• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Alan McCormack - Why not sold?

Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
10,113
Location
Wixams
This has been going round in my head. When we rejected Millwall's 200k bid, I genuinly stopped worrying about the widding up order as I thought we must have the money to pay.

If (as it clearly seems we do not) have the cash, why was he not sold? Administrators will ensure any valuable assets are sold (at cut prices) to meet debt.

200k was a really good price for a player of Macca's ability. In my opinion he is having his quietiest season for us to date (I don't want to say worst, but he has not been the Macca we grew to love). Centre Mid is the only position we could potentially lose a player, with Grant, JFC, MOUSSA and Sawyer (speaking as regards to when the bid was made).

So why not sold???

Bottow line in it all, Macca is not worth 10 points (on his own) over the course of the season.

This is not slating Macca, or the club really, but has anyone else thought accepting this would have really made sense?

Rejecting it makes me think we must be more than 200k short of the money we need....
 
When I read they had bid £200k for Macca I thought wow, we must be able to pay off the winding up order. £200k is a lot for him, more than he's worth in my opinion, and I can't understand why we didn't sell him, maybe the club expected another source of income or something but they must have been pretty sure if they rejected that unless TBS is right and it was a case of Macca saying no rather than Ron
 
thing is 200k wouldn't have done a lot of good when we need 2.1 million, thats the only logically reason i can think off. or that ron martin really is that dumb.
 
Macca could have been sold for a tidy profit and we had a ready made replacement in a then happy Sawyer. I personally love Macca but the safety of the club is the upmost priority.
 
Macca could have been sold for a tidy profit and we had a ready made replacement in a then happy Sawyer. I personally love Macca but the safety of the club is the upmost priority.

I dont think Ron Martin ever believed we would be in a position to have to sell players.

My guess is that he expected to get a cash injection from Sainsburys and a reprieve from the HMRC for long enough for him to pay it off.

I think the whole issue is that they want paying sooner than he expected to.

As for Sawyer, we had a replacement who may then have gone at Christmas leaving us even shorter on numbers than before.
 
What would be the point in publishing a made up story?

...and especially one that could have been so easily (and embarrassingly) disproved at a moment's notice by the other party if it were untrue. With the media/internet as it is, Millwall would certainly have been aware of our claims and made no move to deny our statements.
 
I still don't believe the bid was ever made, personally.

I think OBL is right- speaking to a Millwall supporter I work with, he believes that the Millwall slant was they had enquired about Macca, but were given a too higher price for their liking and didn't pursue it.
 
I think OBL is right- speaking to a Millwall supporter I work with, he believes that the Millwall slant was they had enquired about Macca, but were given a too higher price for their liking and didn't pursue it.

So basically, the truth was twisted.
 
thing is 200k wouldn't have done a lot of good when we need 2.1 million, thats the only logically reason i can think off. or that ron martin really is that dumb.

We don't need £2.1 million now. We need £690.000. The difference, or a portion thereof, between £2.1 million and £690.000 is what will become due in the future as the deadline for payments relating to previous time periods come and go.

My guess is that RM gambled on having the revised plans for the new stadium approved first time the council met to discuss them, that Sainsbury's would have then been guaranteed their land at Roots Hall and subsequently released funding for the development of FF, part of this funding would have then gone to service the outstanding tax bill. Future revenue from the new stadium would have gone towards paying the balance still owed to HMRC. Due to circumstances that have been discussed to death on here and for one reason or another that gamble backfired drastically and thus we find ourselves in the position we do now.

Just my take on thing mind...............

Phil
 
I too believe there was no bid. And for those asking why did ron say there was... Think about, we just offloaded revell and there was a real groundswell of unrest with the king thing and then the real rumour beginning of us being in deep trouble.

Low and behold 10 mins later (and what 30 mins before the deadline) we beat off millwalls 200,000 bid for macca. How conveninet. All of a sudden it looks like we don't need the money whilst at the same time keeping a 'fan favourite' player to appease the fans.

The whole thing was a propaganda excercise that most fell for.
 
Back
Top