suppose its hard to give it up - even if you are a failure at leading it and continue to prove to be one.

 

I have have no doubts Lowe is being awkward. He just needs to stop being so as soon as possibly or we continue to guarantee (nearly typed 'risk' there) relegation with his Total 'Folly' Football plan.

 

Anyway out of posts today. Chat soon ol' friend.

[miserableoldgit]

Apparently he is an expert at developing brownfield sites.

He works in tele-communications NOT Development.

[dubai_phil]

Strangely enough the Canadian economy, like the French, is not as badly effected by the 'credit crunch' as they have tighter credit and mortgage controls than most. Somebody in Canada could be looking at Europe/UK for a 'bargain basement' deal, lets face it we can't get much Lower.

 

Yep, possibly, my golf buddy is Canadian, when I joke with him about the economy and Canada he replies - I have no idea how it's going, I call all my mates and get ansafone messages saying that they are down in Florida buying $3million waterfront villas for $180,000 at foreclosure auctions. He reckons another 12 months of recessiona nd the Canadians will be at war with China over who actually owns America.

 

meanwhile well done Long Shot, it's tough even trying to help post anything relevant to takeovers, and bet Trousers had a fun afternoon being detective again:-)

 

Eid Mubarak one and all

[Window Cleaner]

He works in tele-communications NOT Development.

 

Now here's where the confusuion comes from.

There's John Cousins of Fairfield Homes who's a sort of pioneer in brownfields development and John Cousins of In-Tech who were at one time (and maybe still are) one of Saint's sponsors.

Take your pick as far as I'm concerned, I know not one way or t'other.

[exit2]

Now here's where the confusuion comes from.

There's John Cousins of Fairfield Homes who's a sort of pioneer in brownfields development and John Cousins of In-Tech who were at one time (and maybe still are) one of Saint's sponsors.

Take your pick as far as I'm concerned, I know not one way or t'other.

 

 

In-tech John Cousins is the guy but he sold up last year

 

http://www.intechtelecom.co.uk/

[Window Cleaner]

In-tech John Cousins is the guy but he sold up last year

 

Made a couple of bob did he?

[Weston Saint]

We should be able to pick up USA for a song soon as they have just voted to go into financial meltdown Bit of arm twisting going on at the moment. The whips are out (just to keep it topical )

[lordswoodsaints]

the fulthorpe bid will make us no better off than we are imo.i dont belive they have enough money to take us to a higher level.out of the frying pan into the fire me thinks.

[Window Cleaner]

We should be able to pick up USA for a song soon as they have just voted to go into financial meltdown Bit of arm twisting going on at the moment. The whips are out (just to keep it topical )

 

And quite rightly too, if you let morons, who just love to scream over the phone all day long ,run the business economy you are heading for trouble. I ran into

a 'investment banker' on holiday this year-bloke was an utter moron.Couldn't add 10 and 10 without a box of tricks.He was about 40,his wife was about 15,third of the kind apparently.

[Weston Super Saint]

And quite rightly too, if you let morons, who just love to scream over the phone all day long ,run the business economy you are heading for trouble. I ran into

a 'investment banker' on holiday this year-bloke was an utter moron.Couldn't add 10 and 10 without a box of tricks.He was about 40,his wife was about 15,third of the kind apparently.

 

Add to that the FACT [sic?] that 90% of Americans don't even own a passport, because apparently there is nothing else out there, and you can't drum up much sympathy for them.

[buctootim]

Add to that the FACT [sic?] that 90% of Americans don't even own a passport, because apparently there is nothing else out there, and you can't drum up much sympathy for them.

 

Passport take up has grown rapidly in the US - they aren't as insular as they used to be. Over a quarter now have passports and the Government estimate 50% will have one by 2011.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20321885/

 

Whilst we are a bit smug about their bailout - amounting to around $2,750 for every man, woman and child - the British taxpayer is now guaranteeing well over double that per person for Northern Rock, B&B and the liquidity injections.

Edited 29 September, 2008 by buctootim

[RoswellSaint]

Add to that the FACT [sic?] that 90% of Americans don't even own a passport, because apparently there is nothing else out there, and you can't drum up much sympathy for them.

 

This thread has taken quite a detour from Long Shot chatting with Fulthorpe!