stevegrant

...and that Bates refused to let any of the other potential bidders conduct any sort of due dilligence on the accounts. Needless to say, HMRC, the other major creditor, were absolutely fuming as they were led to believe many of the other bidders were willing to offer more money, hence why they now, by default, vote against all football club CVAs (as well as their argument against the whole "preferred creditor" nonsense).

Yes, it was "Lowe and co" who, from the safety of having nothing to do with the club, sent Skacel packing to Hertha Berlin to save money a year ago, almost to the day. Oh no, wait, that was Leon Crouch...

Two points: 1. Which part of "Skacel hands in a transfer request" didn't you understand? He doesn't want to be here, and he's been making that view pretty clear since this time last year. 2. The comment you've quoted from the OS is actually factually inaccurate. Skacel was suspended for the Barnsley game, and because Molyneux had a good game at Barnsley, he kept his place for the Doncaster game.

I remember we were linked with him before Wednesday bought him, he was dubbed the new Ronnie Ekelund (except Norwegian rather than Danish) at the time and people suggested we'd really missed out on something special. Turns out he was rubbish.

Was it some sort of super-advanced type of e-mail that comes equipped with a grainy CCTV image of the sender?

The full article is in the print copy of the Echo today - I guess they removed some of the details so that people would want to read more and therefore buy the paper.

A pretty good one as well: http://www.101greatgoals.com/videodisplay/2021939/

This.

In actual fact, he refused to sign a contract that had been offered to him (way back in December 07/January 08 if I remember rightly) in the belief that he would be highly coveted and therefore could get a better deal elsewhere. It was only when it became clear nobody actually wanted to take a chance on him (and a chance that the compensation payout to SFC would be higher than they were willing to risk) that he eventually signed the contract. Apart from that addition, I agree with what Ken Tone has written above.

Our average this season is 16,836, so a drop of 5,500, not 7,000, and the average ticket price isn't anywhere near £25. Very few tickets are available for the top-priced £26. I'm led to believe the average, taking into account student, OAP and junior concessions is less than £20. With those figures, the additional revenue is £2.5m. Still significant, certainly, but not anywhere near as much as you claim. Of course, once the club has that additional revenue, perhaps Leon Crouch might then think that the club doesn't need him to put £2m in, as the situation with a £3.5m overdraft rather than a £6m one is much more manageable.

Spot on, assuming of course that is exactly what he's said.

Christ. I thought he'd perhaps turned a corner with his much-more-reasonable comments in the Echo, but clearly not. Bigger crowds? Probably, I'll give him that one. Other end of the table? Really? Seriously?! No financial problems? How?

Hence why I said "Skacel's being played out of position at left-back", or did you choose to not read that bit? It's no real secret that it would be beneficial financially to have the pair of them off the payroll, so I'm sure their names have been touted around on a fairly regular basis. However, they have both played plenty of games this season, at times when others in their position(s) have been fit and available. Euell has perhaps not played as often as I'd have liked, but it wasn't long ago that the popular opinion was that he was a complete waste of space. All of a sudden, because he's an experienced English player who's not getting many games, the popular opinion is now that he's this fantastic player who will turn our season around but isn't being allowed to by that evil man Mr Lowe. Again, if you chose to read the whole thread rather than the select bits that you wanted to read, you'll have noticed that I've already answered that, although quite what relevance it has to anything, I've no idea. I've seen no evidence to the contrary.

Skacel was suspended for the Barnsley game after he got his 5th booking of the season against Man United. Molyneux made his debut in that game and, by all accounts, played well, so kept his place for the next game. If he had a poor game last night, he might find Skacel replacing him for Saturday, but I'd have also thought Wotte would also look at the fact that Skacel is playing out of position at left-back, whereas that position is Molyneux's main position. Also, I guess it's a difficult balancing act in terms of team stability. Many people have (rightly) voiced concerns about the constant chopping and changing of players week-in, week-out, so is it right that LM gets dropped on the basis of one poor game?

Er, we had 4 players the "wrong" side of 30 in the starting line-up last night and two more came off the bench, which is more than we've had in any other game this season Paul Wotton made his first start since the beginning of November, and Jason Euell's not even been in the 16 since the Forest game more than a month ago, so he was hardly likely to be straight back into the starting 11. Leaving Saganowski on the bench was a strange one, I'll give you that much. I speak on behalf of myself, as always. If the Echo have connected me with any group, they've done so incorrectly. Well I'm yet to see any evidence whatsoever apart from people on here saying "the manager's not picking the team I'd pick, therefore it's got to be Lowe picking it" - Wotte's been working with the younger players all season, so he's clearly going to have a mindset where he believes young players can perform at the level required. He said he wants to mix them with "more" experienced players, which doesn't in any way, shape or form say "we're going to have a majority of older players". Looking back through all of the starting lineups from this season, there's not been a single game where we've had as many over-30s in there as we did last night, with a 30- and 31-year-old also coming off the bench. Just because Wotte is a "cheap option", that doesn't mean that he isn't his own man. I'm 100% confident, until I see conclusive evidence to the contrary, he will pick the players he wants to pick without any "interference" from anyone.

I think that's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen written on this forum, and given some of the "characters", that's some feat.

He wasn't "in charge", but on the board, but it's still relevant IMO - he strongly opposed the sale of Gareth Bale to Spurs despite the player making it clear he wanted to go and despite the knowledge that we needed the money.

I said at the start of the season that if we stay up, I'd consider that a "success" in relative terms only, and I still stand by that. It's still not a "success" given that if we stay up by one place, it'll be our lowest league finish in 30-odd years (if not more), but considering we only stayed up by the skin of our teeth last season with a squad far stronger than our current one, if we replicate that "achievement", while seeing the financial situation improve, I'll be satisfied.

And yet when Crouch goes, it's "because he's a fan, he's one of us"? Sorry, but that's pure hypocrisy. Wilde had been going to games for a number of years before he got involved at boardroom level, Lowe clearly hadn't but it would be incredibly hard not to have built up some sort of affinity for the club after such a long period of "service", particularly when you consider how much the club has done for him.

And if that's true (which, personally, I don't believe, otherwise why would they have each attended numerous games when they WEREN'T in the boardroom, in the same way that Leon Crouch is doing currently), so what? The end target is still exactly the same, i.e. an improvement in the financial situation at SFC, regardless of whether their investment is all they care about. I would suggest that Crouch also cares quite a lot about his investment as well. £2m and he's not even got a guaranteed seat in the boardroom for that, and given that he's told the Echo that he doesn't have the £6m Lowe and Wilde have suggested he inject and then take their places, £2m is clearly still a lot of money to him.

How exactly do you suppose Lowe and Wilde (and Crouch, for that matter) save their own investments/skin/however you want to phrase it without the club improving? I'd be interested to hear any theories as to how they save themselves WITHOUT saving the club, and I'm sure the Financial Services Authority would also like to know.

Hilariously, and presumably said without a hint of irony or recognising his hypocrisy, Redknapp is now accusing Sunderland of tapping up Darren Bent

Well I now won't be going for reason stated above!

Probably quite a lot - after all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. In forty years time, there'll be hundreds of David Beckhams...

Mullins is a "bracing yourself for a promotion push" signing if ever I saw one