um pahars

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.

But it's the picture a troll want to see;)

Stick to trolling and wind ups, as you're not very good at comedy;) HTH

What did you used to .... in the players lounge.??????

And you would also think that the more credible groups would have a few different models for the various different scenarios that could pan out, and then have indiciative ranges of how much they want to lay out to acquire the Club depending on what happens. I think you're spot on in that relegation (and one or two other factors) will have to be sorted before we start seeing some movement.

See my post above;)

Lying, trolling, numerous different guises etc etc etc

I remember that article of some 5 or 6 years ago, I spoke to him less than a year ago. Post the whole link up on it, as I'm sure things (and his opinion) may have changed somewhat in the intervening years, as I'm sure he was rather bullish on that article about football clubs listing. Additionally, as I said in my earlier response (which included the Crouch overdraft that you have once again overlooked;)), our listing was not a "major factor". I'm sure it "helped" (it certainly wouldn't have hindered), but the overiding factor as to why many Clubs, listed and non listed, were recipients of so much money at that time was due to the huge amounts of money flowing in to the game (primarily from TV rights). (BTW the overdraft that Crouch inherited was £6.1m at 31/12/07 - the peak of £6.3m Lowe referred to was after Crouch had stepped down, but before the year end - and the overdraft stood at £5.7m at 30/6/08. Not really what you were inferring then!). (Or if you were after cash and cash equivalents it was -£5.8m when Crouch came on the scene and reduced to -£4.4m 6 months later)

Very interesting read and fingers crossed you're right. However, with regards Derby the rules regarding points deductions for going into administration were introduced the following season (although they were announced just prior to Derby going in to Admin they did not apply at that ttime).

I totally agree, in that people have turned up for the last two games for a myriad of reasons (Lowe gone, cheap tickets, the rallying calls, a car crash, a ray of light etc etc etc), it's just that I thought the cutting remark made by whoever it was didn't really stand up to scrutiny and was unwarranted.

They got -10 for financial irregularities (re agents etc) and a further -20 for not agreeing a CVA. They had their -10 for administration last season!!!!!