trousers Posted 17 April, 2009 Posted 17 April, 2009 Jesus,this started off as an interesting thread. Which bit?
Guided Missile Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 It may be worth popping out and buying a copy of today's (Saturday's) Echo. It's only fair that the posters on this site read what their journos have reported today, re this company, seeing as they obviously read this thread yesterday... Talk about cut and paste...
Guided Missile Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 It may also be worth reading the Swindon Town Press Release about these timewasters from Best Holdings: "On the 14th August 2007 a contract was signed with Best Holdings enabling them to acquire a controlling interest in the Club. This contract was due for completion by 31st August 2007 and provided for the CVA payment and the Club's outstanding PAYE liabilities to be settled in full. Contrary to the front page article in The Swindon Advertiser dated Tuesday 9th October, there was no provision in the contract of August 14th to make a payment of £8m directly to the Wills Family. An amount of £3m was ascribed to the shareholders; this was allocated for the repayment of monies owed to Shaw Park Developments, arising from the rescue of the club six years ago, and to cover litigation and legal costs. The Club is willing to make available for scrutiny, by the media, the August 14th contract with Best Holdings which was signed by Jim Little, Jorge Rubenstein and James Wills. It has been well documented that dialogue continued between the Club's shareholders, Best Holdings, and their respective legal representatives in an attempt to finalise the agreement. Throughout August and early September the three main representatives of Best Holdings; Jorge Rubenstein, Rufus Brevett, and Jim Little, regularly attended meetings at the Club to discuss strategy and budgets for the 2007/2008 season. As recommended by Best Holdings the Club proceeded to sign three foreign players the cost of whom Best Holdings in good faith agreed to underwrite. During September 2007 the Shareholders and the Club's CVA Supervisor Andrew Andronikou of Hacker Young began expressing concerns at the time being taken to conclude the deal with Best Holdings. In view of these concerns exploratory talks were initiated with another interested party. The Club has now been able to grant this alternative investment group a short period of exclusivity to negotiate the purchase of the Club. In exchange for these rights, the potential suitors have made a substantial "lock-out" payment which Andrew Andronikou has used to reduce the Club's Inland Revenue liability and stay the possibility of any legal proceedings. Over the last two months, whilst the Best Holdings talks continued the Wills Family supported the Club as they have done so for many years. However they accept that it is now time to pass on the responsibilities for so doing to new investors. Every effort is being made to achieve this aim. However, the negative media coverage and the type of protests held at the ground on Tuesday 9th October are not helpful to this process." In the words of that great song, "I Predict a Riot"....
Saint Billy Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 Thanks for your investigative work GM, these guys sound like a right bunch of Arthur's.
John B Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 (edited) It may be worth popping out and buying a copy of today's (Saturday's) Echo. It's only fair that the posters on this site read what their journos have reported today, re this company, seeing as they obviously read this thread yesterday... Talk about cut and paste... Or read it here http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4301083.Mystery_surrounding_new_Southampton_Football_Company_Ltd/ Seems quite good to me Edited 18 April, 2009 by John B
bridge too far Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 That's the last time I post any of my research on here then. Unless the Echo pays me a 'finder's fee'.
krissyboy31 Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 That's the last time I post any of my research on here then. Unless the Echo pays me a 'finder's fee'. Lol, if it wasn't for this forum, the football pages of the SDE would be blank.
SaintRobbie Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 It's not Southampton Football Club Limited, it's Southampton Football Company Limited - as stated, formed 9th April 2009, company number 06874662: SOUTHAMPTON FOOTBALL COMPANY LIMITED 2 OLD BATH ROAD NEWBURY BERKSHIRE UNITED KINGDOM RG14 1QL So irrelevant then?
saint lard Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 Echo = cut and paste I just recieved this..... I have removed your comment on a story about Southampton Football Company Ltd. The reason for this is that despite your accusation, the story was not copied from the Saints web forum. Unlike public forums, as journalists we have a responsibility to look into and research stories before we publish them. We cannot simply share every snippet of information we have heard until we are sure (as is quite often the case) they are not incorrect, misleading or simply made up. Of course, public forums are not bound by such conventions and while they can be useful sources for readers and journalists alike, they also can encourage the spread of information that is simply wrong - as has been shown with the numerous "in the know" threads on the forum over the last couple of years. I myself am a user of the forum in a personal capacity, so am well aware of what posters think, but I thought I would take the time to let you know why I have removed your comment as it being the first comment on the story instantly discredits the story. However, I imagine that throughout the day many more people will post similar comments. I hope this explains why I have removed your comment - it is not something we usually do unless there have been complaints from readers and usually I leave posts criticising the paper up for everyone to see. Regards, Dan Kerins
NickG Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 I just recieved this..... I have removed your comment on a story about Southampton Football Company Ltd. The reason for this is that despite your accusation, the story was not copied from the Saints web forum. Unlike public forums, as journalists we have a responsibility to look into and research stories before we publish them. We cannot simply share every snippet of information we have heard until we are sure (as is quite often the case) they are not incorrect, misleading or simply made up. Of course, public forums are not bound by such conventions and while they can be useful sources for readers and journalists alike, they also can encourage the spread of information that is simply wrong - as has been shown with the numerous "in the know" threads on the forum over the last couple of years. I myself am a user of the forum in a personal capacity, so am well aware of what posters think, but I thought I would take the time to let you know why I have removed your comment as it being the first comment on the story instantly discredits the story. However, I imagine that throughout the day many more people will post similar comments. I hope this explains why I have removed your comment - it is not something we usually do unless there have been complaints from readers and usually I leave posts criticising the paper up for everyone to see. Regards, Dan Kerins how dare he?!
trousers Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 It may be worth popping out and buying a copy of today's (Saturday's) Echo. It's only fair that the posters on this site read what their journos have reported today, re this company, seeing as they obviously read this thread yesterday... Talk about cut and paste... And to think Baj deleted one of my cut and pastes in the opposite direction. Double standards IMO...
bridge too far Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 I just recieved this..... I have removed your comment on a story about Southampton Football Company Ltd. The reason for this is that despite your accusation, the story was not copied from the Saints web forum. Unlike public forums, as journalists we have a responsibility to look into and research stories before we publish them. We cannot simply share every snippet of information we have heard until we are sure (as is quite often the case) they are not incorrect, misleading or simply made up. Of course, public forums are not bound by such conventions and while they can be useful sources for readers and journalists alike, they also can encourage the spread of information that is simply wrong - as has been shown with the numerous "in the know" threads on the forum over the last couple of years. I myself am a user of the forum in a personal capacity, so am well aware of what posters think, but I thought I would take the time to let you know why I have removed your comment as it being the first comment on the story instantly discredits the story. However, I imagine that throughout the day many more people will post similar comments. I hope this explains why I have removed your comment - it is not something we usually do unless there have been complaints from readers and usually I leave posts criticising the paper up for everyone to see. Regards, Dan Kerins How can he remove a post? I thought only Mods and Admins could do that. Blimey - Thought Police in action :shock: Afterthought Can anyone remove posts? Can I remove 19C's posts?
Channon's Sideburns Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 I just recieved this..... I have removed your comment on a story about Southampton Football Company Ltd. The reason for this is that despite your accusation, the story was not copied from the Saints web forum. Unlike public forums, as journalists we have a responsibility to look into and research stories before we publish them. We cannot simply share every snippet of information we have heard until we are sure (as is quite often the case) they are not incorrect, misleading or simply made up. Of course, public forums are not bound by such conventions and while they can be useful sources for readers and journalists alike, they also can encourage the spread of information that is simply wrong - as has been shown with the numerous "in the know" threads on the forum over the last couple of years. I myself am a user of the forum in a personal capacity, so am well aware of what posters think, but I thought I would take the time to let you know why I have removed your comment as it being the first comment on the story instantly discredits the story. However, I imagine that throughout the day many more people will post similar comments. I hope this explains why I have removed your comment - it is not something we usually do unless there have been complaints from readers and usually I leave posts criticising the paper up for everyone to see. Regards, Dan Kerins Ahhhhhhhhh...... Ok then. This means that they read the thread, then went on Companies House website, and did a bit of door knocking. Wonder why it took them so long to find out who Kim Van Der Waals was then?
benjii Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 Ahhhhhhhhh...... Ok then. This means that they read the thread, then went on Companies House website, and did a bit of door knocking. Wonder why it took them so long to find out who Kim Van Der Waals was then? Absolutely. Pathetic that they didn't notice that for months and then just let it drop straight away.
um pahars Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 Ahhhhhhhhh...... Ok then. This means that they read the thread, then went on Companies House website, and did a bit of door knocking. Wonder why it took them so long to find out who Kim Van Der Waals was then? LMFAO. I'm sat here thinking what a cheeky little ******. They've regularly taken stuff off of here and when this board gets going it knocks spots off the journalistic practices currently employed at The Echo. This season they've either been lifting stuff of here or replicating word for word what Saints have been laying on for them (the patsies). Some of their reporting this season has been risible (e.g. how they just took in the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up stuff from the Club and regurgitated it was a disgrace).
exit2 Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 We only have to look at my email from Andrew Cowen regarding Rudis contract. I put it on here and next day it was all over the echo!
benjii Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 We only have to look at my email from Andrew Cowen regarding Rudis contract. I put it on here and next day it was all over the echo! I missed that - what was the nature of the email?
Rattlehead Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 How can he remove a post? I thought only Mods and Admins could do that. Blimey - Thought Police in action :shock: Afterthought Can anyone remove posts? Can I remove 19C's posts? Blatantly obvious he was referring to the Echo website.
saint lard Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 Blatantly obvious he was referring to the Echo website. Correct.
saint lard Posted 18 April, 2009 Posted 18 April, 2009 I later received this after i responded to the initial email...... I can fully appreciate the frustration of forum users - it happens quite often the other way around too! There's nothing quite like working on a story only for someone to hear part of a rumour and post it online - and then everyone thinks you've stolen it! Anyways, back to the more pressing matter of the match this afternoon - fingers crossed! Regards, Dan
TNT Posted 19 April, 2009 Posted 19 April, 2009 All this is greek to me but am i not saying the obvious in that if 'Southampton football club limited' is for sale then you would not need to set up a new company ? I thought it was 'holdings' company that had become defunct.
Ciaran Posted 19 April, 2009 Posted 19 April, 2009 I later received this after i responded to the initial email...... I can fully appreciate the frustration of forum users - it happens quite often the other way around too! There's nothing quite like working on a story only for someone to hear part of a rumour and post it online - and then everyone thinks you've stolen it! Anyways, back to the more pressing matter of the match this afternoon - fingers crossed! Regards, Dan A word of warning - if the Echo are hot on ppl copying and pasting their articles on the forum, they'll certainly be after you for posting up the contents of emails - especially as the bloke says he uses the forum! There will probably be a privacy disclaimer on the end of the email. I know as I fell foul of this on after posting up an email from a company to me on a site which I was complaining about them on!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now