um pahars

Loose lips and not realising how quick news travels???? Also there's no damage done now as the market is shut and you might want a sympathetic media (i.e. The Echo) to be told tonight so they can tell your side of the story when the announcement is made. Here's another reason why shares could be suspended (i.e. it doesn't have to mean administration, fingers crossed anyway).: MILLWALL FOOTBALL CLUB SHARE PRICE SUSPENDED The directors of Millwall Football Club announced today that pending the refinancing of the company they have asked the stock exchange to suspend its shares. A statement said: "As in recent years, there was a funding requirement at the footballl club which had traditionallly been satisfied by the sale of players. The directors wished to refinance the club in order not to have to sell its best assets and this process has taken longer than anticipated." A further statement will be issued as soon as possible. Distributed by PR Newswire on behalf of Millwall Football Club

Well I don't like the fact that we should have released our interims at the latest today (I'm sure the rule is three months from year end whch was up today) and not sure whether anything should be read in to that delay. Other than that I'm just praying that it's for some other reason e.g. Birmingham suspended their shares recently when Brady and Sullivan were arrested (not that I'm suggestig Lowe and co are to be arrested!!!).

16. Suspension Shares in a quoted company can be suspended for two reasons: The company requests suspension If a company is about to announce news of material significance to investors and it fears that a disorderly market may be created by a leak, it can ask the London Stock Exchange to suspend trading in its shares until after the announcement. The most common reason for this is that the company is about to participate in a bid for, or by, another company. But there could be other reasons - for example if the company has unusually bad news (the MD has just fled to Brazil). The Stock Exchange frowns on long, voluntary suspensions. It takes the view that investors should always be able to sell unwanted stock, even at very bad prices. The Stock Exchange suspends trading This usually heralds very bad news, although suspension can also be the Exchange's only effective sanction against a company which persists in breaking its rules. Shares suspended by the Exchange find it hard to return to a full listing. Sometimes the company in question has gone bankrupt. In these circumstances, shareholders just have to grit their teeth and hope something emerges from the gloom.

But Adam Leitch reports in the Echo that: "Mark Wotte believes his side are better off without loan players as Saints prepare for the final run-in" Good work Adam, as sharp as ever!!!! Perhaps you meant "Wotte will now make do with what he has got after being knocked back".

Pensioners from 12:00 and Exit2 wants Pork Scratching's thrown in as well. I stand my bets and I expect you to be my Joey/waiter/piggy bank for a couple of hours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pulis signed something like two weeks after Davies had left for Stoke. If we had any sense we would have had a look at his medical report (and playing history!!!!) and said "Sorry, but the deal is off". Considering our latest policy is not buying/loaning anyone who isn't better than we already have, can someone remind WTF our transfer policy was last summer!!!!!!!!!!

Someone on here owes me a shedload of pints before the Burnley game as I think it's safe to say Pulis won't make 15 appearances this season!!!!!

But as we found out when we went for the cheap option with Poortvliet (and many of his signings) you often get what you pay for. If we can afford to pay Pulis not to play, then there must be some money floating around. Just as with the manager, the CEO is a pretty important position and not one that we should be scrimping about with. It's all about prioritising and I would put a decent CEO pretty high up on our shopping list, not least because we have seen what happens when you employ duff ones!!! I'd also argue that we could well do with someone at the Club on a full time basis devoting their full attention to the Club. I'd argue that the reason the football was crap for the first 30 games was more to with the decision to employ Poortvliet than to do with money. Let's not forget that the main reason why we are in the mire is down to the appaling decision to appoint Poortvliet. We had plenty of options and choices, and whilst money ruled out some routes we could have gone down, it didn't dictate that we had to go for the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up under Poortvliet. And going back to the OP, it is my belief that we should be doing whatever we can to avoid Administration and the dire consequences that will inevitably follow it.

I can certainly remember that Tranmere game when it all changed in the 2nd half;) Have to say I don't go in for the criticism of WGS on this thread. He had his gameplan, he had his style and he had his favourites, but under him we did very, very well.

Two words that display how the Chairman/CEO has a direct impact on how players play (and perhaps more importantly in what formation they play, who plays, coaching, training etc etc etc). Jan Poortvliet. Wouldn't call that being paranoid, and to assume who the Chairman/CEO is has very little with how players play is somewhat naive IMHO. With decisions such as the appointment of Poortvliet, the Chairman/CEO set the tone for the entire Club.

And what about the East Midlands??? Forest, Notts County, Leicester, Derby, Mansfield, Chesterfield have all had major financial problems (and most, if not all, have suffered relegation) in recent seasons. I think you'll find that most clubs outside the top flight (and probably some in it) are nto that far away from having (or have had) problems.

Personally, I never had a problem trying to learn new things from anyone and was open minded about SCW coming in to help, but once again the execution was poor. As you say Lowe's attempts/desire to get SCW and Clifford in to the hot seats really was pie in the sky thinking. Here is one of the articles where Clifford lifted the lid on Woodward for the Manager's role (or probably Head Coach under Lowe). http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/sep/08/newsstory.southampton

Sadly a few dinlo's fail to appreciate that subtle yet succinct difference, and continue to put down opposition of Lowe to reasons of ignorance, inverted snobbery and/or plain hatred, as opposed to a reasoned and well argued position.

This is one of my biggest problems, the sycophancy that we have at the moment. There just doesn't appear to be anyone willing to pull Lowe to one side and suggest that maybe he isn't always right!!!! I'm not talking about outright opposition and arguments in a boardroom, but a balance, where other people's thoughts are sought, and more importantly digested, because everything I see is it being run very autocratically. With all due respect to Dave Jones, I don't think he does anything apart from what he's told, Wilde probably likes to think he gets consulted, but in reality we all know Lowe is calling the shots and although I'm sure Cowen sometimes tries, I just don't think he has that much influence over Lowe. For example when he decided he was going to open the AGM with that letter, Cowen should have pulled him to one side and said, "I really don't think is a good idea Rupert" and perhaps more importantly Lowe should have listened to him. As much as there are others in the boardroom, I still get the feeling that it is Lowe who is running the show.

I can only remember him as being tall. Mate of mine really rated him, but I never really saw that he had that something extra to be able to make the step up.

Really??? I remember him during those halcyon days and thought everyone rated him (steaming in at the far post). Something like 1 goal in 3 from a traditional midfielder, pah, call yourself a historian LOL.

Touching. Problem is you have neve been respected, Seen Jan's CV lately???

Although I fully accept that our financial position is complicated and somewhat worrying, I have to say that I do subscribe to the idea that it is fairly simplistic. That's not to say the solution is simple, easily available and it will be a doddle, but the overiding facts are that we only have two major creditors (Barclay's and Norwich Union). It is not in either of their interests to pull the plug on us and with some good management (and signs of progress on and off the pitch), it should be relatively easy to win them round. Our cost base is fairly simply structured with the biggest single cost being players wages (so look to get them down, but strike a balance with quality). Other income is fairly fixed or at least forecastable (TV rights & other) and the biggest variable revenue is gate receipts. Engender a spirit of togetherness and get some decent results on the pitch and the variable money rolls in, and we start a virtuous circle as opposed to a vicious one!!!!! And I have to say that is an assumption that is being proved to be right, and one that is holding us back, if not dobbing us in it even further Get someone in who doesn't perpetuate and extend our financial crisis by adopting crass strategies and we may have a chance of achieving what I have set out above. A failing footballing strategy, with ridiculous appointments and philosophies, will only take us one way.

Which is effectively what happened at Ipswich. The refinancing that took place there saw existing shareholders get diluted from 100% to 12.5%, with any new money going in to the club as opposed to shareholders pockets. Even at 3m, our value is probably way over the top, so can't agree with Weston's assumption that anyone would need to pay a premium on that!!! That might be what the current owners would want, but in the current climate and looking at recent transactions of CCC clubs thery're not going to get it!!! I also know Evans looked at us at some point and wonder why his approach wasn't taken any further???

They must have liked you (or hated me) as i had to give mine a scrub in some big sink there as well!!!!!!!! They did spray my bags for me though!!!!!!

That's the old one which was indeed somewhat ropey before they built the new one. The players used to wait at level crossings to get to the next tee, whilst Jumbo's taxi'd past!!!! The new one is top notch and ****es on Heathrow.

The driving force behind the move from The Dell was not the move to being a PLC, but instead it was the influx of massive wonga from TV (primarily SKY). (The SKY deal alone was worth 40m per season to the Premier League when Lowe came in, 170m 12 mths later rising to 340m a year the season we went down). As you have demonstrated with your own reasons for owning shares, every shareholder has different motives for "investing", but there is also an argument that for his relatively small investment, Lowe has netted a rather handsome return with the millions he has been paid over the years.

I know Wolves were in Div 3 when Steve Bull played for England, but that was obviously a few years back!!! And the other problem is England U-21's normally play at the same time and quite a few of their players have come from the lower leagues (e.g. Fabian Delph at Leeds, Joe Lewis for Peterborugh)

I'd be amazed if that 8.35% rate hadn't been renegotiated or parked/deferred. As for St Marco and C B Fry's comments, then my view is probably somewhere in the middle. I think that if we go down (and BTW my money is that we won't!!) I don't think it will be total meltdown and the 4th division, but I think it will be very messy. My only issue after we go down is whether administration is inevitable or not??? Because if we do go into administration and receive a serious points deduction and also take part in a firesale of players and assets, then it somewhat changes the scenario.