I'm ready to be raped from behind by Owlstalk and Strafford but..

[markowl]

All you've done so far is assume selectively and wildly to fit some vaguely defined preconceived ideas. It's easy - look :

If we hadn't let Barry Corr go, I'm confident he would have scored 47 goals the next season as we set a league record in winning all 46 games with a goal difference of +129. Moet paid us for the privilege of stocking their product, Alex Ferguson resigned in hopelessness at the task of trying to stop us marching to absolute domination, David Hirst was given a peerage and Kenny Lunt even managed to be noticed in a game.

Oh come on, now you're just being ridiculous!

[brian joicey]

What do people think of encouraging each fan to chuck a fiver (two pints) into the pot next week (should get us £75,000) if 15,000 turn up, we could then ask all the directors(as a body) to match this - giving a pot of £150,000 - this should secure Alan a couple decent loan signings for the next eight weeks.

Thoughts?

" i'd do anything........" (sing along) Edited March 1, 2010 by brian joicey

[Hawkeye]

Oh dear.

Yes DA loaned money back to the club. note the word "loaned". Which means it has to be paid back. And isnt it a sticking point in subsequent investment talks?

Under DA, i agree we were helped by his hard nosed attitude. He made some tough decisions, stuck by them and generally, they came off in the end (the sacking of sturrock being one). However, he is not the man i would want at the helm of this football club. It is only now starting to become "fan friendly" again, and im sorry but any chairman who sues his own fans for making comments on a forum has pretty much sealed his own fate.

I also recall that a lot of signings were made as a direct result of selling our assets, like Brunt, Bougherra and Whelan. We dont have the luxury of having equally sellable assets with firm cash offers on the table, so thats gone. And when we did, the fans came on here and said they thought it would be a mistake to sell our best players.

You really cant have your cake and eat it im afraid. Under LS i feel we have our best chance of moving forward, but from a playing front, we've spent our money, made our signings and the facts are they didnt pay off. Thats how it goes.

[ratboy]

I think its been shown that this "out of his back pocket" were in fact LOANS to the club, the majority of which attracted interest at rates better than he could get elsewhere.

Why should Lee dip into his own pocket whilst others are on the board not seemingly doing a great deal, Like they say a problem shared is a problem halved.

What do people think of encouraging each fan to chuck a fiver (two pints) into the pot next week (should get us £75,000) if 15,000 turn up, we could then ask all the directors(as a body) to match this - giving a pot of £150,000 - this should secure Alan a couple decent loan signings for the next eight weeks.

Thoughts?

What about the shower of a side we have at the moment giving back say 2 weeks wages to show they actually care a bit.

Good idea though pahowl

[Mikes]

Allen would have gone into his own back pocket for funding.

Something is a matter here, before we could pull off loans such as Carson and Ben Sahar and Songo'o.

If we desperately needed a signing, Allen would dip in his own account for money for this club.

And my bloody giddy aunt did we pull off some cracking signings!

So now why can't we do this?

We have 'no money', okay, i get that, but why are we wasting money on Soares/Nolan/Varney/Feeney when their could be some hidden talents somewhere.

Lee isn't telling us the full story here, we're in a worser poo poo pan then we actually though of and i for one am worried.

I'm not asking Strafford to fund signings, i know he's here and getting no money from it and all that testicles (sorry, don't take offence, i'm just sick and tired of the same old tripe) but something isn't right here.

Allen worth 50/60/70/80m (depending on what you believe)

Strafford 3.something million.

not hard is it.

[owlsdreamer]

Allen worth 50/60/70/80m (depending on what you believe)

Strafford 3.something million.

not hard is it. Majority of fans who havn't 2 brass farthings in comparrison but expected to stump up for CC football S/T when in reality we are going to be playing 3rd tier football.

[Strewthbury Owl]

grumble grumble grumble...

[big john]

Purely because we're playing the guess who game.

Under who's chairmanship was it that we didn't take the gamble?

Does he have grey hair?

[Guest billsaja]

Dave Allen is a piece of turd for suing the fans, no question, no argument can POSSIBLY be made against that. There are also several other things that he did that may not be quite so public that are almost as bad.

But honestly drop the attacks about the loans here, enough is enough, the rate he charged is absolutely fair and in line with what a business in our situation would expect to pay, so all this crap about them being 2.5% above LIBOR (please, anyone, go and try and get a loan at LIBOR, it is the rate banks charge one another FFS, it stands for London Interbank Overnight Rate). This is just backed up by the fact we have repeatedly defaulted on the repayments - actually he was the mug for lending at such a low rate. There are several governments in stable countries who cannot borrow at the same LIBOR+ rate as we got back then.

So Allen, turd (or for Anglofile, ****** bag?) absolutely. Ripping off the club with his loans, not at all.

I will equally defend either position - anyone who thinks Allen was on balance a good Chairman, I will argue forever that he tore apart any notion when he took on the lifeblood of the club (it's fans - though forget the cretin thing, LS has called more genuine fans far worse on here) but equally if anyone thinks that SWFC could have borrowed that sum of money with that little security at a better rate back then, I will call BS just the same.

[kingsidney]

there is no black and white here, Allen wasn't all bad just as Strafford isnt all good. its all just shades of grey.

[vulva]

Dave Allen is a piece of turd for suing the fans, no question, no argument can POSSIBLY be made against that. There are also several other things that he did that may not be quite so public that are almost as bad.

But honestly drop the attacks about the loans here, enough is enough, the rate he charged is absolutely fair and in line with what a business in our situation would expect to pay, so all this crap about them being 2.5% above LIBOR (please, anyone, go and try and get a loan at LIBOR, it is the rate banks charge one another FFS, it stands for London Interbank Overnight Rate). This is just backed up by the fact we have repeatedly defaulted on the repayments - actually he was the mug for lending at such a low rate. There are several governments in stable countries who cannot borrow at the same LIBOR+ rate as we got back then.

So Allen, turd (or for Anglofile, ****** bag?) absolutely. Ripping off the club with his loans, not at all.

I will equally defend either position - anyone who thinks Allen was on balance a good Chairman, I will argue forever that he tore apart any notion when he took on the lifeblood of the club (it's fans - though forget the cretin thing, LS has called more genuine fans far worse on here) but equally if anyone thinks that SWFC could have borrowed that sum of money with that little security at a better rate back then, I will call BS just the same.

That's the best post you've put on here.

I for one would take a loan from someone at that rate now, in an attempt to get us out of relegation.

I wasn't aware we had defaulted though - what are the possible implications of this?