um pahars

What were your vociferous views before the season started??? What forum/s did you post these vociferous views on up until coming on here a few months ago???;)

Barclay's had already hardened their position and capped our overdraft at £4m. We must have some pss poor firecasting skills if we didn't realise we were going to breach that and needed to do something to avert administration. My guess is that Lowe misread Barclay's stubborness, but as they had made their initentions clear with capping our borrowing at £4m, then that is Lowe & co's fault and not Barclay's. As for an outcry, then I'm afraid (a) the outcry with regards administration would be worse (b) this is where they needed to be able to engender support and a degree of trust and empathy with the supporters to get the story out and © quite frankly those in charge need to make decisions for the long term benefit of the club, regardless of what we think sometimes.

1. Your lottery contributions aren't correct, as a much higher contribution was received from the City Council. 2. It's not rent free. On top of paying for the upkeep of maintenance and renewal costs as anchor tenants, MCFC have to pay a rental fee (estimated to be £2m+ in 2003 by Sport England as the rent starts at 50% of ticket revenues above 32,000) 3. MCFC had to pay £35M+ to turn it into a football stadium. Is it still a good deal for MCFC???? maybe, maybe not, but it's a slightly different scenario from the one you're trying to paint.

Gates have indeed gone up for a myriad of reasons (some of which you have highlighted above), but you cannot simply dismiss Lowe leaving a being one of those reasons. It is impossible to quantify what affect each one of these reasons has on attendances, but Lowe leaving is as valid as some of the others you have mentioned. But they were linked and had more to do with "Premiership Football Fans" coming to see United than supporting Saints.

What were your views last summer???? What forums/outlets did you voice your vociferous opinions on back then????:cool:

Barclays made their intentions pretty clear last September when they unilaterally reduced our overdraft by £1million. We did nothing during the trasnfer window to raise funds, we did nothing to sell other assets to raise the shortfall and it appeared that we walked blindly into breaching Barclay's restrictions. Lowe was made aware of Barclay's decision a fair while back, and IMHO he took his eye off the ball and/or totally misjudged the situation.

Oo, Mack, Mack, a Macker, Mackerel was the warcry at the Forest game. Was on the coach (think Foley's for that one) to Forest with the Tytherley boys (some of whom I still see) and the Mackerel was legendary for that game an the rest of the run in. Was continually thrown on to the pitch from that corner pen and the ball boys kept giving them back to them/us. Think they were bought in Loughbrough where we were allowed to stop for about 3 minutes before the old bill ran us out of town. No clue where the idea came from, but it was funny all the same.

Good shout. But I think it's July 1st, so we still have almost two months to get by.

I just think we will be pulling out all the stops to complete our fixtures, otherwise our value as an entity would fall massively with regards what the administrator could hope to pull in. I'm not saying things aren't dodgy, as I too reckon we are hanging on by a thread, juust think our D-Day will be a few days after the Forest game (or at the time of the League's decision if it's bad news). And carrying on from the above reply I have to say this is a massive worry. A period where our fixed costs have to be maintained, yet a period where we have no income coming in. Unless someone makes a move and agrees to fund us in the interim to a deal being completed, then I just struggle to see how we stay alive over the summer. And the season ticket issue is just a nightmare situation. On one hand these funds could tide us over and I could imagine that many could use it as a rallying point to show their support for the Club, but would people buy a season ticket knowing that there is a risk it might not be honoured????????

I'd beat Roger Bannister!!!! I'd say unsolicited & abusive e-mails, thrown in with a few faux allegations of violence, abuse and aggression could be construed as harrassment. What do you think????:D;)

But where were you up until then??? How this site could have done with your input before then;)

LOL And thinking about women, have any of Nineteen canteens previous personas been of the female form???? Or is that just something that Blackbirn fella did with dear old Rhondah???

Hey troll boy, hit us with some more of your cracking one liners:D;):smt119

If only you were around at that time to help us sort out the problem. Only turning up a few months ago was never going to help anyone:D

You haven't been very vociferous in your support, as you've only been around since January this year;)

I'm sure they're the majority shareholder down there. Could be playing them next season as well!!!!!

Players aren't regarding as "assets" in the books in the way most people would probably imagine. The only values that appear in the "books" are any transfer fees that we have paid, with the amount reducing by each year of their contract. i.e. If Rory Delap was signed for £4m on a 4 year contract, then at the end of the first year he would be "worth" £3m in our books, £2m at thend of the 2nd year etc etc etc. Any homegrown talent (or anyone who did not command a fee) does not have any "value" in our books.

Not sure on that one Phil!!!!! Digging through the announcements I think you'll find the Board of teh PLC put us into administration once Barclays started bouncing chequaes. Certainly Barclays actions of bouncing the cheques forced the issue, but I'm sure we put oursleves in to admin.

I'm afraid I don't know that one, but I'm sure someone could find out by having a dig around. The way Lowe was talking was that Barclays were pretty happy with their position, so can assume they believe they're either at the front of the queue or in a good position to collect their monies.

Pray tell what you base that rather bold claim on?? Of course you wouldn't, it would be akin to asking for a lawyer to audit your accounts. Methinks you don't really have much idea of what forensic accounting entails and who does it.

There are two distinct arguments here. The first one is that the PLC is in administration and that SFC Ltd is still trading as a seperate legal entity, and therefore it is not technically in administration. Therefore it is technically not in breach of the League's insolvency regulations. The counter line is that the two companies are effectively one and the same and that the PLC is in administration as a direct result of the SFC Ltd's commercial activities etc etc etc. That although there is a legal disticntion between the two, they do not trade at arms length and the results of one are integral to the other. A good old accountancy ruling is substance over form and I can't help but feel that if it was applied to us in our current predicament, then the line "economic reality and not merely their legal form" would come in to play and we would be held to be in breach of League regulations regarding administration. Here are two good examples of its definition in accountancy. Substance Over Form (1) When an entity practice the Substance Over Form, it means that the financial statements reflect the financial reality of the entity (Substance) rather than the legal form of the transactions and events(Form) which underlie them. To put it very simply: if it is a goat but it was disguised in a legal form to look like a dog, Substance Over Form would prevail to reinstate that it is a goat and not a dog! Substance Over Form (2) If information is to represent faithfully the transactions and other events that it purports to represent, it is necessary that they are accounted for and presented in accordance with their substance and economic reality and not merely their legal form. The substance of transactions or other events is not always consistent with that which is apparent from their legal or contrived form. For example, an enterprise may dispose of an asset to another party in such a way that the documentation purports to pass legal ownership to that party; nevertheless, agreements may exist that ensure that the enterprise continues to enjoy the future economic benefits embodied in the asset. In such circumstances, the reporting of a sale would not represent faithfully the transaction entered into (if indeed there was a transaction). With regards the creditors getting their money, then anything and everything is up for grabs. The administrator will do whatever he sees fit to extract the most money from the busines to be able to satisfy creditors (from selling everything as a going concern to a firesale of anything and everything). What might be interesting is how secure Barclays feel they are. Not least because they appear to have security on the overdraft (as per the accounts), but also as Lowe recently stated with regards the two biggest debtors of Aviva and Barclays, "Barclays position was very simple 'we're better secured than them (Aviva) and really as far as we're concerned we're very comfortable with our own position' ".

Was also at the game and we were convinced we had only managed a draw as we too arrived after kick off (we ended up parking next to the meat wagons right behind the away end). Can remember at half time the stadium announcer saying the game was being held up due to "crowd trouble" and that there had been at least one fatality (as were the stereotypes of the day, the general consensus amongst our group was that someone must have got stabbed!!!). It was only upon walking out that there were further updates and a Met Copper telling us it "had all gone to sht up there". Remember driving home and the radio was just continually providing updates with the number of deaths just spiralling upwards and upwards. Pretty close to home considering all the packed terraces I had stood on, including Leppings Lane in the 1985 FA Cup Quarter Final!!!!!!!!

And nor would he had the job if Branfoot hadn't got the boot, if Sturrock hadn't spilled that tomato ketchup or if that butterfly hadn't fluttered it's wings over in Venezuela!!! To try and make out we got Wigley because we never got Hoddle 6 months early really is stretching the imagination and is rather Dalekesque in its logic.