um pahars

And therein lies the problem, as I don't see many at the top table wanting a change. We were no different when we were up there looking down at Leicester, Wrexham et al almost going to the wall. I may be wrong, but I certainly don't remember many threads up here seeking to change the distribution of football's wealth and how it organises itself when we riding high. As you say, I don't think this can be done unilaterally, but I also don't hold out much hope for a multilateral approach either as there are too many vested interests now involved. Not that it probably means anything, but Andy Burnham spoke some sense last year when he said the following "We risk the game losing touch with its traditional fan-base. The time has come for football to reassess its relationship with money and with its supporters." "Despite the levels of money in the game, football must be a sporting competition run like a business and not vice versa. "The game makes money because of the way it began - because of the fierce rivalry between fans and the history of civic pride and local allegiance forged over a century or more. "The game is becoming increasingly polarised. The top clubs who build on global success are in danger of becoming detached from the communities that build them. We need to ensure the flow of finance furthers football's interests as a sport." "Having strong competition as a primary goal is the way to ensure commercial success. Football clubs do not exist to be pure businesses. They do not exist to put each other out of business. The product is the competition. "Football has special characteristics and a fundamental role in our community."

Have to say that given some of our recent opponents this is a pretty decent fixture. Up there with the coup of Bayern Munich a few years back. Would have thought a decent crowd for the regime's first home game (fingers crossed) could be expected.

And when the League interpreted their rules they deemed the football club to also effectively be in administration and therefore we will start with -10. The previous regime also took legal advice. That is my hope, in that whilst HMRC will probably vote against any CVA relating to a football club (as they don't agrre with football debts being preferential as a principle), hopefully their debt and that of any other dissenters will be Many football clubes still sell players when they are in administration http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/luton_town/7181317.stm and the mechanics of the payments still operate in exactly the same way (i.e. via the authorities). Quite simply if you do not abide by FA/FL rules relating to financial issues (including transfer payments), then you do not get to play in the League, which when you're trying to sell a club as a going concern is a rather major factor. Expulsion from the League would somewhat impinge on a Administrator's ability to sell a club as a going concern. Whilst I admire your optimism, I have to say I feel it is misplaced. We are not dealing with a black and white legal issue here, we are dealing with the rules, and interpretation of them, within a "members club". IMHO, in this case substance over form will be the order of the day and as with Leeds, the League can easily use their exceptional circumstances clause as a catch all to cover our PLC/Ltd smoke and mirrors attempt. They already have done so and I don't think any appeal will be successful (that's even if it is entertained).

If we couldn't afford to pay out our net wages to players and staff then I very much doubt we would be able to pay the 10% NIC's and the 25%-40% PAYE deductions!!!!! Of course, now the wages have been paid, we're hoping we also have the money to settle with HMRC, but IMHO the payments to HMRC would be just as much of a problem to pay as our other costs have been in recent months.

Companies always owe something to HMRC (NIC, PAYE, VAT etc), it's whether we can afford to pay it on time, and if not, whether the sum is sufficient for it to help derail a CVA that will be our problem, but hopefully with the big creditors seeming happy, it will be OK. I personally wouldn't believe anyone on here who says we are up to date with regards HMRC until someone from the Club tells us officially!!!!

Well hopefully we will come out of it with most of the creditor's agreement (certainly Barclays & Aviva seem to be making the right noises), but you can count on HMRC objecting to it out of principle. But we won't get lumped with another points deduction just because the League feel like it.

In the eyes of the League, SFC Ltd and SFC PLC are one and the same. You may not agree with it, but that is what they have decided and when they announced that they also said the other provisions of the League's insolvency policy would apply to SFC Ltd and SFC PLC (i.e. a CVA for the PLC would have to be agreed and SFC Ltd would be bound in to that outcome).

It is not an illegal interpretation of their rules. The FL won't just add on -15 for any old reason. In the case of Luton it was for financial irregularities, whilst for other clubs it was for not complying with the League's insolvency policy (e.g. failing to agree a CVA). I doubt they'll find any financial irregularitis as their forensic accountants have been in and no one has heard a whisper about anything untoward, so that only leaves failing to agree a CVA which will hopefully be OK.

I've just got my telescope out and Wotte looks slightly bemused. Looks like he's a lager and pasta man. Lynam however looks as though it's white wine.

Just looked on Google and it was Panorama in 1957, which is not the one I was thinking of as this was in the late 70's/early 80's, so more digging methinks!!!

You may well be right there fella. Can vaguely remember it in the late 70's(ish) as an April Fool's joke. I'm sure it must be up there on Google somewhere (and will have to see what the That's Life stiry was)

You must be aware of the uncertainty that surrounds football clubs, after all your other teams (Charlton, Leeds, Aldershot, Salisbury, Villa etc) have all had uncertainities over owners and their futures at some point in recent history. HTH

When you were supporting Charlton did you experience their time under the cosh when they went into recevership etc? What did you do then for your kicks??? Write in to the South East London Gazette with your noddy comments??? And what about your time supporting Leeds?? Was that recently during their financial troubles??? And Aldershot??? And Salisbury??? You're a bit of a bad luck charm as almost every team you have supported (bar Villa) seems to have hit bad times with regards finances LOL.

Whereas you have contacts at Charlton, Leeds, Villa, Basingstoke, Aldershot, Andover, Salisbury and Forest LOL. You've had more clubs than Tommy Docherty and more aliaes than Carlos the Jackal.:smt041:smt041 © ITN & Justin F;)

You may have your answer there!!!!!!

Pizza Farms, Spaghetti growing on trees, sounds like something from That's Life!!!!!!

They do indeed actually dictate who gets paid first as the League have deemed that every footballing creditor (other clubs, players etc) must be given prefernetial creditor status and paid out first (and normally in full). If this isn't done then the League don't give the club their "golden share" and therefore the club can't play in the League. This is what the taxman has started to get p1ssy about, as their preferential creditor status was removed a few uyears back.

LOL at Phillips. It took them a while to notice that people were only using the last changing room as that led straight to their window display where it was help yourself time!!!!!! And going back to Gill Bros I'm sure that was they took over the shop from Phillips.

I also got the Bay City Rollers Board game and some six buttoned high waisters as well from the stall which was the forerunner of Gill Bros. Still got th 1976 Silk Scarf bought back in May though, that's all my pocket money would stretch to LOL.

You would have thought so, as any sale would impact on what they were going to buy, player "assets", cash levels etc etc etc. I'm sure Fry has to run it with one eye on the potential of Pinnacle not delivering, but I would like to think that he was also running it in close conjunction with the Pinnacle lot over the next couple of weeks.

Have to say that I'm not particularly wedded to anyone (however, please don't interpret that as accepting the status quo!!!). Despite being in Division 3 we're still a pretty decent catch, relatively speaking of course, and much will depend on how much wonga and pulling power the new lot can bring to the party. A few names on here sound as they though could do the job, a few I'm not sure about, but I'll be supporting whoever lands the job for next season (even if it is Wotte!!!).

Given the number of user names our resident Charlton, Villa, Leeds, Aldershot, Basingstoke, Salisbury, Andover, Forest fan has had, he could form his own consortium. PnIneFlashThirdSuN TeenDanceMaNCAnChargeManBeastTeen LE PLC.

With your multiple identities, you could make a great tag team all by yourself;) PS Just why were you banned when you posted under Flashman At The Charge?

Sadly Hugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Wotte, Wilde & Lowe couldn't manage to put the fire out. The public are always told to evacuate the building and leave it the professionals, it's just a pity that our part time firecrew proved totally inept at saving the building (which is also a bit naughty considering they set fire to it in the first place). PS Just why were you banned as Sundance?

And I don't think you can blame people for leaving the burning building, nor have a pop at those who found it difficult to return the building that was well alight.