Desperate measures.....

[Trek]

Yes but iirc wasn't that Chico? :lol:

You are indeed correct ;) but that reinforces my point unless you get the big names people won't come and big names cost a lot of money and NP cannot accommodate the numbers required to make a profit on a one off concert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbey_Aid

[Drunken Debanker]

I rememeber Mansfield had a Westlife concert at field mill once but even that didn't sell out!! As well as more X factor rubbish including Jedward.

[Chammie]

[quote="Formic"]
"When the directors are volunteers there is no upside, and it is totally unreasonable for them to be asked to accept the personal risks involved in running an insolvent business.

Second, the Trust itself was likely to be a director of the club because in order to meet our members' needs we had set things up so that on some important matters the Club Board had to refer to the Trust Board. This meant that the Trust itself would be under threat if things that should be kept private got out into the public domain."

Both interesting and - for the Poppies Trust at least - useful to be reminded of of their potential liabilities and the risks they run. For the sake of the individuals involved, it is to be hoped that they also have received the appropriate professional advice although I would think it most unlikely that they would be given the same full director status.
The point about the need for confidentiality in terms of the current probable insolvency may then explain why their Trust have recently remained so quiet and - for so long - seemingly totally ineffective.

[Chammie]

1,377 (342) is the attendance at NP. So that's 1,035 home fans and 1,123 from the 2,500 that was asked for. :lol: Home attendance is flat-lining at 1,000.

Couldn,t even find a match thread on Poppynet either...Seems like an awful lot of Plops fans have lost interest.

Interestingly, I have been advised from an extremely reliable contact that in fact the actual NP attendence last Saturday was very considerably less than the 1377 figure published with season tickets holders in particular - visable, by their absence, from the number of empty seats with season ticket stickers attached - now turning their backs on the club.
It seems that to avoid the poor prosective new owner losing face as a result of a really poor turnout, pre-paid (and pre-FOC) season ticket holders were counted as being present even if - understandably - they preferred Sky Sports or an afternoons shopping.
I'm told that adding the Wrexham supporters to the few 'pay on the day' spectators then produced the inflated figure quoted.

That same source also tells me that there are real fears there that, even if the team does last 'til the end of the season, their pitch wont with serious - and potentially very expensive - remedial work now badly needed.
I'm told that the reason Wrexham didn't run up a cricket score in the first half was because they found it very hard to get to grips with a pitch on which it was virtually impossible to accurately pass the ball along the surface.
A pitch designed to support a 'hoofball' approach - sounds about right.

[AFCRD_Dan]

1,377 (342) is the attendance at NP. So that's 1,035 home fans and 1,123 from the 2,500 that was asked for. :lol: Home attendance is flat-lining at 1,000.

Couldn,t even find a match thread on Poppynet either...Seems like an awful lot of Plops fans have lost interest.

Interestingly, I have been advised from an extremely reliable contact that in fact the actual NP attendence last Saturday was very considerably less than the 1377 figure published with season tickets holders in particular - visable, by their absence, from the number of empty seats with season ticket stickers attached - now turning their backs on the club.
It seems that to avoid the poor prosective new owner losing face as a result of a really poor turnout, pre-paid (and pre-FOC) season ticket holders were counted as being present even if - understandably - they preferred Sky Sports or an afternoons shopping.
I'm told that adding the Wrexham supporters to the few 'pay on the day' spectators then produced the inflated figure quoted.

That same source also tells me that there are real fears there that, even if the team does last 'til the end of the season, their pitch wont with serious - and potentially very expensive - remedial work now badly needed.
I'm told that the reason Wrexham didn't run up a cricket score in the first half was because they found it very hard to get to grips with a pitch on which it was virtually impossible to accurately pass the ball along the surface.
A pitch designed to support a 'hoofball' approach - sounds about right.

Wouldn't surprise me if they were fiddling the attendance figures. I seem to remember a few times it was alleged that R&D attendances seemed less than was actually quoted a few times.

[Bob's Bitch]

Would the state of the pitch really matter this season? They're not going to get fined for a bad pitch. Every pitch is bad at this time of the year.

Also it's hard to believe that they would doctor attendance figures because that surely means they would have to pay a larger amount of VAT? (Not that they're paying their tax bills, obviously ;) )

[luckyfour]

Likewise, I see no reason why they would want to claim higher attendances than they actually have.

[BartonRaz]

Regarding the pitch, i received the following text earlier this week from a friend:

''Was at Nene Park this PM for a meeting at the D Centre. Christ the pitch looked awful''

Didn't the groundsman walk out earlier this season or was that just a rumour?

[BartonRaz]

Likewise, I see no reason why they would want to claim higher attendances than they actually have.

I'm not an expert but I don't think this is entirely uncommon. As Chammie said, they probably did it to attempt to show a prospective new owner that the attendances are better than they actually are.

[wewantourdarbyback]

They don't have to pay VAT on season tickets places, they've already done that. So they can bump up the numbers to save face by adding those in if they need.