I'd take 2 more glovers in a heartbeat please.

The part that really hurts is that to an outsider,not knowing the financial situation,we would have appeared to be a club on the up.

Superb crowds which reflects the rekindling of dormant interest in the city.

People are saying get rid of the shop ,but its presence advertises the club.

As Clan pointed out we at last seem on track re. young player development which allied to the innovative scholarship scheme is great progress.

Its not that long ago that the Sky crew were holding us up as a good example to follow.

I feel really depressed that we are in such a mess again.

Its hard to comprehend that there must have been such dire mismanagement and that a successful businessman has apparently not been sufficiently involved in the direction the club were going.

I was not expecting suddenly to be at the top,but at least be in there competing and steadily progressing.

I think that people are seeing the 400k, misunderstanding the phrase 'under-capitalised' and turning it into something they do understand - a £400k debt. As far as I can see, that isn't the case.



The club is now being run by an accountant; that's probably the best thing for us at the present time - hopefully he'll bring some financial discipline to bear and ensure that the organisation cuts its cloth accordingly; he's already shown that he has the guts to make tough decisions and for mine, that should continue.



If WTW starts to wash its own face and sheds the reputation for winging it, perhaps the business community will feel a bit more confident about getting involved.

Where have you heard that there is to be a press conference?

What time is it supposed to be?

I thought Agar said in his post-match interview that MC would be speaking to the press today; I also saw a Tweet from the WE saying that they were speaking to him today. Sounds like a press conference to me!

Midday is what I thought I'd heard??

Ok, cheers

That was my interpretation from Michael Carter's statement and I was relatively optimistic when reading the text. However, after reading the post match comments from RA and his slant on the situation. He alludes to a cashflow problem as he states that Tim Smith was sold to pay player wages. I don't know whether this is in the immediate future ie this month's wages or further down the line in the off season when we don't have as much income coming in (hence the need to buy season tickets now). The player's reaction as outlined by RA implies to me more of an immediate 'problem', but perhaps I'm (hopefully) wrong.

Apparently Radio Leeds said prior to yesterday's game that MC would be holding a press conference today, but they did not know the time.



On another note, has anyone seen a photograph of MC, either on the official website or in the general media?

Or is he really Daddycool?

I've spoken to him in person - he's a tall chap who is always suited and booted; drives a rather impressive vehicle and certainly does not have a massive furry head and fake sunglasses. I'm unaware of his ability to somersaults or his prowess in racing mascots over the length of a rugby field.

I'd laugh my t its off if he gave his press conference in a daddy cool suit!

under capitalisation from my understanding (not knowing the full details i grant you but being a chartered accountant) basically means that in order for the business to continue is current capacity will need to find £400k.



Looking at the cost base of the business that suggests that the business cannot afford to pay all the staff salaries that it is currently contracted to do so - i.e. it can’t afford all the players’ salaries that it is contracted to over the off season.



That logic would make the sale of Smith more reasonable. You reduce the financial burden by reducing your future spend but at the same time get extra funds to cover the existing burden.



It does not suggest that it has £400k of debt looming which it cant pay and therefore will default on this but the directors have looked ahead and said we need to find £x to carry on with the same level of expense that we have now.