stevegrant

Well that's the $64,000 question... I'd love us to be getting gates of 140,000 Er... on one hand you say that it's results on the pitch that matter to bring back the faith, and then on the other you say just having people in the ground would automatically bring results... There's not a cat in hell's chance 10,000 people will instantly rush through the turnstiles if/when Lowe leaves. We are 4th from bottom in the Championship. These days, too many people just simply don't want to watch football at that level, particularly not for the going rate of £24, regardless of who's sat in the boardroom.

About a mile. http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=romsey+rapids&sll=50.987612,-1.490235&sspn=0.018532,0.040684&ie=UTF8&ll=50.989246,-1.49075&spn=0.009266,0.020342&t=h&z=16

You're right that the debt scenario can't be sustained indefinitely. However, as far as I'm concerned, it's only the overdraft facility that is the real "problem" as the repayment of the loan notes on the stadium are fixed for 25 years (I guess nearer 20 now). That can be budgeted for (£2m per year or something to that effect), and unless we start to default on payments - which I'm pretty sure we haven't - Norwich Union would be in no real position to call in the loan. The overdraft is the main problem because it is reviewed annually and can be withdrawn by Barclays in May if they see fit, which would render it repayable immediately. Clear the £8m overdraft and the situation WILL be perfectly sustainable.

Yep, although I'm led to believe that the target average attendance was 17k. I think players would be leaving in January regardless of whether the position had weakened, stagnated or even strengthened slightly. Even an improvement on last year's projected figures (£13m operating loss) would most likely still see the club report another annual loss, which obviously still weakens the debt position. If the recent reports about £5m interest from Arsenal (and others) for Schneiderlin are true then that could be the one bit of business that saves our skin, IMO. From calculations I did a while back, I reckon the wage bill has been cut by £5m. Add that to a potential £5m transfer windfall just from that one sale (personally, I doubt we'd get that much, but would bite their hand off if it was actually offered!) and that has clawed back the vast majority of last year's operating loss. The problem in the bank's eyes, though, is almost certainly the "regular" income, i.e. gate receipts. There's only so long that they will accept a "firefighting" approach by the club while the regular and dependable income is slowly reducing match by match.

They also have a much bigger guaranteed revenue stream than us at the moment. The only way that will change is if this proposed takeover doesn't happen (and I've no reason to think that it will go through - they've had more supposed "talks" with investors than we have in the last few years!) and they end up having to flog anyone of any value in January/next summer. Then they'll be in real danger of joining us back in the Football League.

If the club were in administration, I would put serious money on Lowe and his City/WH Ireland chums coming up with the readies to buy 100% of the club for a pittance leaving him in total control. I'm sure you'd probably spontaneously combust just thinking about that possibility... A club with "regular" outgoings (i.e. not transfer fees) that are nearly double its "regular" income isn't going to be remotely attractive to any self-respecting businessman not already connected with the club. You seem to be under the impression that there are hundreds of multi-millionaires waiting in the wings to buy a substantial loss-making company just for a bit of an ego-trip. The prime opportunity for any such person to take over would have been two to three years ago when our income streams were still being supplemented by the Premier League's parachute payments as that allowed us to continue paying near-Premier League wages to the playing staff. Nobody with the right interests or the amount of money required would take a second look now.

About 3000, I think. Most season ticket holders renew under the March Madness/Early Bird/whatever you want to call it scheme as it's the cheapest way of doing it. Therefore, I am in slight agreement with NickG that last season's "performances" (and I use that word lightly) have had a pretty significant impact on this season's attendances. In March, we were probably at our lowest ebb, having been dumped out of the cup by Bristol Rovers and then that bloody awful Plymouth home game a few days later, which could easily have persuaded many that they might as well save themselves the best part of £400 and not bother renewing their season ticket. It would, of course, be wrong to use that as the sole reason though - there are simply so many possible reasons that, added together, have contributed to the decline.

As far as I'm aware, the bank were happy with the way things were being operated in terms of the cost-cutting, etc. However, the attendances are below what is required for those reduced costs to actually make a difference, so I suspect they'll be getting a bit twitchy again. I'd expect them to wait until after the end of January before deciding whether to actually do anything or not though.

No issue with giving the lad an extended trial, which this effectively is, but signing on the pitch before the Wolves game?? No thanks...

Not quite right. Also, some of the games in the quoted stats are cup games. Take out cup games and it looks a bit like this: P-W-D-L Gray 17-4-2-11 (two cup games against lower-league opposition) Sturrock 13-5-2-6 (no cup games) Wigley 16-1-8-7 (three cup games against lower-league opposition - also counted the two games of caretaker charge before Sturrock) Pearson 14-3-7-4 (no cup games) Poortvliet 16-4-4-8 (three cup games, two against lower-league opposition) In terms of points-per-game: Gray 0.82 Sturrock 1.31 Wigley 0.69 Pearson 1.14 Poortvliet 1.00 But as has been stated already, the circumstances at the time of each manager are so wildly different that none of those stats can used definitively to state whether any of them has the "best" record.

Of those quoted stats, only Sturrock has a better win percentage. Stats can generally be manipulated to prove any point

It could conceivably just be that they forgot to mention whatever ailment he may or may not have picked up before Saturday's game. I like a conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but I'll hold fire on this one, methinks...

Rasiak's contract expires in 2010. He signed a 4-year deal when his move from Spurs became permanent in the summer of 2006. FWIW, I agree with ART... we have an experienced player on our books who has played significant parts of his career as a striker in Jason Euell. He's not particularly prolific, but he certainly works hard and has the pace, strength and stamina to be a real asset in this division. It seems it's just a case of keeping him fit at the moment... For me, Euell was the main reason for McGoldrick's massive improvement in the Coventry game in terms of his workrate and running off the ball. He was providing DMG with an outlet when the ball was played up to him by getting forward very quickly to support him and often made runs beyond him which is always very difficult to defend against.

I would imagine it's not gone unnoticed at the club either, which would certainly explain why MS was rushed back to "fitness" in order to play at Swansea, where he clearly looked unfit. Unfortunately, an unfit MS is about as useful to us as a chocolate teapot, judging by his performance in that game, so I'm not surprised he's been left out of games where he's been rated as "doubtful". He does seem to pick up a lot of little niggles, which is something that's a bit concerning, particularly as they appear to affect his performances so much.

Oh, and updated stats: With MS: Played 12, Won 5 (Exeter CC, Derby, Birmingham CC, Doncaster, Preston), Drawn 2 (Ipswich, Coventry), Lost 5 (Cardiff, Birmingham, Blackpool, QPR, Swansea) %s: Win 42, Lose 42, Draw 16 Without MS: Played 7, Won 1 (Norwich) Drawn 2 (Barnsley, Sheffield United) Lost 4 (Rotherham, Coventry, Watford, Bristol City) %s: Win 14, Lose 57, Draw 29

And the rest. There's absolutely no way we paid the reported £1.2m for him.

I read on Football Ground Guide that the police had instructed pubs not to allow away fans into any pub anywhere near the ground. Whether they've extended that to the city centre as well, I don't know. Certainly, by the look of the layout of the away section outside the ground (with fences segregating it from the home sections either side), it seemed to me to be the "normal" thing for away fans to be penned in there. Surely those minibuses would have been independently hired as well? (the travel club would have gone direct to the ground anyway as usual) We stopped off at a pub just outside Bridgend as one of the lads organising the coach had been told about the "procedure" the police were likely to employ.

The only reason for the group stages in both the Champions (and second, third and fourth placed teams) League and the UEFA Cup is money. Simple as. If UEFA were at all interested in making the competition competitive, they'd scrap the group stages and have both cups as straight two-legged knockout competitions just like in the old days.

One important point to note from the whole "why aren't the banks passing on the interest rate cut to the consumer" debate: Only a couple of weeks ago, the banks were getting slated for lending too much too cheaply in recent years, which has contributed to the "credit crunch" period we're now going through. Now they're getting slated for making a more realistic assessment of the lending risk which involves not passing all of the 1.5% base rate reduction. Surely we can't have it both ways?

If they treat all coaches/minibuses the same then I don't have a particular problem with it (the coach I was on was also subjected to it). The police in Swansea have come up with this fairly draconian method of dealing with away coaches/minibuses presumably with the intention of reducing the number of public order problems. While, as I say, it seems fairly draconian, if it achieves their aim(s) then they'll see it as a good job well done.

My favourite is Milkybar and custard. Bloody lovely.

A huge amount of NR's customer base would fall into the "sub-prime" and "over-extended" brackets. When I was first getting on the property ladder, they were offering me up to 125% of the value of the property at the age of 22. With those sort of deals floating around all over the place at the time, it's hardly surprising loads of people are struggling to afford to either repay or to move elsewhere because they're now in massive negative equity (and of course many of those people will have taken out interest-only mortgages in the misguided belief that house prices would never fall). I eventually went for a similar offer with Coventry BS. In hindsight, a good decision!!

I spoke to Leighton Mitchell about this this morning. Essentially it's not about not being bothered or not believing they'd raise much money etc. It comes down to not having the staff to run it. Because they have alway run the auction in-house, that basically means that at least one member of staff has to be dedicated to running it from an administrative point of view. That person has to continually check each of the auctions for rogue bids (of which there are many more than genuine ones, sadly), field various queries relating to the auctions, and then attempt to contact the winning bidders to arrange payment and postage/collection. I know that ebay offer discounts/refunds on listings that donate a portion (or all) of the proceeds to charity, so I have suggested that it could still be run through that with very little administrative or financial burden. I'm waiting to hear back on that idea... It's worth pointing out that the vast majority of other clubs don't do anything like this, and apparently SFC has raised the most money for the RBL in the last 3 years (more than £20k) out of all of the Premier League and Football League clubs.

Likewise, although only for another 3 years. However, I'm not too fussed. I know exactly what I'm going to be paying on my mortgage for that time, and don't have to adjust my spending habits accordingly.

Also, I suspect any sell-on clause would be based on any profit made on the transfer. If Bridge does move to Man City for the reported £7m, that's the same price that we sold at, therefore zero profit.