um pahars

You also weren't clear which one of your multiple persona's you are posting under. HTH

But replacing Pearson with the hopeless Poortvliet was an appalling decision. Pearson is no world beater and I also accept that finances were tight and the playing side would be weakened as a result, but to bring Poortvliet in who proved to be an unmitigated disaster was akin to bringing Wigley in and blowing whatever chance you had. Poortvliet's appointment was mind blowingly stupid.

The mental thing is that we're still not out of it!!!! Norwich are away at Swansea and Forest have Forest have a decent Bristol City at home. However, we are 2nd bottom in the league, but just as worrying, 2nd bottom in the current form league as well (only Doncaster are below us). http://www.4thegame.com/statistics/championship/tables/currentform.html The others may keep losing (or only drawing) but I struggle to see how we can start to overhaul them. Wotte is close to falling to a point a game with 15 points from 14 games and that is not enough at this stage!!!!!

Now he's moved on the Bear persona.:smt082:(:confused: And no more PM's, you're filling my inbox up.

And now you're just back in to Flashman mode.:smt082:rolleyes: And please, no more rude PM's;)

Pulis will save us!!!!!!!!

Aha, I've narrowed it down to the Sundance Mk I with the limited knowledge of football :smt082:rolleyes::smt082and and the Nineteen Mk I who is constantly bullshtting.:^o:smt082:^o Help me decide which one it is Mr dinlo;)

Which one of yoru guises is plying their trade on this thread:D:^o:rolleyes::smt082 Will it be The Bear, slightly conservative but still aggressive Flashman, the complete wind up merchant. Sundance Mk I, the offensive, aggressive one, with a limited knowledge of football. Sundance Mk II the rude PM'er. Sundance Mk III the PM'er who admits to being on a wind up. Nineteen Canteen Mk I the unreasonable one who first came on who here insulting and lying about people. Nineteen Canteen Mk II the rational one, only to lose it when caught out, rumbled or outwitted. Nineteen Canteen Mk III the wind up merchant. Maybe you can have one of those signature thingys on the bottom of each post letting us know who exactly has posted.:biggrin::biggrin:

Do you want to expand on your thinking here??? Do you think it is impossible to run this Club in the lower divisions on a self sustaining basis??? Or Do you think it will not be possible to raise sufficient money to buty the "Club" from the Administrator??? Or Another reason (if so then feel free to share with us)????

Problem is we don't know who is turning up each time you come on here :rolleyes: Will it be The Bear, slightly conservative but still aggressive Flashman, the complete wind up merchant. Sundance Mk I, the offensive, aggressive one, with a limited knowledge of football. Sundance Mk II the rude PM'er. Sundance Mk III the PM'er who admits to being on a wind up. Nineteen Canteen Mk I the unreasonable one who first came on who here insulting and lying about people. Nineteen Canteen Mk II the rational one, only to lose it when caught out, rumbled or outwitted. Nineteen Canteen Mk III the wind up merchant. Maybe you can have one of those signature thingys on the bottom of each post letting us know who exactly has posted.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

You must have seriously weird notion of how our support is made up. We got a full house once last season for an effective cup final. We got another one this season for another effective Cup Final. We then got one spiked gate due to people having to buy tickets for that Cup Final and we have had one when it's all hands to the pump. Plastic this and plastic thast LMFAO. We've got a bedrock of something around 15,000(ish) and if you want to pull in anything significantly above that, then you need to start offering up some reason the middle ground supporters to turn up. It's the same for every team up and down the country. Attendances rise and fall due to a myriad of reasons. If you want them to remain at 30,000 irrespective of all the cold hard facts, then it is probably best you have a snooze and start dreaming.

Benjii, how do you interpret this from the accounts???? Note 11 Properties of the Group with a net book value of £34m are subject to charges held by Barclays Bank PLC and the loan note holders. Note 18 The bank overdraft, loans and loan notes are secured on freehold land and buildings (see note 11). Doesn't this seem to indicate that the overdraft is secured???? No expert of course, but sort of looks like it to me.

And as we have so clearly seen in recent years, even if the fans turn up up in sufficient numbers and the income is healthy, then the Club will only survive if it is run in responsible, competent and efficient manner. It doesn't matter how many are coming thorugh the turnstiles if those in charge continue to make mistakes and run the Club poorly. PS Here's another bit on why blaming the fans is somewhat irrelevant: We're not a proper big club, we're a mid ranking provincial club who can pull in 30,000 in the Premiership and anywhere between 15,000 to 25,000 in the second tier (depending on a number of factors). I really struggle to understand why people cannot comprehend that attendances are not fixed and they will indeed vary depending on success, the division we're playing in, the opposition, prices and a whole myriad of other factors. We probably have something like 14,000 hard core supporters (just as every club has its hard core). After that just like any other club (with the odd exception) our attendances will only increase if the next tranche of supporters see a reason to come. You can whinge, whine, scream and stamp your feet as much as you want, but that's just the way it is. The Club has no divine right to expect supporters to turn up, in fact as is the case in every City, town and community up and down the country those that attend football matches are the minority.

Sadly Duncan it would appear that some people are even willing to tarnish the name and reputation of a fine gentleman from our past in order to score some cheap points in the current situation. I have seen it mentioned that some believe that Jacksons Farm was talked up by some who wanted Mary Corbett to gain some extra kudos from this benevolent act by her father. Well forgive me for saying this, but wouldn't you be rather stupid to assume Mary Corbett has uber status just because of benevolent acts by har father 50 years earlier???? John Corbett is deserving of his praise, by why would/should that translate into praise for Mary Corbett - a ridiculous notion. In fact I would call it slightly paranoid that some think benevolent acts of 50 years ago are being used by some to give them some kudos in the current time!!!!! Mary Corbett never used "Jackson's Farm" to gain any kudos (and if she tried to, then she should have been laughed at), in fact, in the first interview I heard her give, she was upfront, open and honest that it was not a donation, but instead it was sold to the Club on favourable terms. From the research I have found, John Corbett played a major part in keeping this Club afloat in the 1950's when we slid back in to Dvision 3 South, often paying the players wages from his own pocket (there are some very interesting quotes from Brian Hunt reflecting on this period about how John Corbett effectively saved this Club from going back to being semi-professional). I also understand that the sale Jacksons Farm to the Club was done on very favourable terms for the Club, at cost price and interest free a number of years after John Corbett first acquired it (therefore hardly favourable to himself). Judge Mary Corbett by her own deeds and actions, but trying to downplay the service given by her father, because you believe (incorrectly IMHO) that she is getting some mileage out of it is somewhat cheap IMHO.

We're not a proper big club, we're a mid ranking provincial club who can pull in 30,000 in the Premiership and anywhere between 15,000 to 25,000 in the second tier (depending on a number of factors). I really struggle to understand why people cannot comprehend that attendances are not fixed and they will indeed vary depending on success, the division we're playing in, the opposition, prices and a whole myriad of other factors. We probably have something like 14,000 hard core supporters (just as every club has its hard core). After that just like any other club (with the odd exception) our attendances will only increase if the next tranche of supporters see a reason to come. You can whinge, whine, scream and stamp your feet as much as you want, but that's just the way it is.

Here's a link for the listed Clubs: http://www.footballeconomy.com/stats/stats_turnover_09.htm and as you can see it is most definitely a minority of league clubs (and getting smaller). Then put that against that all the Clubs who have developed or built their stadiums afresh and you have to ask yourself how they managed it if they're not on that link???? Of course some managed to find sugar daddies, nice councils or whatever but there are still a number of other clubs who raised funds without being listed. Two that spring to mind are Norwich and Ipswich. Norwich for example managed to raise a £15m securitisation loan without a listing fairly recently. Ipswich also managed to get £25m with a subsidiary of Norwich Union. But I go back to when I spoke to David Jones (a year or so ago) who was most definitely at the sharp end in the late 90's when we were arranging the loans/funding etc and he was of the view that the full listing was not a pre requisite to access funds at that time.

You had better watch out what you mean by PLC's (as the pendants [sic] will be out in force). Would I be right in assuming you mean listed Clubs???? But if you look through Simon Inglis's book on Football Grounds and just go through the league tables you will see that many clubs were finding it fairly easy to secure loans, outside investment etc from a variety of sources and channeled into Clubs with a variety of ownership structures to get grounds built. I would actually say that it is a minority of Clubs who play in older/non developed stadiums nowadays. In the top flight - Everton, Fulham and Portsmuff. Off out to play cricket, but we can carry this list on I'm sure.

Heres how our Operating Costs stacked up for each Y/E: 2006 (Lowe) = £33m 2007 (Wilde/Hone) = £27m 2008 (Hone/Crouch) = £27m So it's not that our costs spiralled out of control, it is that in the 2008 period we lost another tranche of income (the parachute money) and the costs were not brought down in line with that.

I think it probably came around too quickly for them to make a decision one way or the other. IMHO they can play it by the rule book and let us off (but they want to make sure they do not open themselves up to attack from the other 71 members) OR They can invoke some catch all clause (but in this instance they need to make sure they're watertight from attacks from us). I think they probably know what they want to do, it's just they're now working behind the scenes trying to justify that decision and making their case watertight.

On this issue and with reference to our credit rating, when I spoke to Dave Jones he didn't believe that our FTSE listing was a major factor in arranging the finances for St Mary's. Many other Clubs managed to raise finances through and from a variety of sources and means, and the overrinding factor at that time was the money coming into the game, primarily through televison rights. Around that time Football Club, with a variety of ownership models and shareholdings, were the darling of many instituitions (including the media giants) and a Listing was not a pre-requisite to access theses funds.

Absolutely, and within reason, if the League want to do something they will be able to do it. If you don't like the League rules you can always go and find another League to play in. But if you do want to be in their Club, then you have to accept what they dish out.

Too little, too late. Administration should have been avoided at all costs and I just get the impression that we had our head in the sand thinking Barclay's wouldn't foreclose. It looks as though we just blindly walked into administration.

So when you were waxing lyrically about the bright future under the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up and berating me for suggesting the guy was out of his depth, what you really meant was: "we're playing stylish football, but the dice have alrwady been rolled and we stand no chance, it will all soon go tts up, we might not finish the season, we will still go into administration, we're giving it a go but it ultimately it just wasn't meant to be".:^o Lowe came back to save the Club, and the same people who were championing him and his Revolutionary Coaching Set Up are now saying, it was a fait accompli, the dice had already been rolled, it was never ever salvageable, this season meant nothing in reality.

Do you want to go and check your diary????? Because I vividly remember telling someone at the Fanfs Forum in march that Wilde and Lowe had temaed up a while back and were mounting a come back and your meeting was way before this. - but now you've gone off on a complete tangent. This was about why none of the potential bidders came sniffing during Crouch's tenure.