um pahars

From what point??? I am very sceptical given the sums involved and I'm also sceptical given some of the names, but I also feel there is a fair bit of misinformation and misunderstanding out there. But what is wrong with co-ordinating some input from the supporters to assist an existing consortium (as happened at Swansea)???? Are we really that different from Exeter (we're "bigger" than them but probably starting off the season from a lower league position) ??? And if we go down to Level 8 or 9, then I think a "new club" could well be based around supporters getting involved. Or does Southampton FC just die and we all go off elsewhere????

But would the structure of the Club be ??? Ltd Co??? Some other set up??? What do you define as a common fan (and what distinguishs a non common fan from the ones you want nvovled)??? and How would you prevent them from owning a share/stake in the new Club???

So you would rather we started again in The Wessex or Southern Leagues than be party to a fans led/involved consortium?? How would this new Club at the bottom of the pyramid be set up/owned??

Cut him adrift would be my shout. Hasn't impressed me by either his words or his deeds. Also can't help but associate him with the pathetic Revolutionary Coaching Set Up and the total bllocks that was spouted in the first 2/3rds of the season.

So what's your view going forward then Stu??

Not heard that before.

Been saying that for ages. I couldn't even begn to suggest that my estimates have any credibility, but my gut feel has been: Hard core of 14,000ish Another 4,000 who will come with a modicum of success and persuasion (18,000) Another 4,000 who wll come if we're average (the 22,000 who came for the last two seasons) Another 4,000 - 8,000 who would come if we're doing really well in The Championship or back in The Premiership (26,000 - 30,000) It's not really rocket science and the harsh facts of reality is that to get above the hard core of 14,000ish you have to start providing people with a reason to come (success on the pitch, a spirit of unity, cheap tickets, a car crash, decent opposition etc etc etc). The idea that we sould blame the stayways is somewhat naive and missing the point. It is up to those in charge of the Club to be providing a reason for them to come. Above our core crowd we're into the entertainment business, so it's pathetic to blame anyone apart from those failing to provide the entertainment. Otherwise we might as well just start shouting at the 95%+ of the City's population who don't come to every game:rolleyes:

Were you also of the view (as I was) that the League would not sit back and accept this ruse???? It's polarised opinion on here, with as many thinking we could pull it off as warning we wouldn't, but I could never see how a members organisation would sit back and allow such an attempt at smoke and mirrors to pass off unopposed. I'm also amazed that "experienced football administrators" such as Lowe and co. thought they could pull it off.

Judging by the comments after his departure and these comments by Wotte, it would appear that Lowe and co. have misjudged the situation regarding administration and the points deduction (as we stand here today). You can take all the legal advice you want (and very often it will contradict itself and come to different conclusions and interpretations), but ultimately the call has to be made by those in charge. Therefore the Board's belief that points would not be deducted has clearly proven incorrect, and if this belief had any impact on the decision to go/or not to go into adminstration then that decision may also have been flawed as well.

I understand he initially stumped £50k as a donation and since then has been stumping up again to meet the shortfall.

It's all pssing in the wind as the true reason we are in Administration is due to the financial failings of the Football Club. Technically the PLC is in administration, but the PLC is in administration solely because of the Football Club's financial problems. There can be no doubt about that. We already have non footballing revenue that is apparently double what the Insurance Company and Radio Station used to bring in and the idea that just because we could/shuld have 3 or 4 branches off the main PLC would not alter the simple fact that it is the Football CLub that is bringing us down. "Substance Over Form" I'm afraid and with the League being a Member's Organisation we're nto talking about legal technicalities here, it's their game and if we want to play then we have to accept it.

Thought this from Benjii last night was a pretty good summation, in that I also agree that Crouch didn't explain himself very well in that interview (as others have pointed out, what he said was incorrect as the holding company relationship was established in 1996!!!). I have to take my hat off to Crouch if he really is funding the Club to the tune that some people are intimating, but that also doesn't mean he is above criticism. I don't think that interview was very good, nor was it necessary. If he wants to get involved in saving the Club then fair play, but I feel he should just leave these issues to the Administrators and their legal team.

I posted this last night which IMHO shows that keeping these businesses would not have made any impact (not least because we already bring in over £1million from events and catering, which wasn't enough to dissaude the League from coming ot their conclusion). And I have seen some people say "if we had kept the radio and insurance arm we might have been alright", well I just don't think that argument holds any water either. The Insurance company took in £150K and delivered minimal profit, whilst the radio station brought in £250k and lost £200k. So the two of them contirbuted nil profit and represented something like 3% of income. By the same token the 2006 accounts show that catering and events made a £1m contribution and the League have ruled that irrelevant. It's the Football Club that has incurred the costs/debt and brought in the vast majority of the income and it is the Football Club where all the problems have stemmed from.

With all due respect, I would rather have a loose cannon spouting off the odd inaccuracy and making honest mistakes, than someone who comes in and rips up what could be a potentially decent management set up and replaces it with a Revolutionary Coaching Set Up!!!! Crouch made mistakes, for sure and he will make some more, but I think I would have needed more than what your suggesting to side with Lowe given his track record in latter years.

Derry, who I understand is close to some of the action through SOS, replied to a post of mine last night indicating that unless a buyer comes in quickly then the Club will cease to exist and go straight into liquidation, effectively missing out administration for the Football Club. This would also appear to be the line coming from Crouch and others, in that we will fold at the end of the season, if no buyer can be found. Others have pointed out that mnay Clubs go into administration and bumble along for a bit, so why will we be so different??? Why are we apparently on course for dong an Aldershot as opposed to a Leeds??? Just what is the situation with the Club and it's finances??? I can understand people's reluctance to help out if they think we haven't reached rock bottom yet and their point throwing money at the situation at the moment is not the done thing as we haven't even gone into "administration" yet. I know some people just think starting again in the Lower Leagues is OK with them (which is fair enough), but I also get the impression that many are holding back for something to happen (i.e. administration of the Football Club or some sort of appeal to come out the other side), but will this be happening or should we be doing something now??? Are we really a fortnight or so away from ceasing to exist????

What Crouch said certainly wasn't clever, but as Benjii explains below, I don't think what he said cam eout well for the following well thought out reasons:

Derry, Can someone please spell out just exactly what this means??? I get the impression the general vibe is that we all imagine without these funds the Football Club will be unable to pay wages etc and will therefore go into administration (no points issue now as we've already been hit with that), but then again haven't loads of clubs done this as well?? What is wrong with the view of "so what if the Club goes into administration as surely we'll come out the other side, everyone else has" and "why not just hold your money back and plough it in post administration??? " I'm just struggling to get my head around what is going on, what we should and shouldn't be doing (and I don't think I'm alone on this).

Here's one example. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/luton_town/7190357.stm Maybe Derry can answer as a result of going along tonight, if we don't appeal what is the difference with the football club going into administration than what is happening now.

That's the part I was always worried about when we thought we could get away with it, i.e. the league rule that basically says "it's our League and if you don't like it then feel free to join another one!!!". Just think they had to send the boys in for a few days just to show they weredoing things properly, but like you I was interested in just what exceeded their brief was all about. I can just see David Jones saying "I don't think you're allowed to count the petty cash tin, give it back".

That's what has happened elsewhere, whereby in exchange for an "exclusive" period, potential bidders agree to stump up some cash to fund the club.

But would you not say that the reason for the forensic accounting was to ensure they were correct in saying "the holding company only exists because of the football club"????? And I have seen some people say "if we had kept the radio and insurance arm we might have been alright", well I just don't think that argument holds any water either. The Insurance company took in £150K and delivered minimal profit, whilst the radio station brought in £250k and lost £200k. So the two of them contirbuted nil profit and represented something like 3% of income. By the same token the 2006 accounts show that catering and events made a £1m contribution and the League have ruled that irrelevant. It's the Football Club that has incurred the costs/debt and brought in the vast majority of the income and it is the Football Club where all the problems have stemmed from.

I have to agree entirely. Crouch's little piece was unecessary and I'm not sure any loose cannons should be talking about these matters (leave it solely to the Administrator), but as you say I think what he said didn't come out the right way (not least for the reasons you have highlighted).

When Derbey went in to admin in Oct 2003 the rules on points deductions didn't apply. Although approved in Sept 2003, they didn't come into effect until the following season (August 2004).

But IMHO although technically/legally they are seperate companies and it is the PLC that is in administration and not the Club, I don't think the "law" applies as clearly as people think here, as ultimately the League is a "member's arrangement" and they can do pretty much as they see fit (within reasons of course).

I seem to be out of line here, but I have to say this came as no surprise, nor do I think it is unjust. The idea that the Football Club is solvent is clearly not true and the PLC is no more than a shell for the real entity, the Football Club. Substance over form for me, and using that definition the Football Club is the sole and dominant player. The fact that a 100% owned subsidiary is supposedly still trading yet the Holding Company has no income and yet has gone into administration doesn't stack up. The only positive about today is that hopefully it may mean things can start moving as people know just what they're going to buy (hopefully there are people wanting to buy us!!!!!).