Last week's dramatic news of the club's sudden threatened demise has left me not only devastated and feeling bereft (what am I going to do with my winter weekends now there is no Town to watch and debate over?) but also with a few niggling questions.
I have the greatest sympathy with the unpaid creditors and it is unpalatable to think that "my club" has not even paid for the work done on the half-finished stand.
The amount of the reported debt is staggering and it may well be that some form of dramatic financial collapse was inevitable anyway, but one does have to ask a few questions.
l Unless court judgments had already been obtained by the creditors were any of the debts statute-barred (ie, over six years old) and therefore irrecoverable in any event?
l The Inland Revenue's portion of the debt appears to have suddenly escalated during the final, fatal hours by £300,000 and we are told that this was the decisive factor. It was presumably common knowledge that the Revenue would oppose any arrangement.
One also presumes that the club would have had records to show how much was owing to the taxman or at least to get a fairly decent idea of the amount. Did the club, the consortium and the administrators do their homework?

• Was the vast late hike in the taxman's debt challengeable and, if so

, was it challenged? Was the amount validated? If not, could not the matter have been further adjourned for the Revenue to validate the figure?

• During the course of the protracted consortium involvement there was a

public crisis meeting for fans at which a consortium spokesman assured us, among other things, that the consortium would not only clear the club's existing debts but would also ensure that, if and when they departed the club, it would be left debt free at that time.
An appeal to the fans for contributions was made, in response to which I and several others donated £500. I recall that the administration procedure was kicked off when a former director requested repayment of a loan of about £7,500.
In the light of their comments at the public meeting one must ask: why did the consortium simply not pay him?
And by the same token in the light of the same assurance given to the fans, why did the consortium only offer 2.5p in the pound to the creditors?
Was the assurance given at the meeting simply a rather cynical means of getting money from the fans? If it was genuine it certainly has not been honoured, which is not to deny the value to the club of the financial outlay which the consortium has undoubtedly made.
The truth of the matter would appear to be that the consortium in reality wanted the club's existing debts to be cleared before they took over, which is certainly not what the meeting was told.

• At the time of the administration my understanding is that the

consortium had not officially taken over the running of the club. Indeed, it delayed doing so for want of a sufficient shareholding.
I am unsure as to exactly what standing the consortium members held vis-à-vis the club at the time but I presume they had not yet taken any directorships.
So one must ask what legal standing David Bosomworth and Bobby Ham actually had to decide to put the club into this fateful administration.
My final word must be one of thanks and best wishes to the current crop of players who have provided us with what has invariably been watchable and, occasionally, excellent, football.
Also to Chris Wilder, who has struggled manfully against difficult – to say the least – odds and unconstructive criticism and still managed to provide us only a few years ago with a season to remember.
I am aware that not all fans will agree but I would not be surprised to see him go a long way in football management.
Nicholas C W Howe