saga in for united game?

[eelpie]

apols for double post

[up and away]

****-up or conspiracy, it's one or the other. Either way it's poor management again.

 

Either way, what is the point for a one off cup game. Exactly what significance will this have? If we can afford him we can have him ready for the important games, if we can't afford him we shall just have to wait until no one else wants him.

[NickG]

by either way guess he doesn't mean one of the ways being that it didn't get processed by Allborg and UEFA in time!

[Gorgiesaint]

1. If you have a Jag in your garage, but only £200 to spend this month, do you buy food or go and spend the afternoon thrashing it round Silverstone becuase it's a shame to leave it in the garage.

No you get it out and advertise it for sale - as we could by playing Saga

 

2. There are no points at stake here. Saga playing is not going to affect the outcome of the Man Utd game.Not much point turning up tomorrow then.... (actually you might be right:D)

 

3. Of course it makes sense financially not to play him. Even if we do still pay 65% of wages, that's 35% saved on what we'd pay if he played.Don't think we know enough about the figures to comment on this, but if we can afford him then he should play IMO

 

4. I don't see the Man Utd game as a shopping window for our players. How many Barnsley players were snapped up by Prem sides after they beat Chelsea and Liverpool? If someone wants to take Saga on loan, chances are they will have seen him play enough already or will take him on trial. Nodoby makes up their mind based on 1 games.Poor analogy - this game was in March with the transfer window shut

 

5. Who ever plays up front against Utd looks set for a pretty boring afternoon. How many chances do you think Utd's defence are really going to give us?See the response to point 2

 

Well there's no point in playing our first team, lets just put out the worst 11 that we've got & wait for Man U to get bored at 4-0 up after 10 mins and have a training session for the remaining 80 mins.

 

FFS its the FA cup - who thought Barnsley would beat Livepool & Chelsea last year, Hartlepool would beat Stoke - I know its a long shot but thats why we support Saints rather than being a plastic glory-hunting Man U fan!!

[Minsk]

Either way, what is the point for a one off cup game. Exactly what significance will this have? If we can afford him we can have him ready for the important games, if we can't afford him we shall just have to wait until no one else wants him.

 

Why is it pointless to have our ONLY international fwd available for this match?

 

Personally I feel he would be likely to score than DMG, Paterson or BWP. Imagine if we were to get a replay at OT? How much would THAT pay day help us? Or better still, what if we were to win and get another big team in the next round?

 

No, it's clearly best to play our under 14's as they are cheaper and no matter we put on the field we will lose anyway. After all there are never any shocks in the cup are there? Forest didn't win away at City today and we didn't really beat ManUre in '76 despite them being one the best teams around at the time and us wallowing in the second tier of English football. FFS!!

[Minsk]

by either way guess he doesn't mean one of the ways being that it didn't get processed by Allborg and UEFA in time!

 

What is it with this 'processed' business. All it takes is a fax. A

 

llborg haven't had a game for weeks now. The fax could have easily been prepared well in advance. How difficult is it for a no mark office worker to go send a fax at any time on the 1st Jan? Believe it or not many people do have to go into work on that day of the year. I'm pretty sure sending one fax would not have stopped anyone enjoying their new year celebration.

 

I will say it again, if the club had really wanted Saga available they would have done everything possible for UEFA to have received this fax. And if the fax had not been sent on time, as agreed/requested, they should be seeking reasons why/compensation from Allborg for failing to send it.

 

If this had been a Utd player and Fergie had wanted him available what do you think would have happened? He would be screaming from the rooftops about it. What do we get? Oh, Allborg never sent his registration in time. Oh dear, never mind.

 

It really is quite laughable how some people accept incompetance, or downright lies, from the directors of SFC and sit there backing them to the hilt.

[alpine_saint]

What is it with this 'processed' business. All it takes is a fax. A

 

llborg haven't had a game for weeks now. The fax could have easily been prepared well in advance. How difficult is it for a no mark office worker to go send a fax at any time on the 1st Jan? Believe it or not many people do have to go into work on that day of the year. I'm pretty sure sending one fax would not have stopped anyone enjoying their new year celebration.

 

I will say it again, if the club had really wanted Saga available they would have done everything possible for UEFA to have received this fax. And if the fax had not been sent on time, as agreed/requested, they should be seeking reasons why/compensation from Allborg for failing to send it.

 

If this had been a Utd player and Fergie had wanted him available what do you think would have happened? He would be screaming from the rooftops about it. What do we get? Oh, Allborg never sent his registration in time. Oh dear, never mind.

 

It really is quite laughable how some people accept incompetance, or downright lies, from the directors of SFC and sit there backing them to the hilt.

 

Spot on. It's embarrassing...

[Arizona]

1. If you have a Jag in your garage, but only £200 to spend this month, do you buy food or go and spend the afternoon thrashing it round Silverstone becuase it's a shame to leave it in the garage.

No you get it out and advertise it for sale - as we could by playing Saga

 

You put a message in the local paper with a big for sale sign, an ad in autotrader and put a poster up in the office canteen. You wouldn't just drive it round the village a couple of time and hope someone runs up and makes an offer.

 

2. There are no points at stake here. Saga playing is not going to affect the outcome of the Man Utd game.Not much point turning up tomorrow then.... (actually you might be right)

 

Not what I am saying; yes we will give it our best shot tomorrow, but from a financial sense it makes no sense playing Saga.

 

3. Of course it makes sense financially not to play him. Even if we do still pay 65% of wages, that's 35% saved on what we'd pay if he played. Don't think we know enough about the figures to comment on this, but if we can afford him then he should play IMO

 

If 99% of Saga's pay is in a weekly wage, with 1% as appearance fees, then it still makes financial sense not to play him.

 

4. I don't see the Man Utd game as a shopping window for our players. How many Barnsley players were snapped up by Prem sides after they beat Chelsea and Liverpool? If someone wants to take Saga on loan, chances are they will have seen him play enough already or will take him on trial. Nodoby makes up their mind based on 1 games. Poor analogy - this game was in March with the transfer window shut

 

And we have since had the summer transfer window when anyone interested in Barnsley players would have snapped them up. If someone had wanted their players, they wouldn't have given up just because the transfer window doesn't open for another 6 weeks.

 

5. Who ever plays up front against Utd looks set for a pretty boring afternoon. How many chances do you think Utd's defence are really going to give us? See the response to point 2

 

I repeat. Who ever plays up front against Utd looks set for a pretty boring afternoon. I mean seriously, do you expect our strikers to be tearing Utd appart. Please no more pointless analogies about no point in turning up. Even IF we beat Utd, it's not going to be a "total football" goalfest.

 

 

Well there's no point in playing our first team, lets just put out the worst 11 that we've got & wait for Man U to get bored at 4-0 up after 10 mins and have a training session for the remaining 80 mins.

 

FFS its the FA cup - who thought Barnsley would beat Livepool & Chelsea last year, Hartlepool would beat Stoke - I know its a long shot but thats why we support Saints rather than being a plastic glory-hunting Man U fan!!

 

 

Aggghhh, sh*t I wrote the last paragraph before I read this.

 

Ok... no more pointless analogies about no point in turning up... starting... Now!

[um pahars]

Either way, what is the point for a one off cup game. Exactly what significance will this have?

 

A one off cup game where a draw could bring in somewhere between half and one million pounds.

 

Even with your dodgy view on finances, I would have thought that might be worth giving it our best shot (in fact if we're one up with a 30 seconds to go, I might even advocate an OG).

[Whitey Grandad]

A one off cup game where a draw could bring in somewhere between half and one million pounds.

 

Even with your dodgy view on finances, I would have thought that might be worth giving it our best shot (in fact if we're one up with a 30 seconds to go, I might even advocate an OG).

Exactly! If the club really wanted him to play then they could have made sure that his clearance was released in good time. He's an expensive asset and we should be using him.

[ART]

And if the manager and club wanted to hoodwink United into thinking we'll be a pushover what better way than to suddenly spring Saganowski's inclusion in the side at the last minute!

[trousers]

And if the manager and club wanted to hoodwink United into thinking we'll be a pushover what better way than to suddenly spring Saganowski's inclusion in the side at the last minute!

Far too clever for our club

[trousers]

thought it was Allborg who had to send the forms in time?

Correct. An event lowe could have influenced had he chosen to do so. He is a shrewd business man who can pull the right strings when he wants to...

[H]

Another possibility that nobody seems to have considered yet ... perhaps Saga is responsible for this mess?

 

Perhaps he's enjoyed playing in the Champions League, enjoyed Christmas with his family, doesn't fancy coming back (lets face it ... who could blame him at the moment ) and is currently awol in an effort to make sure we move him on?

 

If this were the case, would it not be beyond the realms of possibility that the club might want to cover this up (with some international clearance style smoke-screen), in the short-term at least, just in case he had no takers and ended up back here?

 

Sorry to disappoint all you 'doom and gloomers' with this effort ... I know that it is now mandatory that all conspiracy theories must directly implicate Rupes, JP or 'the club' but I thought I might just chance my arm anyway ...

[up and away]

A one off cup game where a draw could bring in somewhere between half and one million pounds.

 

Even with your dodgy view on finances, I would have thought that might be worth giving it our best shot (in fact if we're one up with a 30 seconds to go, I might even advocate an OG).

 

There is dumb and there is dumb. You seriously believe that Saga is the difference between us getting a replay? Whereas in 2 recent games against ManU he had no effect?

[SaintRobbie]

Correct. An event lowe could have influenced had he chosen to do so. He is a shrewd business man who can pull the right strings when he wants to...

 

You know I still seek evidence that shows me Lowe is a shrewd businessman. I have NEVER seen any. Honestly, never seen any evidence that backs this assumption up.

[um pahars]

There is dumb and there is dumb. You seriously believe that Saga is the difference between us getting a replay? Whereas in 2 recent games against ManU he had no effect?

 

Dear Mr 50% & 75% man:rolleyes:,

 

Nothing in football is guaranteed, but very often the better the calibre of players you put out, the better the results they are likely to produce.

 

We go in to the game as massive underdogs, without much of a chance, but at the same time we do have a chance.

 

Given the weakness of our defence, I'm guessing we will need to score to earn a draw and given our lack of goals scored, I would have thought it would have made sense to have a talented striker like Saga somewhere in the squad.

 

You carry on waffling away Mr dinlo,

 

Regards

 

Dumb Pahars

 

(Feel free to regale us with your tales of the 75% voting process at EGM & AGM's:smt044:smt044)

[up and away]

Originally Posted by up and away

There is dumb and there is dumb. You seriously believe that Saga is the difference between us getting a replay? Whereas in 2 recent games against ManU he had no effect?

Dear Mr 50% & 75% man:rolleyes:,

 

Nothing in football is guaranteed, but very often the better the calibre of players you put out, the better the results they are likely to produce.

 

We go in to the game as massive underdogs, without much of a chance, but at the same time we do have a chance.

 

Given the weakness of our defence, I'm guessing we will need to score to earn a draw and given our lack of goals scored, I would have thought it would have made sense to have a talented striker like Saga somewhere in the squad.

 

You carry on waffling away Mr dinlo,

 

Regards

 

Dumb Pahars

 

(Feel free to regale us with your tales of the 75% voting process at EGM & AGM's:smt044:smt044)

 

All of a sudden Saga takes on Drogba like credentials because he is not available to play. Impervious to the fact that he did not put a dent in ManU on 2 recent encounters, you must think it 3rd time lucky with a team that has never even played in the Champions League? More to the point is your myopic view that you can hang this round Lowe's neck as the crime of the century. I am sure if they held your god like view of Saga that he would be available. Maybe others on the football side do not share your view, or that if we were to play Saga, we could not off load him to another club? Either way, Saga missing this game cannot be factored in as anything other than having a remote possibility of improving our situation. Just as with your assertions with Poortvliets c.v. on the OS, reality and common sense just take second place to your misguided idiocy, irrespective of who it harms.

[um pahars]

All of a sudden Saga takes on Drogba like credentials because he is not available to play.

 

You really do talk some rubbish. In the line up, I'd have you just behind Sundance and slightly ahead of SOG.

 

You're making a rather enormous leap to go from suggesting we should be looking to play our best players to then claim I'm suggesting he is Drogbaesque.

 

But then again, if it makes you happy, you keep making things up. After, it's not stopped ou in the past with the drivel you usually come out with.

 

 

More to the point is your myopic view that you can hang this round Lowe's neck as the crime of the century. I am sure if they held your god like view of Saga that he would be available. Maybe others on the football side do not share your view, or that if we were to play Saga, we could not off load him to another club?

 

Once again, let's phone Drama Queens Are Us.:rolleyes:

 

I've never suggested it was Lowe's fault, nor did I view it as crime of the century.

 

But as befire if you want to make things up then you just carry right on:confused:

 

Either way, Saga missing this game cannot be factored in as anything other than having a remote possibility of improving our situation.

 

Remote?, a 1% improvement?, an outside chance?, of course it's all of them. But given the sums involved, given the situation we find ourselves in and given we never looked like scoring, I would have thought it would have been worth a shout having him in the squad.

 

Just as with your assertions with Poortvliets c.v. on the OS, reality and common sense just take second place to your misguided idiocy, irrespective of who it harms .

 

As was proved at the time, the CV put up on the OS was full of holes. Now if you want to believe it, or include it in your little world of made up stuff and make beilieve then that's entirely up to you.

 

I don't think you have ever posted something with regards the financial side that has ever been correct, you showed yourself up with regards the 75% voting at an EGM (conveniently glossed over - again) and now your footballing opinions have been found wanting.

 

Dinlo me up.:rolleyes:

[up and away]

Originally Posted by up and away

All of a sudden Saga takes on Drogba like credentials because he is not available to play.

You really do talk some rubbish. In the line up, I'd have you just behind Sundance and slightly ahead of SOG.

 

You're making a rather enormous leap to go from suggesting we should be looking to play our best players to then claim I'm suggesting he is Drogbaesque.

 

But then again, if it makes you happy, you keep making things up. After, it's not stopped ou in the past with the drivel you usually come out with.

 

Well what is all the fuss about? In the grand scheme of things this does not even get to molehill status

 

Originally Posted by up and away

More to the point is your myopic view that you can hang this round Lowe's neck as the crime of the century. I am sure if they held your god like view of Saga that he would be available. Maybe others on the football side do not share your view, or that if we were to play Saga, we could not off load him to another club?

Once again, let's phone Drama Queens Are Us

 

I've never suggested it was Lowe's fault, nor did I view it as crime of the century.

 

But as befire if you want to make things up then you just carry right on

 

Please, don’t come over all shy and innocent. Even when the opposite is true you still manage the “no smoke without fire” routine. Do you seriously believe you can be anywhere near impartial where Lowe is concerned? Cast your mind back to all that ****** you were putting out in support of Wilde, only to suddenly start eating your tail when he sided with Lowe. Without Lowe you have no point of existence, one valid argument for getting rid of him though.

 

Originally Posted by up and away

Either way, Saga missing this game cannot be factored in as anything other than having a remote possibility of improving our situation.

Remote?, a 1% improvement?, an outside chance?, of course it's all of them. But given the sums involved, given the situation we find ourselves in and given we never looked like scoring, I would have thought it would have been worth a shout having him in the squad.

 

You have no idea if it would be an improvement, equally I have no idea it would be worse. If we need to get him off our books he will not be played until the window is over if that blocks a move. Whether that is the case or not will have to be seen. But in the grand scheme of things this season, Saga being available for a cup match is a non-entity. If we can get to use him, all well and good, but this cup game is nowhere near a priority.

 

Originally Posted by up and away

Just as with your assertions with Poortvliets c.v. on the OS, reality and common sense just take second place to your misguided idiocy, irrespective of who it harms .

As was proved at the time, the CV put up on the OS was full of holes. Now if you want to believe it, or include it in your little world of made up stuff and make beilieve then that's entirely up to you.

Who do you think put that up on the OS in case you did not know? It was not Lowe or Wilde but some other lackey eager to please. So it was not 100%, where exactly in the scale of things does that fit, again not able to make molehill status. But what do we get? some muppet claiming the biggest hidden agenda since Watergate, get real FFS.

[um pahars]

Well what is all the fuss about? In the grand scheme of things this does not even get to molehill status

 

 

You're the one making it in to a mountain by going in to drama queen mode and falsely claiming people were comparing him to Drogba.

 

Many others have made a valid point that for such an important game we really should be looking to give ourselves the best possible chance by ensuring the manager has the best squad to pick from.

 

Please, don’t come over all shy and innocent. Even when the opposite is true you still manage the “no smoke without fire” routine.

 

I have no idea why you are bringing this back to Lowe. Lowe has not been mentioned in my posts on this matter and if anything I have been looking towards either incompetence on the secretarial side (hence my mention of Liz Coley) or the fact that the OS is being economical with the truth.

 

You seem to be fighting those windmills again Mr Quixote.

 

You have no idea if it would be an improvement, equally I have no idea it would be worse. If we need to get him off our books he will not be played until the window is over if that blocks a move. Whether that is the case or not will have to be seen. But in the grand scheme of things this season, Saga being available for a cup match is a non-entity. If we can get to use him, all well and good, but this cup game is nowhere near a priority.

 

I very much doubt you would find one person who would not think that Saga would be an improvement over what we have had up front recently.

 

Of course there are no gaurantees that he would hit the ground running, but he is certainly better than our current attacking options. As was proved once again today when we were totally lacklustre up front and actually lost one of our front players due to their naivety.

 

So if he is to be playing next weekend against Barnsley, then maybe someone should have got their finger out and not deprived us of arguably our best player for this match.

 

Now of course if he is not playing next Saturday and we are looking to ship him out again, then I would prefer it if the Club told the fans the honest position and not spin us the line that "we are waiting for clearance to come through".

 

And of course the third option could well be that someone other than us has been dragging their heels (something I also asked n an earlier post, but obviously missed by you, then again you're not very good on details or facts).

 

As for this match being a non entity, well a replay would have been worth upwards of half a million, something which appears lost on you.

 

Who do you think put that up on the OS in case you did not know? It was not Lowe or Wilde but some other lackey eager to please. So it was not 100%, where exactly in the scale of things does that fit, again not able to make molehill status. But what do we get? some muppet claiming the biggest hidden agenda since Watergate, get real FFS.

 

Once again, in a vain attempt to deflect the issue away from your weak argument, you engage in the drama queen mode and start making up things that were never there in the first place.

 

Lowe has never been mentioned by me, nor do I think there is the biggest hidden agenda since watergate. Instead I, and others, merely suggested that someone had either made a mistake (inside or outside of SFC) or that someone was covering things up.

 

By golly, I even put loads of ?????? at the end of many of my posts as I myself was not 100% aware of what was going on and wondered what others were thinking, or if others could shed some light on things.

 

HTH

 

PS You've glossed over the 75% bit again LOL

[Arizona]

I think Um, there are two ways of looking at it.

 

The first is the sensible way, which is that for a game against a team like Utd you want as many of your top players playing as possible. That would include Saganowski, which means it is annoying that he wasn't available... for whatever reasons.

 

The second is Lowe's way of thinking. We get a cash bonanza from a home cup tie against Man Utd, but we will almost certainly lose whoever plays. Therefore it makes no sense to be playing anyone who is on any kind of match bonus, i.e. Saga, when it is cheaper to play someone like Paterson.

 

Obviously it's Lowe who calls the shots, which is why scenario B has unfolded and Saga was mysteriously unavailable to play.

[um pahars]

I think Um, there are two ways of looking at it.

 

The first is the sensible way, which is that for a game against a team like Utd you want as many of your top players playing as possible. That would include Saganowski, which means it is annoying that he wasn't available... for whatever reasons.

 

The second is Lowe's way of thinking. We get a cash bonanza from a home cup tie against Man Utd, but we will almost certainly lose whoever plays. Therefore it makes no sense to be playing anyone who is on any kind of match bonus, i.e. Saga, when it is cheaper to play someone like Paterson.

 

Obviously it's Lowe who calls the shots, which is why scenario B has unfolded and Saga was mysteriously unavailable to play.

 

If that was indeed the case, then although I don't think it is the right decision (in that I would have gambled on paying an appearance fee given the potential income of a replay - or victory) I could accept that. After all, the man in the hot seat makes these calls and will stand or fall by them.

 

But if indeed that was the case, then let's be honest and not claim international clearance hasn't come through.

[SaintRobbie]

 

But if indeed that was the case, then let's be honest and not claim international clearance hasn't come through.

 

That has always been Lowe's greatest failure in my book. You are absolutely right. If only he'd take time to talk to us and explain the problems clearly he might bring people with him... but he couldnt even do it at the AGM.

 

I notice as well today he has stopped doing the Chairman bit in the programmes... I suspect he hasnt since returning, hadnt really noticed before.

 

Why's he hiding from accountability? Why is he hiding??????

Edited 4 January, 2009 by SaintRobbie

[um pahars]

Now of course if he is not playing next Saturday and we are looking to ship him out again, then I would prefer it if the Club told the fans the honest position and not spin us the line that "we are waiting for clearance to come through".

 

I was going to post an "Is Saga free to play Saturday Thread???", but it looks as though the Echo have cleared up the matter, and as I thought the OS has been economical with the truth (once again).

 

I have no problem with the dilemna the Echo sets out that the Club are facing (personally if we're not looking to bring anyone else in, then I would try and keep Saga for the rest of the season, but I can also see the other side of the argument), BUT why did they have to lie and dress it up with "the paperwork hasn't come through?".

 

Treat the fans with contempt and it will soon blow up in your face.

 

How about trying to be honest with them for a change?

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4022102.Saints_in_quandary_over_Saganowski/

[Harry Faz]

I was going to post an "Is Saga free to play Saturday Thread???", but it looks as though the Echo have cleared up the matter, and as I thought the OS has been economical with the truth (once again).

 

I have no problem with the dilemna the Echo sets out that the Club are facing (personally if we're not looking to bring anyone else in, then I would try and keep Saga for the rest of the season, but I can also see the other side of the argument), BUT why did they have to lie and dress it up with "the paperwork hasn't come through?".

 

Treat the fans with contempt and it will soon blow up in your face.

 

How about trying to be honest with them for a change?

 

Exactly - once again the OS and the club have not been honest with the fans. The saga issue is relatively small issue in the scheme of things - but it is very symbolic of what is happening at st marys.

 

I pay for my season ticket and for other games because this is my club and my team. Im not a customer in the same way that im a customer of Tesco etc, i have an emotional tie to the club. Each time they 'spin' / bullsh1t me , it takes me one more step closer to giving up on the whole thing. I understand we have no money, I understand that playing Saga could have cost us money we couldnt afford , but why not just be honest about it - its the least we deserve, and whats to gain by not telling the truth? More and more SFC dont feel like my club anymore.

[up and away]

I was going to post an "Is Saga free to play Saturday Thread???", but it looks as though the Echo have cleared up the matter, and as I thought the OS has been economical with the truth (once again).

 

I have no problem with the dilemna the Echo sets out that the Club are facing (personally if we're not looking to bring anyone else in, then I would try and keep Saga for the rest of the season, but I can also see the other side of the argument), BUT why did they have to lie and dress it up with "the paperwork hasn't come through?".

 

Treat the fans with contempt and it will soon blow up in your face.

 

How about trying to be honest with them for a change?

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4022102.Saints_in_quandary_over_Saganowski/

 

God almighty. WE have the whole of London burning and you are arguing whether it was started in a chip pan or a cigarette!

 

We have known since the start of the season we cannot afford Saga, nothing has improved in fact the opposite, so why exactly do you believe anything will be different? Jan would obviously like the opportunity to try him out and the bank want him sold, again nothing new. Just to avoid you any more drama and confusion the club will be looking to sell / loan Saga onto another club. If we have no interest from abroad or any one in England looking to buy him, we may get lucky and even be able to use him before the window ends. The bank will have a big influence in this decision and we will just have to hope we are lucky whatever the outcome. We are no longer masters of our own destiny, we forfeited that option when we ****ed everything against the wall, but that did not fit your agenda.

 

Just remind me what your opinion at the time was over the OS putting out the rebuff to agreeing to take a hit on the Walcott deal to get us out of the mire? I have heard you state several times that Crouch did not specifically say we had not been looking at doing a deal. Bearing in mind your recent attempts to clear up OS indiscretions, I would have imagined you would have filled your boots on this one? but not a whimper, just Crouch never really said that!

 

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=9816

Saints have knocked back reports that they have approached Arsenal to try and to reach an early cash settlement on the Theo Walcott deal in order to head off administration. The club have strongly denied suggestions in a national newspaper that they have exceeded their overdraft limit and are under pressure from the bank. Chairman Leon Crouch said: "There is a lot we would like to say in response to this story but unfortunately we have been placed in an offer period by the Stock Exchange who insist that we remain in it and whose rules therefore prevent us from talking about financial matters. "What we can say is that Barclays continue to be supportive and we have a positive relationship with them. "Like all clubs we have an overdraft facility but we have certainly not exceeded our limit despite this kind of scaremongering which has many inaccuracies and which does the club no good at all."