um pahars

No he didn't. HTH

Fck me, don't you remember the classic thread you started a few months back (that was really in the spirit of unity wasn't it!!!). Being lectured on here in recent days by some of the most rabid protagonists is somewhat galling if not giggling.

The Derby comparison is a total Red herring IMHO as points deductions were not in place when they went into administration. As the last line states they were brought in for the following season so Derby were not let off as the punishment was not in force. Whether they would have is a totally different argument that we will never know the answer to . West Ham is probably a better example, but even then there are differences. I don't think there are any precedents in play as we are the first Football League Club to put up this defence in the current climate of points deductions.

Similar, and yet different at the same time. Similar in that it is indeed the holding company that is in Administration and the seperate legal entity, being the football club, still trading as normal. The difference is that their football club is fairly solvent, raking in £50m+ each season, whilst I don't know how we as a football club have avoided administration as well.

LMFAO. I'm sat here thinking what a cheeky little ******. They've regularly taken stuff off of here and when this board gets going it knocks spots off the journalistic practices currently employed at The Echo. This season they've either been lifting stuff of here or replicating word for word what Saints have been laying on for them (the patsies). Some of their reporting this season has been risible (e.g. how they just took in the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up stuff from the Club and regurgitated it was a disgrace).

The revised £4m was communicated to Lowe and others in Spetember, of that there is no doubt. Well he did it, and that's all that matters. We have no idea why he failed to arrest going over, but going over we did, whilst he was in charge. My assumption is that he didn't think Barclay's would call in the overdraft and he certainly didn't show any real effort on raising cash in the January window, but if anyone can come up with a valid reason why we breached that limit, then I'm all ears. That #4m limit was firmly in place, so why we go over it? Rubbished it at the time and I'll rubbish it now. Barclay's will not be involved in day to day decisions on how to micro-manage the business. They will set parameters and milestones that we have to work within and meet, but they will not be running the business. If we don't meet their milestones or breach their parameters, then they have to re-evaluate their position. Simple as that.

Barclay's agreed their new position at some point at the start of the season and communicated it to Lowe in September. They wanted their exposure limited to £4m, simple as that. Everyone in the game knew that our limit was £4m overdrawn, so why it came as a surprise that Barclay's failed to honour cheques over this amount I do not know. Lowe knew the new rules of the game and I can only assume he misread Barclay's intentions. We must have had cashflows that showed we would breach this £4m figure so why we didn't take other actions to bring cash in would appear to be either (a) poor management and head in the sand stuff, (b) massively misreading the situation (particularly Barclay's intentions) or © a hopeless case (something I don't buy given we could have raised money even if in a firesale in the intervening 6 months). So I can only assume that when we started to go north of that figure and probably looked to go even further, then the bank pulled the plug. Nothing sinsiter, just Barclay's calling it in when their exposure looked to be getting worse and they decided enough was enough.

Have not seen the letter, but the line I was told from someone "neutral" was that it requested Wilde and Lowe to stand down and for Poortvliet to get the boot. Not sure what "stand down" entailed i.e. sell shares or just resign from the board. Coming the ther way was to be a new manager and a CEO (not Crouch). Assumed that it meant Crouch coming back on the board, but that was just an assumption. This was at least third hand I reckon, so I wouldn't be too sure about it's veracity.

The only dirty business that made Barclay's pull the plug was the dirty business on the pitch that impacted massively on the ££££'s flowng their way. The notion that someone was telling them to pull the plug (or doing the dirty) is fantasy stuff. They did it for there own reasons, pure and simple.

So how come you ended up with mutiple personality, mythomania and Ganser syndrome??? Maybe that's why you thought Justin Fashanu was still living it up:smt119 Nature or nurture????

Aware of that one (publicity stunt or genuine offer??? that one has been done to death), but I was on about a unilateral offer made prior to this. Might be wrong though, but sure it was mentioned on here. Tried a search but found nothing.

But I thought at some point (before Xmas) there was talk that Crouch had offered to inject £2m to stave off administration if Lowe and Wilde stepped down and Poortvliet was replaced. I'm sure someone even mentioned this in the form of a letter which was rejected by Lowe & Wilde. Can you remember that (or am I going mad)?????

For him??? Of course it's time to log off and scarper. Happy to post ****** up on here, but when someone challenges it's veracity, it's ignore mode, twist the situation or the old diversion tactic. For someone so up for impartiality and objectivity:smt119, the stuff he posts is up there with the best of the spin and lies.

Thanks for that, really appreciated.

LOL. Lucky you missed Jonah's ridiulous post about the use forensic accountants then!!!! What do they know about a Royal Charter;)

I loved the "spicy prices of tickets"!!!!!! Also the fact we are all "witnesses", yeah fcking witnesses to the murder of a football club LOL. And of course he was sacked. Only a few days earlier he was promising he would double his efforts or something like that and was up for the fight!!!! I remember some dinlo trying to blame Crouch for unsettling him and influencing his decision to resign on that Friday as Crouch was in SMS the day he got the boot.

Do you mean like putting misleading and incorrect information up on here about the overdraft under Crouch in order to suit your agenda, only to slope off and neverr mention it again (or respond) when it has been shown up to be lies and spin???? Cue the silence

Maybe Meadow Lane is the East Midlands home of Beach Volleyball ??? (PS Have to say the spelling of County looks wobbly as well)

Would we be better off selling all our allocation and then hosting a beamback or whatever and charging a tenner a pop up at SMS???

What like making incorrect assertions about the overdraft during his tenure on here last week;)?? (still no response BTW:D) If we're going to judge him, let's at least keep out of the fiction aisles and put some decent stuff in front of him as I'm sure there's plenty out there (and then judge it by the same standards, discretion and impartiality that you claim to judge others by).

The guy underneath this is Mark Fry, the administrator.

He oversaw a drop in the overdraft;) Cue the silence.

He'd have to hire a mini bus to get you and all your alter egos in

Not sure of the exact workings, but the loan note repayments (circa £2m per annum paid one off in August I think) are "repaid in a securitisation agreement serviced by future season ticket and matchday sales from the stadium". And looking at the accounts, it appears that at each year end we have always had (except for last year) a figure close to this on Treasury Deposit and I assumed that was us tucking the money from season tickets away as Norwich Union had first call on this money (could well be wrong). I also thought (but never had it confirmed) that we had managed to come to some arrangement with Norwich Union over some sort of holiday/reduction on some of the "loan". And going back to the initial post, there are many clubs who sold season tickets before going into administration, during administration and coming out of administration, and of course technically we're not in administration!!!!! So I too would like to hear if anyone has a decent rationale for holding back.

Wishful thinking I'm afraid!!!!!! I reckon the football industry must have the highest ratio of nutty owners/bosses/blaggers/shysters per business of any business sector.