Despite not thinking there was much in it after last weekend, given the manner of today's defeat, I am now firmly of the view that (if he would accept) Tony Parkes should be given the opportunity to try something a bit different and try to turn things around over the last seven games. Make no mistake, everything Jack Walker did for us and the very future of the Club hangs in the balance. And sadly he isn't here to bail us out for a second time. I could just about live with it if a change was made and we went down having tried everything we can to do something about it. Sliding down without a fight (as we are doing at the moment) would be very hard to bear. This one is down to John Williams and the Board. Expecting Souness to forgo several million pounds compensation by resigning seems to me to be unrealistic in the extreme.

You're not going to get many visitors to your new forum if you just post on here to insult people. (That was directed at blue and white army BTW)

Substitute Reid for Neill, possibly add Johansson at CB and if Emerton pulls his finger out next season I'd agree with that list. Unfortunately that only leaves us with nine or ten players and still urgently in need of (at the very least) another CB, central midfielder, left midfielder. I would say we also need a right back who can defend, and there is a huge amount of dead wood to be shifted. Huge rebuilding job needed over the next 12-18 months.

Would tend to agree with that prognosis Den. As an uninformed outsider looking in it doesn't seem to me as though there is any real desire on behalf of the creditors to put Leeds into administration, but that the development on Friday was a ploy to get Leeds to strike a deal with the remaining interested consortium quickly.

According to teletext, shares have been suspended in Leeds United ahead of an announcement. Significant?

Fair do's tcj! Always like someone who can argue their case whether you agree with it or not. Personally I would summarise all that as a particularly bad decision at Boardroom level to sell Duff. No-one signed on the left side to replace him. A poor choice being made to replace Berg with Amoruso. Dunn's replacement (Emerton) being very disappointing. The players bought with part of the Duff money (Reid and Ferguson) starting to look reasonably promising after a very slow start but then getting injured. Agree completely that various players haven't performed as you would expect at different times. Gresko, Neill and Taylor being other obvious cases in point in addition to the players we've already mentioned.

Without wishing to fall out, as you are so consistently outspoken on the matter, what's your view on why we are then languishing in 15th position as opposed to last season's 6th?

philip, it's inconceivable that any of the creditors would not now give Leeds until the end of the season isn't it? Even if they were to go into administration, they wouldn't be able to sell off any playing assets until the end of the season would they? (Other than abroad) I could see Leeds putting themselves into voluntary administration though if their relegation fate is sealed prior to the end of the season.

If reports are to be believed, Wilcox along with Batty, (who have played 12 games between them in 2 seasons) have been instrumental in leading the players revolt against the wage deferral. And some people are suggesting that Wilcox (who was rapidly on the decline when he left Ewood anyway) should come back? Jeez.

So therein, (semantics apart) you entirely contradict the rest of your post. You know perfectly well you can never 100% guarantee anything but you can give yourself the best possible chance. Doesn't really matter whether one person thinks we need Butt, another thinks we need a striker, another a left winger. We aren't doing enough to improve any area of the team.

Butt would cost at the very most half the transfer fee now, and half in 12 months, and in the event we did go down he could easily be sold for roughly what we paid for him. If we go down it'll be £20m "we don't have" not just £3m.

Don't know about everyone else but I am left feeling devastated by the fact that we have been left standing by a club only in their second season back in the Premiership. If Birmingham are in there making an outrageously low £3m bid for Butt why aren't we? Similarly the refusal to even countenance a bid for Sutton (three players in one) at £1.5m didn't make much sense either. Would have boosted attendances and morale for the rest of this season and if it had helped stem the inevitable haemmorage of season ticket renewals in the summer, the deal would have been self financing. Personally I don't want Souness to be given any more money to waste on unproven "never seen them play before's" or thirty somethings and it would be almost reassuring to think that Jersey have pulled the plug on the funding for Souness rather than for any successor due to his questionable use of the Duff/Dunn money but doubt that is the case really. Perhaps they are of the view that we need to get more out of the players we have already (which is fair comment) and make better use of the Academy (which is definitely fair comment) One final thought on this, has GS been definitively ruled out of the running for taking over at Spurs in the summer?

I was one of those who thought GS should reduce his Sky commitments whilst we were struggling and to be fair I was recently thinking it's quite noticeable he has done so. (Unless I've missed him every time he's been on.)

Taylor played more games than Berg last season, and as many as Short.. and we kept a good few clean sheets. The problem has been never being able to pick a settled side from one game to another. Of course Souness will sound miserable - he'd just found out a player he'd been chasing for weeks had turned him down. Hence the "it feels like a kick in the @#/?" quote. What do you want him to do, go around smiling like Yorkie.. Yellow card for Ste please!. Saying something complimentary about Taylor. Not allowed on this board.

Which roughly translated out of jargonese and into plain English means "We're greedy barstewards who'd prefer not to take any cut in wages if there is any possibility at all of the Club raising the money through sales, but we're not totally stupid either, we'll agree to the deferment if there is absolutely no alternative." There was an interesting comment from someone at the Leeds Business School today who said that the situation could cause a huge rift in the dressing room and on the pitch between players like Smith and Matteo who immediately came out publically and said they would do whatever they could to help, and others who should we say are less charitable in nature.

I wish you'd stop this Bryan.......giggling in the corner isn't a good in-company image for me. (Revidge sits grumpily in the corner) Paul how come you've got SEVEN smilies in your post when us mere mortals are only allowed 3 per post??

Now would be the time for someone to steam in with a combined bid of £3.5m or £4m for Smith and Milner. The PLC would be in a right stew as to whether or not to sell because the players would feel even more justified in not agreeing to the pay cut with any sort of deal on the table

I bet they all back down if other Clubs don't come up with the £5m by way of transfer dealings though.

Nothing as tinpot as that, it would be a 42" Plasma Screen at the very least surely

The £5m and the "financial stipulations" referred to in any future arrangements probably means the players agreeing to take the necessary wage cut which frees up £5m to keep them going until the end of the season and allows a slightly better price to be realised if any sales do occur. Anyone with any sense though would be in with a cheeky bid for Smith and Milner before the week is out.

I still reckon the only way Leeds will go into administration is if they do so voluntarily as a precautionary measure to avoid the 10 point penalty imposed on Nationwide Clubs who do the same. (The possibility of them being a Nationwide Club next year is looking increasingly likely.) If I was a creditor I would ease off slightly ensuring the maximum return from any and all saleable assets whether now or in the summer, pocket that, then bail out with at least some return leaving them to it.

No surprise there then. Although possibly seeing what money (if any) is realised during the transfer window?

They would eventually but I suspect it would have to go through court, just because one party breaches the contract it doesnt necessarily terminate the contract. Footballers contracts might be different though as I know some other aspects of law dont apply either. It does if it's a serious or fundamental breach going right to the heart of the contract. Non payment of wages for any sort of period would probably constitute this. The Sporting Life Article is interesting in that it seems to imply that despite the deadline Leeds are not under any particular pressure from the creditors, and the only way they will go into administration is as a tactical move to avoid the possibility of being docked 10 points under Nationwide rules. This corresponds with my view on the matter that as is generally the case, the creditors will be only too glad to accept something rather than nothing.

His time is up, don't give him any more money to waste. What is needed is not new signings but someone who will put a bit of fighting spirit back into whichever eleven players are out on the pitch.

I'll delete as well then! Beer's a bitch isn't it.