saintjay77

Didnt the one that got 14 months have a previous history or something? I guess that would have been taken into consideration when dishing out the punishment. I agree the punishments seem harsh when compared to a similar incident away from football but harsh sentances seem to be the only thing so called football fans listen too. If a banning order and a slap on the wrist were to have been given I would bet the same mugs would be in the same situation at the next chance they got. Along with a few hundred more thinking they can have a bit of a ruck and if they get caught they will just get a slap on the wrist too. With these sentances even the few who get carried away with the situation will think twice before they go as far next time and the hoolies the OB were probably hoping to catch will think even harder. So while its a shame that these mugs have been harshly punished for there actions I cant complain as it will go a long way to keeping going to the footy with my kids a much more enjoyable experience.

Any news on the slow type issue? Its driving me Nuts!

There has been a tougher stance on Football related violence for a long time though. Mainly due to the regular violence that used to follow football years ago. If this type of offence just carried a slap on the wrist then there is a high chance that things would progress next time there is a local derby and we could start moving back to how things used to be. Yes the sentances were harsh when compared to some other offences away from football and if each offence was delt with as if it was 1 chap on his own then no doubt the police would not have been interested. But it wasnt and the sentances were harsh to deter future problems which im fairly sure it will. Name and shaming the next pedo and then stringing him up by his balls from London Bridge might be harsh by the letter of the law but it also might make future sick fuk's think twice before they go down that route.

When you have finished with the police report and the evidence that was produced in court for the sentancing to take place maybe you would like to pass it all around so we can all agree with you?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/violent_disorder/ Seems they had every right to be charged with Violent disorder or do you think differently? Or was it something else you disagreed with?

The definition of Violent Disorder was posted some way back and TBH it fits in with what was going on after the match. It also carrys a maximum of 5 years inside so it seems they got off fairly lightly for that charge. If the courts are being even stronger than they previously have on football related problems and continue this way for all future problems then good on them. Previous tactics have reduced the violence associated with football to the point where most games are worth taking the kids along. If they can stamp out football related violence all together then football should be all the more enjoyable. No doubt once that has happened they will clamp down on another form of trouble. Hooliganism at table tenis tourny's is on borrowed time!!!

Thats the difference though. Our new owners are already looking into the infrostructure and will adjust accordingly as we rise back up through the leagues. We are investing in the training facilitys and will be putting lots of effort into the acadamy so we are producing top class players instead of having to pay out ridiculas amounts on prima dona's. How is your new ground comming along?

Have to agree with this. Getting carried away with a bunch of fans that are looking to "start something" with the opo fans doesnt mean they are imune from any pnnishment. The punishment may seem harsh compared to similar acts away from football but football related crimes have been under the microscope for years so people can hardly be suprised when tougher sentances are dished out. I know plenty of "Decent Citizens" that went to the game and simply walked away after. It may come as of a suprise to some but the Police were not interested in them at all!!!

Made me LOL Muchio Gracias

Would the FL look to ask the likes of HMRC if they plan to appeal the CVA before they lift any transfer embargo? No idea if its worth doing or not but it seems a sensible thing to do.

Interesting to see its down to the creditors on wheather to investigate the dealings via the liquidation or not. Will HMRC want to foot the bill or will it go to a vote for all the creditors to chip in?

But if he doesnt find anything in the administration investigation he is hardly going to stich himself up by finding something he missed in the liquidation investigation. How do HMRC pick the bones then? Wont AA just sweep anything he missed under the carpet declaring there is nothing to see? How does HMRC or anyone else for that matter challenge what he doesn't find?

If he cant find anything in the investigation while being the administrators how the hell does anyone expect him to find anything while being the liquidator? Wouldnt it make sence to have someone else liquidate the club to make sure there was no wrong doing from the administrator? Maybe Clapham Saint can add something. Is it normal for the administrator to also be the liquidator and does that process generally result in anything else happening or is it a waste of time?

Steve Cotterel got a 3 year contract too!!!! So if the unthinkable happens and someone comes to thier rescue and buys up whats left they will be deciding if they want to pay off his 3 year contract to get there own man in or sit tight and see if he is the right man for the job? I thought in this type of situation its normal for clubs to appoint people on temp or short term rolling contracts till they are clear on where they are?

Maybe I have been watching too much "Lie to me" but the way he shifts his eyes away when on important statements makes me think he is a lieing scum bag of the lowest kind!

I think HMRC just agreed that the Administrator could go ahead with its proposed Suggested CVA. Not that it would agree to it when it was submited. But unless it is contested and thrown out then the latter will still happen. Well if AA is still running the show it might not happen when he says it will but I think Legally it should still happen. If HMRC take things back to court and win I suppose the worst that could happen would be for Poopy to be wound up and those responsable get some serious finger wagging and an introduction to Bubby at the nearest Prison.

NO!

I thought the same. HMRC had there vote percentage reduced, some didnt vote and as such there votes counted as for the CVA, who ever got Griffin in did so for either no reason or there vote wasnt counted at all. Not allot makes sense from their whole administration so I suppose we shouldn't be suprised if it continues the same way??

Cheers Steve. It does seem quicker although the type is still delayed. Did you see my previous post on the colour scemes? Just wondered if they made sense or not?

I was thinking about possible transfer embargo's and so on but I believe that as the CVA was initially approved then the FL will not stop Poopy moving forward for now. It might mean heavier penaltys later should it all turn around again but based on what has happened today they will probably treat it as if its all above board and legit. So they probably will hire a manager and start getting in a few loans and they may even renew some contracts. I dont know how strong those contracts will be though if HMRC challenge and win as the FL may have to back track. Anyone know what happened to Leeds? Did they sign anyone in the cooling off period?

To be fair, its taken AA to massage the figures to put HMRC below the 25% which changed the expected outcome. Had HMRC stayed above the 25% I guess much of whats been suggested from the "experts" would have been more acurate.

We know HMRC voted against and we know there was someone owed 40k who voted against. Griffin are supposed to represent someone who I assume voted against also and if they went far enough to get Griffin involved I guess they are not that small a creditor. What doesnt add up is how putting these 3 together still only equals 19% of the vote. AA said a while back that HMRC have around 21% alone so it is blatently obvious that margins have been moved to suit. The question is was it done legally? HMRC's response suggests it will be challenged but I will be suprised if they wait till the 11th hour to do so. I would expect something fairly shortly to make sure they are not let off the hook. The ammount it will cost to drag things through the court compared to the amount they will lose now and in future based on the measly 20% means they will stick to there guns IMO and take things as far as they possibly can. They always have the chance later when the liquidation process investigates things further so I would have thought they are in the win win situation at the mo.

2 words Figures Fudged! The amount owed has gone up according to who has enough of a %'age to get the vote through. Next step will be HMRC challenging it and then we will see what happens

Wasnt Griffin's proposal based on Gaydamak dropping his claim of 32 Mil though?

I spoke to soon. It seems the text still takes an age to appear after typeing. More so in the poopy take over thread than this one but still takes a while on this one. Dont see how the 2 can be different but that info may help????