um pahars

I'd want bullshtters/trolss like you right in front of me where I can see you.

Behave yourself and move on.

In Block 4 or Block 10:rolleyes::rolleyes:

It is indeed a pity (I'd go for a rather stronger word in there though) that the euphoria and wave of optimism didn't carry on from the Sheff Utd game, but as we all know, a new Board came in and took us down another route entirely. I also wonder what Mark Wotte will make of today's gate and atmosphere????

I would have to agree Phil, in that this year has been a disaster on and therefore off the pitch, which meant rather than being a season of potantial survival and taking stock, it just ensured we slipped down further. Did it affect finding invesmtent?? I have no idea. I suppose relegation could have an issue on whether people would come in for us, but then again there are also a myriad of other issues in play.

Aer you talking about Sturrock's short tenure or Wigley's short tenure following him????? If it's Wigley's then I'd definitely agrre with you. But the reason for bringing the Wigley Caretakership until the end of the season (after WGS left) line into the debate, was merely to highlight how temporary, transient and flexible caretaker managers are following the departure of the previous incumbent. Lowe stated clearly that Wigley was manager until the end of the season, but something like a fortnight and 3 games later unveiled Sturrock. Nothing wrong with that at all and he was not criticised for doing that (not that I can remember anyway!!).

I have always maintained that we dillied and dallied too much when it was likely that Burley would up and leave, but in the grand scheme of things, D & G overstaying their tenure by 3 or 4 games is hardly the most henious crime of the century (even if the decision swung one way and then another over 10 days). After all, it was announced that Wigley was in charge until the end of the season when Strachan left, only to be replaced a fortnight later by Sturrock. I don't remember Lowe getting stick for changing his mind so quickly (and rightly so).

Just one quick point regards the money on deposit when he left before I go out - that season saw us lose £9m cash on normal operations (even after allowing for a £7m parachute payment) so the underlying problem was already there, and the main reason why our bank balance was OK was because we had received £16m from the proceeds of player sales that year. The underlying problem has been there ever since we fell out of the top flight (sure further mistakes were made by many, but the underlying issue was dropping from circa £50m income to £14m)

My fear is that he and others will just be Walking Away.

Really?? Apart from glossing over the part things like Wigley and Lowe played in the initial relegation, forgetting SCW and the doomed repromotion season, Rasiak being the first on to the wage bill under Burley, losing ,illions the first season down, the fact that the inverted snobbery is rather ignorant when many are happy to judge people by their results, the fact that others apart from lowe should indeed be blamed, with some of them coming out and saying so in the local media, no mention of this dreadful season, no Poortviet etc etc etc. I really could go on, but there's quite a bit inthere that could be argued another way.

Not this time, but he was introduced by none other than Chris Iwelumo;) I too can't be bothered to watch it yet as I'm off out and want to enjoy my evening:D

Indeed. Thank's for the clip round the ear (and that's not in a sarcastic manner, but unstead in a fair enough manner, as there are indeed bigger fish to fry out there).

Then perhaps you missed the post above, along with forgetting the post a few months back where you replied to me on here saying "fair play" for admitting supporting Wilde was the wrong call. Funny how you can manage to drag up posts from 4 years ago, yet ignore those posted 4 minutes ago and forget those posted 4 months ago LOL. And yet your record of backing the loser Lowe is somewhat worse given your support of him back in 2005 and again in 2008. If we were to apply your logic to this forum you would have been barred from May 2005;) (cue the reply of "I didn't support Lowe in 2005 and 2008 yawn, yawn, yawn).

I agree it sounds more than aweek, but it certainly does not sound permanent and it wasn't even said it was until the end of the season. Then you missed out the quotes from the Lawrie, Crouch and others around 6/7 February regarding "we will not be rushed into an appointment", "It allows the Club more time over the hunt for a replacement", "We always said we would take our time to make sure we appoint the right person". which demonstrates they were out there on the hunt, something confirmed by Dodd himself in a conversation with a friend when he said he knew all along he was only a stopgap. This wasn't the same as a Stuart Gray/Stuart Gray appointment when he really had the job in the bag, despite a half hearted attempt at finding an alternative manager. Instead it was the same as the Wigley/Sturrock time when despite saying Wigley had the job until the end of the season, lowe quickly moved to bring Sturrock in.

Two things from me. Firstly, whilst it is within the letter of the law, I just fear that the League will say it is not within the spirit of the law and will then invoke some other "catch all" clause and still deduct us points. Fingers crossed they don't invoke this other. Secondly, can someone point to anywhere that shows Derby did actually do this. I can't believe they didn't, but have yet to find it anywhere on the net.

I think you've lost your objectivity because only recently I was praising Lowe for getting the support of Barclay's and keeping us afloat as a "going concern", only for you to lambast me for such support. I have never believed Lowe was the devil, as that post in 2005 and many others since would show, so to suggest I do makes you come across as rather ignorant and rather rabid. I was happy to judge Lowe by his reults and never once did I venture into the realms of inverted snobbery. If he did well, I praised him and if he did poorly then I criticised him. Things are fluid, times change, circumstances alter, good leaders sometimes become poor leaders and I have never shyed away from trying to be as objective as possible (as that 2005 post clearly shows). In the early days he got much praise from me, but in the latter years of his first tenure that slowly swung towards more criticism as his leadership started to falter. Sadly, his comeback has also received much criticism as I have honestly not found much to eb able to commend him for the way he has run this Club this season (apart from gaining Barclay's bank support and recognising Poortvliet was out of his depth). I have said on more than one occasion that Wilde's initiative ultimately failed and that in supporting it I made the wrong call. In fact, when I did apologise regarding Wilde on one occasion, you even replied to me up on here and complemented me on being so open and honest (why don't you go and dig that post up ), so no idea why you're off about it again tonight (particularly when you haven't seen me running around asking for you and others who supported Lowe to be eating humble pie and apologise). Sometimes I have alot of time for you, but on others, such as tonight you come across as a right prize *****.

I have to say that's a great post by me and I stand by everything on there. Fair, balanced, not knee jerk, deserved praise where it's due and like wise criticism where it was worthy and an honest assessment that he ultimately failed. What part of it don't you like???? In fact I even allude to the forthcoming financial cost of relegation in the last sentence (something which I then extended on once relegation was sealed).

We could do with a re-rewind back to the 80's!!!!!!! Throw Artful Dodger in for a knees up as well. Then of course you could go for Howard Jones (although I've never been sure whether where he was born was Hythe in Hants or Hythe in Kent, but beggars can't be choosers).

Ok Don Quixote, I'll go a bit slower this time: 1. I don't think we wil be able to raise the necessary funds in time, given the financial crisis that is affecting everyone, our debts etc etc etc BUT, 2. That doesn't stop me from hoping (if not praying) that some benefactors out there might be just find it in their hearts to club together enough money to see us through. In layman's terms: my head says we have little chance, but that doesn't stop my heart from thinking someone might just be able to pull it off.

Which is why if you have read any of my other posts you will clearly see that I too think we may well fold, as I think it will be impossible to come up with any funds given the financial crisis we find ourselves in. Unless some benefactors let their hearts rule their head and pump some money in, then I think we're done for, as I can't see any bank providing cash to a fledgling consortium. Which is also why I welcomed Barclay's support of both Crouch and Lowe in recent years, because I was aware that without it we were dead ducks (although you didn't seem as happy when Barclay's gave ther support and berated me for suggesting it was positive news, so I wonder how youre feeling now???). And if you go back and dig up all of my posts then you will see that I was first concerned about our financial status way back in 2005, but of course then it was just dismissed as anti Lowe rhetoric, despite it being patently obvious that any "established" club who gets relegated will have some serious financial problems. You will also see that I said piecemeal cash injections would not solve our underlying problems and that I was also worried that our cist structure and set up would be very difficult to maintain on revenues of £13m-£15m. And the cash has not just been flying out of the door in the years that Lowe was away. In our first year down under Lowe we lost something like £10m out the door on normal operations (even after banking a £7m parachute payment). We've been holed below the waterline ever since we were relegated and successive regimes have failed to patch up the hole. I fully accept that some have even made the whole worse; Lowe in our first season down when a battle between Redknapp and SCW meant we were never in with a shout of promotion, the Executives in 2007 and their refusal to implement implement Plan B and lastly the all round disaster that is this season. So if you want to solely pin the blame on Wilde for us going under, then I think you have a slightly blinkered view of how we got ourselves into this mess and are rather missing the bigger picture and the part played by Lowe and hs cabal.

No they wouldn't. Going through some numbers with Granty last night and I mentioned to him that as far as I could see the original purchase price of the SMS land only was just over £4m. I have no idea how prices have moved since then, nor what the current climate would do to it's value, but I can't see it being worth that much, particularly when there would be some demolition costs to get it back to it's original state:mad:

I'm sure we al know someone who culd lay his hands on one, but not sure we'd want to bring him back on to here. Fck me, I'd rather read Jonah and GM than the photocopier man!!!!!

Thanks for that GM, it was good to be reminded that I never assumed the change in ownership would lead to a massive influx of cash as I was always of the view that if it was to happen it would have to be a grouping/consortium of people putting in say a £1m each as opposed to just Wilde and Crouch as they never had the money to do it on their own. Hopefully those who showed an interest in 2006 will now finally step up to the plate and make something happen this time around e.g. Goodenough, Salz, Davies (and even Crouch maybe). I wouldn't even be averse to Lowe chipping into the pot.

IMHO Barclay's lost faith in Lowe's ability to reduce the overdraft and if anything they probably looked at the numbers going forward and saw that the overdraft was going to increase and decided against increasing their risk. Other than that, feel free to let me know why a bank pulled the plug on a company that they were confident would be able to happily trade it's overdraft off. BTW The overdraft as of 30/6/08 last year was already down to it's current level of just over £4m.

Net cash overdraft when Crouch took over the reins as Chairman (31/12/07 Interims): £5.8m Net cash overdraft when Lowe came back (30/6/08 Annual Report) £4.4m So it actually dropped during his tenure (although of course his tenure doesn't exactly match those dates, but it's a good enough feel for what was happening) And even though Lowe spoke about the overdraft peaking at higher than this over the summer of 2008, during Crouch's period in control it doesn't appear to be the cash nightmare you are trying to claim (although of course there are a myriad of other factors in play, once again your arrogant kneejerk posting has been found wanting).