many many reasons so ill point to a minor one... using interchanges 2 minutes before half time.... oh and the boring rugby... too many reasons i reckon to actually type out.

Some would call you a cynic.



What's the alternative? We end up with a fan at the helm overspending and relying on rich fans to underwrite it. Sound familiar?



My god, what a position to be in.

Basically still balance sheet insolvent with reducing income

The Leeds comments were TIC. I think.



This season is new territory for the current board. Initially the objective was to get the business solvent. This was achieved through a combination of a strong pipeline of local talent, a coach with a love affair with the cup, the KC and massive latent support. The club has ridden the wave of 2005/6 and managed to sustain it way beyond what is reasonable, but now, finally, in 2011, the energy of past success and the club's PR machine is starting to dissipate and we're seeing a real drop off in crowds and probably sponsorship. Do they act? I think they have to.

On reflection, as well as the obvious current on the pitch performance and falling crowds, the development of our youth is as big an issue. Go back to the merger time and we had Cooke, Horne, Yeaman and King all debuting as teenagers, plus another group of players like Poucher, Shultz, Fletcher. The rate of churning out players capable of playing at SL level has definitedly stalled at FC since then. Saints, Leeds and Wigan had on average 11 homegrown players on show each this weekend. I would hope there is some challenge going on at board level on this sort of thing, but with the limited knowledge we have on our board, their peripheral interest in the sport would maybe lead you to guess it probably doesn't.

Just for 'future' reference...does anybody know how much the shareholders are asking for the club...I heard rumours there has been a couple of tentative enquires recently and they have placed a large price on the club...what was this price (in canadian dollars if you please...

)..

My 2 points were:

1. People were saying the loans hadn't been repaid

2. How had they been repaid? Was it a reduction in stock, conversion to shares, cash injection, increased borrowing from elsewhere or from generated profits?

I'm guessing you're saying from profits generated so I was really asking if the level of profitability was equivalent to the reduction in debt which I think you've confirmed. Looking at your figures though, creditors have fallen by over £1m. Have we generated that much profit? Or is there a way of repaying debt without borrowing from elsewhere or showing an equivalent profit?