Martin Samuel (Mail) The Saints, The Sinners...

[OldNick]

Funny that, elsewhere he was slagged off for not bringing in other revenue streams???

How many CEOs do not have a say in signings? (ps we got Neimi and not Strachan's first choice keeper)

How many other clubs have not "wasted" money on people who haven't worked out for whatever reason?[/QUOTE]

 

I guess it's partly a matter of how many mistakes you make !

Try Poortvliet, Gasmi, Pulis, Smith, Robertson, Pekhart, Forecast for example and that's just in the last few months FFS !!!!!

Poortvliet Ill give you, Robertsomn was part of the Dyer part exchange which fell through, forget not he scored the winning goal in one game.Smith was pretty good last night it has been reported, Forecast Pulis I have not seen them play and so cant comment and Gasmi looks not ready,, but they were peanuts and would not make any difference either way.In fact Pulis was a makeweight in the Andrew Davies deal and so that was good business.

[ottery st mary]

Samuels and Lowe deserve each other ..very similar traits in both these bad boys...The war will continue between these two little foxes.

[SW5 SAINT]

Fair points.

 

Additionally, although I don't have any real evidence, I always got the impression that Lowe always played things by the book (which is praise BTW), e.g approaching clubs re their managers & players in the correct manner and when negotiating with players and agents, whereas I reckon many othe clubs weren't as honest.

 

So if we get by because their rules are loose, then I won't lose any sleep over it, and I certainly won't be worrying what other fans think of us.

 

Fair point, Saints have been done many times by other clubs, most notably in the transfer market, due to their honesty.

[derry]

Since SLH went into administration on 1st April, the league would have been looking at this, fielding calls from angry clubs, and getting their lawyers to study their rules and small print.

 

When a politician, especially an ex minister gets a problem that needs referring to the too difficult to deal with file, usually calls an enquiry.

 

My betting is the league know they are up a creek without a paddle. There will be correspondence from way back in the SLH/SFC archives from the league imposing the condition of a non public, separate, private limited company/football club. Also in the league files. That and loads of witnesses.

 

If they were sure they could sanction the club they would not have announced an enquiry.

 

The enquiry is to wash their hands of a problem they already know the answer to.

 

SFC cannot sue if they are sanctioned but SLH can because as the owners of SFC they would suffer losses because of actions taken against their asset not in administration and in contravention of the league's rules.

 

The league are between the rock (the law) and the hard place (disaffected clubs). The enquiry should find that the league have no jurisdiction over the administration of a public company and no case against a solvent football club not in administration.

 

They obviously realise they can't step outside their rules and make it up as they go along because they are dealing with a public company who can sue the pants off them.