derry

I think there is a contribution, a receipt, and the money goes into the FC's pot and accounts. No guarantees, firewalls just monetary gestures. I'm more in favour of a cure rather than a crutch. Not my cup of tea but I take my hat off to them.

It's the independent directors of the still solvent subsidiary company and the bank. ( K.Toynton & D.Jones)

very good corner for the first goal.

SLH. Can't be used for much else due covenant. Would have to be bought out from BG.

Bloody good rumour, just like the halcyon days of 2007, is it this fri or next?:cool:

The contributions are going to the football club not the plc.

As long as the club stays out of administration and they are the only body subservient to league rules, the league have a problem. If the league impose a penalty on a club not in administration it will do one of two things, relegation this season or a deficit next season. Either way there would be a financial impact on the plc, the owners. If the league try the interpretation gambit, thats ok, provided only the club is involved and appeals through the league's laid down procedure. In that event the wild card would be the administrator/plc/new owners who provided it was not the club, would be able to sue the league, who wouldn't wear that. This enquiry is a politician, Mawhinny, looking for a way out, from a 'too difficult for me to deal with' problem. There is just no way they don't know whether their rules apply right now. For what it's worth just my view.

Cuckoo, cuckoo:) They are dealing with the administration of a public company and will get the pants sued off them if they get it wrong and they know it. Ever since this kicked off on 1st April, they having taken legal advice and dissected their rules are looking for a way out. Or probably hoping that the relationship between the plc and the club reveals some straw which they can clutch to give them an out.

Thanks, don't you have a strike to organise? Another arrogant little **** that needs taking down a peg.

He is sending a message to the league who despite what is being said, having taken legal advice, already know the result. They have convened a legal enquiry to confirm what they already know, but want somebody else to break the news and not have to take the flack from all and sundry if they announce their decision. I fully expect an announcement together with a lot of handwringing and statements along the lines of closing loopholes.

Needs to play close to Euell and vice versa, they are often 50 yds apart, strikers need support, split and they are picked off.

Would you pm me your contact details in confidence, in case we need advice on this issue?

I think the short term debts such as Cedar Press would be taken care of by the football club not in administration. I expect those sort of things have been taken care of. Duncan, if you really think that, then maybe a call to your contact, to make them aware that there is an initiative specifically to assist in that event. I obviously know who you are talking about and endorse their suitability from the limited information at my disposal. As a matter of interest it is anticipated £15m would buy SLH and it's assets and clear the debt.

I understand that British Gas put a covenant on the site restricting it's future use. If it was to be converted into development, BG would require a hefty premium to release the covenant.

The sort of leadership usually displayed by the first lemming over the cliff. The fatal flaw for Lowe was his blind arrogant presumption that he was expert in all things and he knew best. If he had only been a bit more normal, reasonable, and compatible, he would probably have been forgiven for the relegation. If he had been seen as a leader rather than a self appointed dictator supported by a self serving clique, we may well not had the traumatic boardroom battles of the last three years. There probably wouldn't have been any Wilde or Crouch which led to the executive fiasco. In the end the buck stops with the Lowe regime, how they behaved and the alienation of the masses. It is time to move on, as we surely will, and put the last few years behind us.

I understand where you are coming from, but filling the ground hypothetically on a something for nothing basis might turn more people off than the cost of playing a match of some sort. I think that may well remain hypothetical.

Since SLH went into administration on 1st April, the league would have been looking at this, fielding calls from angry clubs, and getting their lawyers to study their rules and small print. When a politician, especially an ex minister gets a problem that needs referring to the too difficult to deal with file, usually calls an enquiry. My betting is the league know they are up a creek without a paddle. There will be correspondence from way back in the SLH/SFC archives from the league imposing the condition of a non public, separate, private limited company/football club. Also in the league files. That and loads of witnesses. If they were sure they could sanction the club they would not have announced an enquiry. The enquiry is to wash their hands of a problem they already know the answer to. SFC cannot sue if they are sanctioned but SLH can because as the owners of SFC they would suffer losses because of actions taken against their asset not in administration and in contravention of the league's rules. The league are between the rock (the law) and the hard place (disaffected clubs). The enquiry should find that the league have no jurisdiction over the administration of a public company and no case against a solvent football club not in administration. They obviously realise they can't step outside their rules and make it up as they go along because they are dealing with a public company who can sue the pants off them.

Have a real extra match at the end of the season, maybe past v present be much more interesting.

Now you come to mention it there was a Jackson with a Williams and a McConnell.:smt115

One thing to remember with all this, a lot of people are buying extra tickets, I picked up 3 today. To double the cost for people buying extra tickets would in some cases be counter productive, They wouldn't buy them.

If he did it's one of two things, coincidence or he's trying to conceal something. Either way about 4.20 monday they were in the reception and were waiting to get into the lift we got out of. As we had to sign out on the previous page the only two names on the top signing in sheet were Crouch and Royston Smith. Mark recognised him anyway but couldn't place him until I supplied the name. It was definitely him. As Crouch denied meeting anyone from the council, that clearly is wrong because we saw them together.

It's easy to weed out the tyrekickers from the genuine, proof of funds before negotiations start. Probably 3/4 genuine the rest tyrekickers or groups of fans.

I was talking to weston saint this morning, someone had told him that he was asked the question but denied meeting anybody from the council. However they signed in at the same time, were talking and got into the lift together. One of our group recognised him, I checked his name on the sign in sheet.

Problem solved thanks to Steve Grant. As for the administrators statements, I think they are hoping there are a couple of worthwhile bids and not too many tyrekickers. What was said to me was keep it going in case we don't manage to sell the company, in the end it may be all we've got.

No, No, and No. The debt is put variously at £6m with a mortgage of £24m to service. The bank state is believed to be £4m overdraft limit standing at £4.4m. These are not horrendous figures in themselves. NU I believe settled with Ipswich for £7m to write off a £32m mortgage. I understand something similar could be on the table for a purchaser of the club. Staplewood and Jacksons Farm have no development value at present, and the facilities at Staplewood are good. I suspect the whole thing could be bought for between £12 - £15m.