Jump to content

still holding out for new heroes

Members
  • Content Count

    1,753
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by still holding out for new heroes

  1. [quote user="BARMY ARMY"]I AM TO BE INTERVIEWED BY STEVE ON HIS SHOW TONIGHT JUST AFTER 8 ABOUT THE GAME ON MONDAY AND SOUTHAMPTON WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IF YOU HAD THE CHANCE ????????????????????????? [/quote] it doesn''t matter no one will be watching
  2. it the speed of the decline for me...under Chase it was a shock how quickly we went from beating Bayern Munich to selling Ward and Newsome without the manager being told, this made people angry...under Smith and Jones it''s been a slow death which leads to acceptance and a shrug of the shoulders
  3. just goes to prove that there are always military dictatorships and terrorists to sell weapons to...perhaps more so in times of economic turmoil
  4. [quote user="Camuldonum"] [quote user="CT "]Apparently southampton have 1 potential wealthy buyer and its close to being sorted. Just because Queen Delia tells us that there is no-one interested doesnt make it true. They have lied before you know.... [/quote] You may be right but the last time we spoke to the Southampton Administrators (Tuesday) it was whittled down to three or four (one from Monaco apparently) and all the fan groups dumped on the grounds they didn''t have the money involved. The haggling is over how much Barclays and Aviva are prepared to forget, Aviva being easier than Barclays apparently. [/quote] Exactly most of those hovering around the Saints are vultures sniffing out the corpse of a bargain...greatly reduced debts and probably a club that can be bought for £1, with a bit of land tucked up its sleeve.
  5. [quote user="ndhscanary"] In my opinion the main reason for there being no interest in our club is once again because of Delia. She put the club up for sale at £56M in the summer. Now who in their right minds would buy a championship club for that much money? I believe Pompey are up for sale for only £20M. [/quote] ...and anyone who buys Pompey is going to have to find the money to build a new stadium
  6. I''d like to see the Lee / Cody Mc partnership given a go, with Gow on the left. Cureton''s legs have gone, add an inability to finish, he really is the past, not the present or future.
  7. the last thing we need is you bunch of cloggers churning up the hallowed turf....what will that do to our silky passing game ;)
  8. [quote user="Melissa J Gunn"]  Wow. I can''t believe this is an actual discussion, and I am very much saddened to read what you had to say. How can you make a judgement about my dad and call him undignified because of somthing I did? I would like to clarify to everyone, that a) my dad had no idea about the facebook group 2) when started it was a bit of banter between friends, and I couldnt believe how quickly it grew and 3) the facebook group had nothing to do with my dad getting the job, because that is ridiculous even I will admitt.   He got the job because of his great attributes and not because of a silly group on facebook. So no, my dad is not undignified, and I am sorry if you found the ''facebook stunt'' embarrassing.. but I did not mean for so many people to see it, that is the think with the internet, once you put somthing out there then it is the property of the world.. and when the media got hold of what was happening and wanted to make a story out of it, I was actually worried because I thought it would have a damaging effect, but as I was told by the journalist at the Evening News, the story is going to run whether you consent to it or not, as facebook is public domain, so there was nothing I could do, it just happened and that''s it, not a big deal, not a conspiricy, just a small thing which grew uncontrolably, and that is the truth.   I would also like to say that I am so proud of my dad and what he has achieved, and I believe Norwich will stay up this season and beat Ipswich on Sunday for sure! I love my dad and I am glad he has got the job because he is dedicated and passionate about the club, so it has fufillled a lot of his dreams, and he loves it. Once again, in no way is my dad ''undignified'' he is a man of integrity and is a massive inspiration to me, and so many others. Melissa J Gunn x   [/quote] Well said Melissa, ignore the dullards on here who never go to a game and would see the conspiracy in a cup of tea. Regardless of what he ultimately achieves this season he can hold his head high. He''s inherited a basket case of a squad and recruited better than we had, and a couple of dodgy performances aside (Blackpool and Sheff Wed) we''re playing with more passion, and he''s given us a chance of staying up. Have a quiet word about bringing on Cody Mc a bit earlier will you ;)
  9. [quote user="cityangel"]We wouldn''t react any differently if we saw any Ipswich fans celebrating a goal in our Barclay stand when they played here in Dec.[/quote] none of which would be an issue if they could sell all their tickets....tin pot little club
  10. [quote user="blahblahblah"]Aren''t we all a miserable bunch of buggers [:)] [/quote] if we had fulfilled lives and joy in our hearts we wouldn''t be posting on this message board
  11. [quote user="Beauseant"]Damned if you do, damned if you don''t.[/quote] simple IMHO do it but then don''t bleat to the press about your magnanamous gesture...it''s the clumsly obvious attempt at positive spin that''s put on what is basically a non-story that gets on my wick
  12. equally could spin that as ''board has so poorly managed the club we can no longer afford to get to games out of the operating budget'' how is this a news item, aren''t football club owners mean''t to stick their hand''s in their pockets anyway, if not what''s the point of them...ggggrrrrrrr
  13. [quote user="Mello Yello"]  "I want BITTY!"........  [/quote] how strange there appear to be two right tits
  14. [quote user="MonkeyTrousers"][quote user="MonkeyTrousers"]I''m a fan. [/quote] Not literally, I mean I like the blog. [/quote] stalker!
  15. [quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="Evil Monkey"][quote user="First Wizard"] [quote user="CT "] It also shows at times when investment is needed that there are people out there.... This proves that Delia is not looking hard enough for an investor (or not at all) [/quote] And compleatly destroys the timid Percy''s arguement of City going into oblivion if Smith and Co were somehow forced out of the club.[:|] [/quote] Absolute rubbish I''m afraid, Wiz/CT (Wict?)... compleat (sic) and utter bobbins! The two situations are by no means comparable - the only reason there are investors now willling to put money into Southampton FC is on the understanding or hope that they can negotiate a significant reduction in the debt with Aviva (and we''re talking HUGE reductions here, of the ''pence in the pound'' type that the Scum and Leicester screwed people with) and the other, smaller creditors.  This will mean that the ''cost'' of buying and running the club will be significantly lower than pretty much every other Championship team at present, making them an attractive opportunity for the circling sharks.  Bear in mind that these people do not necessarily have the ''best interests of the club'' in their hearts but are likely seeking an investment opportunity.  With its present levels of (manageable) debt and similarly large operating costs, Norwich City isn''t such an attractive investment.  The type of person who will need to invest in NCFC won''t be looking for a quick profit... Of course you can now argue that administration and relegation could be good for the club, and you may indeed have a case... but would we want to sink so low? Personally, I''d rather struggle on, however much of a ''percy'' or a ''sheep'' that makes me.......... [/quote] I take all your words on board EM,  but, I''ve always said as a counter arguement to the oblivion merchants, that its almost unheard of for an English proffesional club to just cease to be. I still stand by that. [/quote] But we live in different times, higher wages higher costs etc...where before may be only few have tread Maidstone, Scarborough, Aldershot, Accrington Stanley etc...bigger clubs have come close Leeds Middlesborough etc, it appears only a matter of time before a bigger club goes...all it takes is administration and no investor to be found or a creditor forcing a liquidation rather than taking their 5p in the pound both far more likely I''d have thought in the present economic climate
  16. I heard a rumour... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IddaRTuYRW4
  17. says quite a lot about why we are where we are when one of the worst full backs in living memory has no competition for his place, perhaps we need to go to a back 3
  18. at half time yesterday with Lappin completely outmuscled it was clear we had no one to bring on in midfield....Pattison on the bench would have been very useful yesterday
  19. Ferguson has form, he''s been stripped of the Rangers captaincy once before for ''engaging'' with his own fans.
  20. [quote user="shyster"]Vicar - [quote]So no need for any further debate[/quote] No, Vicar, I will have my say on the subject of religion: The purpose of religion is the employment and the empowerment of clergy - that''s its only purpose - we don''t matter, we''ve never mattered - you don''t seriously think those old frauds in the Vatican really believe in God do you? God is for the little people like you & I and the clergy do very well out of it - how well exactly? Well let''s ask the Archbishop of Canterbury which one of his two palaces he''s currently staying in - that''ll be the same Archbishop of Canterbury who is busy trying to crowbar Sharia Law into British life; another good example of how some Christian clergy are so unprincipled that they''ll hitch their wagon to a religion they despise as heretical in order to help push unwanted religious values into society at large, because to them, any religious values are better than none. Secularism is not the same thing as atheism, Vicar - you''d do well to remember that. [/quote] this isn''t a dig at you Shyster just a comment in general, as an atheist myself I''ve never seen the constant need for church bashing, it shows a lack of class in my opinion (or an insecurity in ones own beliefs), if you want your views respected it should be a basic human requirement to respect those of others. The fact that VIYAG doesn''t want to debate religion is regretable though understandable on this forum, he''s hardly likely to get a reasoned debate in this environment. A question, despite my atheism, has our society improved as a result of having less religious values in it over the last 40 years? When secularism was first written about in the 19th century it was not used to actively critise or or dismiss religious belief , simply to seperate church from state and to promote other non religious based (philosophical and scientific) beliefs. True secularism should promote it''s own strengths without the need  for criticising organised religions.
  21. Go outside and get some fresh air you bunch of Nerds [;)]
  22. people only like Firefox because it''s easier to hide your browsing history from your wife...they warned you that you will go blind
  23. [quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="YankeeCanary"] I think he cuts and pastes. A lot of us do that on occasion but it helps to make sure you understand the material you are using. [/quote] Wow surprise Yankee pops his head up. I suggest he of all people would be in an expert position to pass critique on the situation. Seeing as how the three most exposed companies in the World are Bank of America (MBNA), American Express and General Electric Capital. Time will tell us just how faulty those securitisation deeds are but in the meantime one can only wonder why companies such as amex are foreclosing accounts of previous good standing as if there''s no tommorrow and have even resorted to offering a $300 golden goodbye handshake to selected account holders who are given a rsvp pin which automatically cancels their account when entered on the amex website. There''s a large amount of money sitting off the coast of the UK sold and title duly assigned under LOP 1925 to various SPV''s. Maybe it''s something to do with the way the credit accounts have been securitised sorry securitized? Are you actually aware Yankee of the vast amount of restructuring going on behind scenes at amex and GE Capital right now these two companies are desperate to liquidate millions of accounts worldwide not because of a cash shortage which there is admittedly but before the world wakes up to the situation.  I inderstand what Bobzilla says regarding the equitable assignment model but what the banks have often opted for is absolute assignment of the debt to the SPV. The advantages are (1) Bankruptcy remoteness in so far as the SPV cannot be held liable to creditors of the originator and (2) The SPV is able to receive a credit rating for the bond issues independently of the originators standing (very important at a time when general banking stock is being downgraded frequently). Without the benefits appointed by virtue of (1) and (2) above the investor might as well just purchase bonds issued directly by the originator lower yield but more established and likely safer in the long term. You''ll find that HMRC are also of the same opinion that many of these assignments under securitisation deals are absolute and represent true sale/asset backed securitisations (well why wouldn''t they be, that''s how the accounts are presented?). Not all by any means but many of these deals do involve several well known High street names who use complex multi tiered servicing and investment models (take a look at gracechurch card funding to see exactly what happens with something as simple as your barclaycard) often involving more than one assignment of the original debt portfolio for maximum depth of securitisation. The biggest problem the banking system has or more accurately will have is that they have as you aver secretly been acting as undisclosed agents for the owner of the debt. Are you aware how simple it is to knock a case out of Court in such circumstances where an undisclosed fee/commision arrangement is in place or the legal implications of ''Barclays Bank'' being on your repossession Court paperwork instead of ''Cumbernauld mortgage funding PLC''? An agent without title does not have lawful right to pursue the claim through Court in their own name and would need the title holder in the capacity of co-claimant in the very least or Power of Attorney (difficult in certain jurisdictions of the SPV). An undisclosed agent being exposed in Court proceedings is fatal to the case, the moreso if said agent is party to a fee, remuneration or commission. Check out amex in Brighton (American Express Services Europe LTD.) credit card issuer? No. Credit card ''servicer'' there''s a very big difference legally. A very big difference. The Banks, Parliament and the OFT are aware of the situation. The OFT primarily because a consumer debt cannot be enforced if any party to that debt other than the debtor is unlicensed for the purposes of consumer credit. Oh dear most of the SPV''s  do not carry consumer credit licences. Somewhat of an oversight by those involved in setting up the SPV''s and drawing up the deeds etc. The whole securitisation model appeared from nowhere really in the early 1990''s nobody is entirely sure how it works, there are some good explanations available but they all contain presumptions or gaps. The biggest problem faced is that they have to comply with existing legislation and there were just too many laws and regulations for them to be brought into force in the UK with the speed at which they were. The net result mistakes have been made, you can believe me or not on that one but I say they made mistakes and in the next couple of years the doo doo is really going to hit the fan if the legislation does not get through parliament in time. The biggest getout clause for the banking system is the Government. Let''s not forget the Gov are now an intrinsic part of the banking system by default and so have more than a vested interest. There is much work going into damage limitation at the moment, lots of special comitttee meetings etc. pretty hush, hush stuff as let''s be honest nobody wants the banking system in this country to fail completely lleast of all the Government. But the truth is out and there are test cases going through the Courts. I am personally aware of one small claims case from the South West awaiting a high Court date. If you are familiar with the small claims track you''ll know somethings up when it goes to that but it has been moved from the area and presented to the higher Court because the defendant is a very influential financial services provider and in a lot of trouble over a very simple matter. The other is again a small claims case that''s escalated to fast track due to the complexity. Can''t tell you who is involved but it''s a Bank and turns out they''ve been maintained champertously by a a very large institution. They are throwing Barristers from London chambers at a case in the Midlands because if they lose; in their own words ''this will mean they have £800,000,000'' of unenforceable debt'' on their books this being the value of the fund under scrutiny. As for our club I have not seen the securitisation deed for sure but would anticipate that a high risk business model like a football club would in the very least have bankruptcy remoteness incorporated into the securitisation deed  (nobody is as foolish as Delia when it comes to investing in a football club remember). No investment fund manager in his right mind would buy bonds in a fund which was liable to the creditors of an english league football club and that works both ways albeit I concede that there will be some remission as you state in the event the SPV went into liquidation. Of course had we been a bit harder nosed we''d have a proper securitisation model in place like the big credit card companies who use a fee driven profit model which basically is now proving that once sold the card issuer can drive up the interest and fees on the cardholder account and if the cardholder defaults the issuer doesn''t give a flying monkeys because he''s already been paid up front and can make more out the cardholder before they default than they would in years of servicing the account. Step forward MBNA, GE Capital and American Express, take a deep bow. I do understand that you understand the process Bobzilla but your understanding appears a little ''text book'' to me. This is not a criticism just an observation which tells me you are on the inside looking out. From my position on the outside looking in we see things pretty well the same but slightly differently. Time will tell who is right. I''m quietly confident that far from being the great solution it appeared history will eventually tell us that securitisation is nothing more than yet another cleverly described pyramid scheme and the big problem is that the money at the bottom tier has to all intents and purposes dried up. That''s a Ponzi scheme to you Yankee, I would quote you the exact phrase from The Canterville Ghost but I''m determined to get through this entire post with no cutting or pasting (though the environmentalist in me gives me more of a less destructive copy and paste persona) and I worry I''d get one small word wrong and you''d be on my back about it. Plenty above to discuss if you fancy anything slightly meatier than sniping at me to pass your time. We could talk about the Federal Reserve bailout of certain companies leading to the US Government being double exposed on certain toxic debts but of course the great American Public doesn''t know about the initial Federal interest in the first place, mind you they''ve done a pretty good job of hiding it over the years. But as they say in America ''The truth is out there'' they just rely on you not looking for it. [/quote] I think I''ll just wait for the film to come out...
×
×
  • Create New...