um pahars

So we can only assume that he was OK with the appointment of Poortvliet which IMHO was the decision that took us over the edge. Saying you wanted a British manager to take over from the imbecile you first appointed is somewhat shutting the stable door. A fact made worse by having to boot out an incumbent who appears to tick most of the boxes you want. It also goes to sow who was making the decisions (i.e. Lowe) with Wilde being a mere patsy to him, but you also have to remember that Lowe only got that position and power through Wilde's support, so he has to accept his share of responsiblity.

F5 on the Echo site is all I can suggest!!!!!! Would have thought they wuld put something up there if they are running with it!!!!

I know LOL I tried my best not to get involved (kept hearing shedloads mind!!!), but this one seemed to indicate things were coming to a head. I was told just after 3 or 4 this afternoon, so presume they were indeed typing it out. My source wasn't the Sports Desk, but was from inside the media clique.

Not from any of my usual sources and probably my first contribution to these rumour threads, but I have been told that The Echo are running with the story that "Matty's" consortium have got it. What exactly "got it" means and whether it could have been agreed so quickly means I have some doubts, but thought I'd share it with you all. As I said it's not my usual source so not sure how legit it is, but they did sound genuine. Haven't had time to read too many threads so sorry if this is old news (or of it turns out to be ********!!!!).

I don't really go in for "told you so's", but in this instance considering he/she/it is now going in for the "It's got nothing to do with Lowe" line, then I thought it was apt to show how last summer he/she/it was crediting Lowe for orchestrating the new strategy and the implementation of the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up.

Have you received & read my Kate Moss/Cuban heels PM as you haven't replied???????

It gets better: There's loads of 'em out there LMFAO. Lowe was his golden boy delivering us from Crouch & Pearson last summer. Jan was showing he was better than Pearson and Lowe was the chief architect of all this (although of course now it's all gone tts up, he had nothing to do with this season;)).

Really??? LMFAO. Only last summer you were salivating over how Lowe had orchestrated the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up;) and how you had great hope for this season. Now when it's all gone tts up, then all of a sudden the conductor has gone AWOL:D Poor Lowe, he never stood a chance LOL.

A three year deferral which would have had a big impact on cashflow. LMFAO nickh. We received £16m in player sales in our first season down and still lost cash out the door!!!! Upon losing £20m from the top line should have meant we were interested in finding any cash savings. We should have been doing all we could to renegotiate this loan. Lowe & Hone failed to get Aviva to buy into this, but Crouch did. Circumstances may have changed year on year, but you can't deny that Crouch did the deal, saved us a decent wedge and therefore showed he was willing and able to deliver cost savings. Aviva aren't some hicks from Norfolk who have no idea how businesses work. They have links throughout football and they are acutely aware of the financial problems that befall clubs that fall out of the Premiership. They experienced it first hand with Ipswich for instance. Your line here does not stand up to even the briefest of scrutiny.

Looking at it that way, it certainly puts it into perspective what we thought our priorities were!!!!!!! The cost of everything and the value of nothing has probably never been more apt.:mad:

I'm not overly confident of Crouch being in the hot seat, I was merely countering why you thought we would have gone into administration even quicker had Lowe not returned and you have provided nothing substantial to back that claim up. Of course we'd have taken it up!!! £1.5m saving per annum is massive given our situation (particularly in the short term). We should have been looking to renegotiate this deal the minute we were relegated. It has been there for renegotiation since 2005, but it appears that only Crouch managed to pull it off, so he deserves the plaudits for that as opposed to your rather blase attitude here. And we would have managed to get by even better with £1.5m off the cashflow in the short term.

Well he must have some decent negotiating skills to get a deferral/holiday on the stadium "loan" something Lowe, Wilde and Hone all failed to do. He's also not stupid in realising that ultimately Barclay's and Aviva had to be kept on side and that he would have to do everything necessary tp avoid administration. In fact, I would probably argue that he would have hated to have gone into administration under his watch more than Wilde and Lowe given his "support" of the Club and his status in the local community.

I also therefore struggle to understand why you think NP & LC would have gotten us into admin before. I'm convinced NP would have achieved more success on the pitch and therefore delivered better attendances and ££££'s on the bank. Crouch also showed he was up for cutting costs, not least by managing to knock circa £1.5m off of our interest payments!!!! It was a ridiculous decision which showed just why we went so wrong last season. A speculative punt, whilst we scrimped and saved on a manager!!! We had choices, we just got our priorities wrong if we felt we should only spend £60k to bring in an untried, untested, inexperienced and sht manager (Head Coach) whilst blow ££££'s on an untried and untested French youngster. I'm not claiming they would have been in the 25,000+ region, but I would suggest more success at home, more empathy with Pearson and his team and the continuation of last season's upbeat finish could have put 2,000 to 4,000 on our average gate (putting £1m to £2m in the coffers).

Come on nickh, we ended up going down by effectively 7 points!!!!! You can argue it was only our home form, you can argue it was some missed penalties, poor refereeing decisions, injuries etc etc etc but the fact of the matter is that over 46 matches we fully deserved to go down. And why would we have been in admin by Oct-Nov last year???? You could easily argue (and I actually think it would be a much more valid position) that had we stuck with Pearson then we might have had more success on the pitch, more fans in the stands and more ££££'s on the bank. With each 2,000 fans equating to approx £1m per annum, it is eminently possible that we could have avoided administration had pearson been kept in charge. We had to wait until something like February for our second win this season

Crouch's claim on Five Live was indeed ridiculous, not least because the PLC had been estbalished over 10 years prior to that. A rather foolish and incorrect thing to say, but not one IMHO that would cost us anything. However, what is/was a much, much, much bigger faux pas and one which has, and will continue to, cost us is the belief/judgement made by Lowe and co that the PLC going in to administration set up would actually be bought by the Football League!!!!!!!!!! If Crouch's faux pas is sticking his foot in it, then Lowe and co have jumped in with both feet up to their necks with that judgement!!!! Mind you, Mr Fry probably regrets making this statement t the BBC on the day the Club went into administration "The finances are interlinked therefore the future of the club is in serious jeopardy," said administrator Mark Fry.

If things were that dire then why did we spend what precious little money we had on a speculative punt on a French youngster??? The manager is far and away the most important person at any club and by going for the cheap option we practically gave ourselves no chance whatsoever. Given that everything at a football club is generally driven by the appointment and performance of the manager then it has to be the most foolhardy of false economies that we ever done.

No worries fella. I probably wasn't in the best of moods either as after batting in the nets for about an hour and seeing it like a football, I went in at number 3 and scored an earth shattering 0!!!!!! Bowled off my pads trying a cheeky flick third ball didn't put me in the best of moods!!!!!!

There was a little teaser in the spread yesterday with Wilde effectively saying administration was "almost inevitable" the minute we got relegated due to the loss of revenue and the Club's infrastructure. Didn't think much of yesterdays revelations (bar the managerial salaries and the deferral/holidya of he stadium debt), so not holding out for the lid being blown today, but here's hoping.

That was my take on it, but I have to admit that is only by reading snippets here and there. The impression I got was that it was when HMRC was a larger creditor than 25% and therefore able to reject the CVA which has caught many clubs out. So as others have pointed out it is probably down to keeping Aviva and Barclays happy that is the key as at £25m+, they are far and away the biggest creditors and so probably command 75%+ of the creditors on their own. (although something at the back of my mind says leads got a CVA approved, but still sufferd further points, or was that because a dnother technicality???). Here it shows Leeds get 75% approval for the initial CVA (HMRC voted aginst it), http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2191320/leeds-cva-approval-squeezed Bt then a short while later it appears this CVA wasn't approved (because the HMRC objected) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2318163/Taxmans-demands-deepen-Leeds-crisis.html

Pretty unnecessary GM, particularly when quite a few of my contributions on this thread have been posing scenarios and asking questions. I don't think there is a definitive answer here, so you're bound to get differing opinions. On matters of fact, the players are employees, although at the same time the very fact that their registrations can be "bought and sold" make them different to that extent. I was just offering up a different opinion to the value that breaking up the Club would bring, and IMHO it would be am absolute last choice for everyone concerned due to the low realisation values. My main issue is with regards players. If we really got to that stage then as others have pointed out I very much doubt we would raise much because either: (a) they would walk away due to breach of contract if their contract terms are breached, (b) other clubs would be offering a pittance as they would clearly know our circumstances and © it would depend on finding a willing buyer and players accepting this transfer which has loads of unknowns in it (e.g. any balance of the contract would have to be paid up and offset against income, players have the right to refuse transfers, savvy players would wait until they could walk away as free agents and then command bigger signing on fees in lieu of transfer fees). So I just have a difference of opinion with regards the break up value of the Club (and of course you may be right), I haven't insulted you and I thought you had turned over a new leaf.

I was aware of the 75% required for approval, but just wondered what the League deemed as breaching their insolvency policy?? Is it only breached if the CVA is rejected (and more than 25% vote against it)?? Or is it just if the HMRC or anyone objects to it?? As for whether it's SLH's or SFC Ltd's CVA, then in my mind I believe just as the League have bent the rules to catch SFC Ltd even though it's the PLC that is in administration, then they won't care whose CVA it is!!!

Whlilst there are always exceptions, I think it is fair to say that generally you get what you paid for. The manager is the single most important person at a football Club. Everything revolves around him, and going for the "cheap" option and employing someone so utterly out of his depth, with minial experience and contacts in the English game was just barking mad!!!!!

Which is exactly why those who led us into Administration this season with some utterly crass decisions should be ashamed of themselves.

They will indeed vote against any CVA as they are no longer preferred creditors and therefore object to all footballing debts being in the queue ahead of them. But doesn't their £2m mean that they do not represent enough votes at the CVA to reject it (of course that's assuming Barclays and Aviva as the major creditors being owed more than 75% of the total debt approve one)????