OldNick

Well if you go back to my thread a week or so ago when i got a lot of stick when I put Fry Fiddl;es while Rome burns. In it I stated my concern that by Fry waiting was costing us the only bid on the table and could lose them due to him waiting for others.If bhe had acted then thre 500k would not now be the issue.In time if it fails because of that Fry will be at fault not only in our eyes but i suspect the creditors will not be happy either.

I thnk that would be a good idea.he always seemed switched on and strong enough to stand up to RL

Metaphors? thats a supermarket isnt it? Did yopu see the Socialist Labour Party broadcast last night? Lol

That was covered as far as I was aware as the league were holding back 300-400k of money due to us to be paid when we fulfilled our fixtures.The monies due to NC etc would be paid from that.

if the administrator wants a deposit why is it nonrefundable.If he has laid out the picture correctly then there is no reason for him not to show the books.Its just like auctioneers they make a description and then say it is up to the buyerr to decide.Cop out

i do wonder if the CVA thing is his trump.He knows a further -15 will be a killer.Whilst it kills both parties he may be using that to lever some more out by saying if he gets x he may be able to get them to agree to it.I do hope HMRC are still paid up in full

We dont know the full facts of the B'mouth thing. I do wonder if he was left at the last second holding the baby.Lightning doesnt strike twice does it??????

I wouldnt mind as they'd bring along Waterman and co with all thier money

Yes it was the bit that gave it away was when you bit a chunk out of your glass as he was debated.

you should get yourself a little tent at the fairground and read a crystal ball DT.

If RL etc had had any sniff that the bank were going to pull the rug they would have sold in Jan. Why did Barclays see their overdraft get reduced to 4m from 6m, surely any reasonable person would have thought that the club had met its part of the deal. To then withdraw support when it was the worst possible time beggars belief.There is no way RL would have waved goodbye to his money by doing so then.

Yes I was there as you went off on 1...only kidding Mike.i thought that he was very decent and not at all a big time Charlie.Just a normal bloke who would be good company over a drink.Not the normal person you would likely to meet in a directors box. He also was very sensible if I remember rightly he was saying that the clubs overheads had been cut by 40% and would have to be shaved more now we were down.It was responsible talk , not saying we were going to spend but to do it all in a proper manner. I doubt there is much money to be spent but if we still have the club and Mj does with SG saves us from extinction that the many p###takers have the humility to apologise. It is not over yet and i expect my hopes to be dashed again but this morning I feel happy.

Hense my thread 'considering our options'. We have little choice but hope and pray that the people that MJ has brought together can deliver.I believe as I know of 2 of the people who have worked tirelessly to keep things on track that the people who have the money in this would not put themselves up for ridicule if they were not certain. Hats off to those who have not gone for publicity or plaudits if this comes off.Thankyou.

whose advice I wonder?

I dont recall that , but with a 6,3m overdraft it was always likely.It just appals me why Barclays pulled the plug when they did, as I have stated on many occasions why then? considering we had in less than a year dropped the overdraft by over 2m.A little unfair?

I do wonder why all the people in the directors box who had over the years more out of the club than LC have stood back and pushed LC forward.It just underlines to me that we are best off without them all and as Phil and weston have suggested that LC gets a role that rewards him in some way.

Slagging LC off for doing it is wrong and as you say if it stops us getting extra minus points then all power to him.I to be fair argued against administration and thought it would not be a catwalk.

Thank heavens for that MB, although i prefer something more natural

Its terrible, if you dare criticise or look to ask a question it seems you have a dislike. I have only 1 experience of LC and as I have stated before was when i was a guest at Bournemouth and he did not come across to them too well and seemed slightly disrespectful considering he was our chairman.Generally i would think he'd be far more entertaining than any of the rest of the crew who have been in charge.

I think you will find HMRC have no extra claim than anyone else nowadays. Once my goods were sold and paid for they would be the same as cash and so i dont see the difference.Thee again a loan may be different.

That maybe the case, but also there maybe guarentees from the administrator.Clapham may put a different slant on it as being a supplier compared to loaning.i dont know but it is fair to ask the question.Had RL done the same (laughable i know) it would be fair to ask the same of him.I would suggest that LC would not worry that the question is asked, he at least did it even if the money was safe.If it isnt then he sure is a great fan.i just am too cynical of the past incumbents of our club.

I was stating my own experiences.If it happened with liddle ol me then it could happen in other circumstances.There is no right or wrong without the facts. The only thing that makes me wonder if LC has done it without guarentees would be the statue and that was a great thing he did. Many people are doing things behind the scenes for nothing that may add up to the same amount but are not courting publicity. LC actions are well above any of RL, MW Askham LM etc who all earnt plenty from our club as far as i can see

I preferred your last avatar

Read my reply to Chapel end charlie. I assume goods arec still be supplied to the club under guarentees to Fry or the electricity etc would be turned off

Im not sure if that is 100% correct.I supplied goods to a company in receivership and had a written guarentee that the monies would be safe.Any goods sold would be paid in full and unsold returned.Therefore it may be possible that something may be arranged.