um pahars

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)????

I was privy to the whole SEEDA/City Council plan from the old Meridian site down to Crosshouse Quay and they are/were up for anything goes. Although I just don't think the net cost of the land SMS is on is worth much in the current market (whether they deem it industrial, commercial or residential. I also agree in that I just don't think Norwich Union are in that line of business (it's just too much hassle, surely). IMHO they will just want a settlement (as they did at Ipswich) or they will be willing to renegoiate a new position with any new owners. They were up for taking a hit at Ipswich, and they have shown their willingness to accept a deferral on the "mortgage" payments, so I think they have certainly shown they realise they need to give to a certain degree.

But isn't there an isuue that unless we keep our side of the bargain i.e. paying them on time and being a football team in a league, then doesn;t that invalidate their contracts and they can just walk away???? I'm sure there were some clubs where the players just walked away (I think it was Luton so off to have a root around).

The two most interesting things that came out of The Echo's stuff tonight were: a) The salary comparisons of Burley, Pearson and Poortvliet. I'm all up for saving money but spending £60,000 on your manager (actually head Coahc) is somewhat asking for trouble. And if you're on that much then I'm not sure I believe that he paid the Helmond compo!!!!!!! That had to be one hell of a false economy. b) The other interesting fact was that Crouch had managed to get Norwich Union to agree to some sort of holiday/derferral of the stadium "loan" costs bring it down from £2.4m per year to £1m per year.

I have to agree in that I think the break up value of the Club would be pretty low. We own the land at Jackson's Farm, a small part of Staplewood (with constraints on it) and of course the land at SMS. None of that is a big number and in particular for SMS you would need to demolish it first!!!! I don't think the assets in the stadium would be worth that much. There's just not that much of a market for second hand stuff from a football stadium and the cost of removal would eat up much of the revenue. And as for our most "valuable assets" (i.e. the players LOL), then like you I believe in liquidation they will just walk away from their contracts. I believe the best bet for the major creditors would be either an upfront settlement with any new consortium or an agreement to trade away the balance with the company being sold as a going concern. What was interesting from The Echo piece was that Crouch had already negotiated some sort of a "holiday"/deferment on the stadium loan (down from £2.4m per annum to £1m per annum), so Norwich Union are up for negotiating!!!

WTF is he over there, miles away from where he lives. Did you have a word with him??? (and was Kim Van Der Waals in the toilet LOL).

LOL, I missed this post just like I missed Quondam being another of his aliases. Will we get in to double figures??????

Throw in a manager whose experience was primarily in the Dutch Lower Leagues and is it any wonder that this season ended in such a sht storm. Kim van der Waals LMFAO, will we ever know the true horrors of this season?????

IMHO the Administrator will earn more money and receive greater kudos in the long run if he manages to pull a deal together.

Didn't he do a Kachloul????? I personally have no problem with Schneiderlin being a talent that we could nurture and hope he gets better each year and adapts to the Englosh game. It's just the fact that we blew probably our entire transfer budget on a hunch/young prospect, when we were crying out for experience and steel. When you haven't got much money it's imperative that you spend what you have very wisely, and the acquisition of Schneiderlin suggested we got our priorities all wrong. The very fact that the Head Coach hadn't even seen him play is just the icing on the cake. For me, it's nothing about the player's talent, its the context of how/why we signed him.

Made worse by the fact the Head Coach hadn't even seen him play!!!!!!!!!! Then again we had no money and no options:rolleyes::smt075

It wasn't amicable, Woggy wanted to stay on and was prepared to take a big reduction in pay to carry on doing the job. Lowe's line was that it was one of many cutbacks, but the feeling from Woggy amongst others was that it was a vindictive act. That part of the decision will never be proved one way or the other, but what is clear is that Woggy didn't want to leave. Woggy was more than the kitman, he was also the gofer who would do many things for the players and was well liked and respected by the pros, young and old alike. He was a familiar face at SMS and Staplewood who would take the pressure off the players by undertaking any number of menial tasks and generally helping around the place. IMHO his spirit and personality was a plus side when considering the morale of the dressing room.

Compared to Poortvliet and Lowe and their respective performances this season, then I think he couldn't do any worse:D

I don't normally go in for who is the better fan than who and whether you need to be a season ticket holder to have an opinion, but I do find your protestations about fairweather support from the confines of your armchair somewhat galling.