saint si

Yep, bumped in to Cork and Fox on their way out to a match as I was going there for a wedding (early part of last season).

In the FL's eyes, what is the difference between offering a player Xp in the £ within a CVA, and Xp in the £ within a "compromise agreement"? Surely in both cases they have failed to pay their football creditors in full, and therefore the golden share should be with-held?

Baker Tilley and the creditors of CVA1 will hold the key to this. Even if CVA2 is voted through, there will surely be a challenge as to CVA1 becoming part of CVA2. If it weren't for the "form new company, transfer golden share, allow forensic investigation" stunt that AA pulled they would have voting rights equivalent to the original debt...

He's our Tal Ben Haim

They're obviously trying to become "FC Wales" - further evidenced by the prominence of the dragon on the new crest. Badly misjudged I think...

With the summer transfer merry-go-round now in full swing, the league will have to act soon or not act at all to preserve the integrity of the competition. Not just for the 1 or 2 clubs whose division (and therefore income levels, and costs) could be impacted, but also for those clubs who may or may not be interested in PFC players, as well as for the players themselves. This week could be big.

What about white with red pin stripes?

Not only that, he is arguably inciting hatred against TBH (for having the audacity to request his contract be honoured) with the fans....

Pompey Online's reaction... http://www.pompeyonline.com/forums/index.php?threads/lewis-stockford.61017/ "What is sad about it exactly? He will get no sympathy from me." "agreed - isnt he out of contract next month??" "Have I missed something about this lad? He's probably only on a very low wage." Bunch of geniuses.

This is big news surely (though am wary of extrapolating from a single twitter comment). If, with the protection that admin gives, they still cannot pay their running costs as they fall due, then there is no clearer indication that they are insolvent. They are now racking up more debt - which is what admin is specifically designed to prevent - and therefore every day that passes makes the creditors' position worse. Liquidate the DFCSBs.

And that's also why they offer 20% rather than say 1% or 0.1% or 0.000001%. But creditors vote yes to these things because they are told the alternative is much worse.... and in the case of football clubs, that is even more pronounced. Without the golden share, there is bugger all left of any value. Even the stadium (for clubs that actually own one) is worth very little as a stadium once the club disappears. The football creditors rule and parachute payments help to create this "lock in", and this is essentially the reason that HMRC's challenge to the original CVA got thrown out - i.e. the normal creditors had better prospects in a CVA with 20% where football creditors got 100% than in any other scenario. We all know how laughable that is. And don't forget, in that first admin, completely unbelievably, the football creditors got included in the voting. So they were essentially voting to get their 100%, and at the same time voting for everyone else to get 20%. The figures are on here somewhere, but without them HMRC would have had enough to block the CVA...

Regulation 16.9.8... http://www.football-league.co.uk/regulations/20110629/section-4-clubs_2293633_2125725 16.19.8 as a result of its review of all the documents and information submitted by the Championship Club pursuant to Regulations 16.2 to 16.18, and having taken into account any failure of the Championship Club to supply any such documents or information, in its reasonable opinion it determines that the Championship Club will not over the course of the following Season be able to: (a) pay its liabilities to the creditors listed in Article 80.1 of the League's articles of association and to any foreign Transferor Club (in so far as they are or will become creditors of the Championship Club) and to its employees as they fall due; or (b) fulfil its obligations to play fixtures under the jurisdiction of the League; or © be able to provide such rights, facilities and services as are required to enable the League to fulfil its commercial and broadcasting contracts.

I found reference in the FL rules to their Articles of Association, but then couldn't find that document anywhere

Just back from the game... Bloody entertaining penalty shoot out, whatever sepp thinks!

Spot on! Brilliant defending is not some kind of scourge on football, it's half the bl00dy game!

Because it is all about protecting the closed shop of football, at the clear detriment to other businesses, charities and the taxman (so that's actually every man, woman and child in the country). Sure, the football authorities are within their rights to look after themselves, but they seem entirely ambivalent to the consequences. And as I wrote above, football is endlessly positioned as being at the cornerstone of the community, integral to our society, the sport for the common man etc. They can't have their cake and eat it. It's a blunt instrument that results in clubs and players not having to worry about who they deal with, resulting in inflated wages and transfer fees, and perpetuating the mess of endless clubs going in to administration. Perhaps without the guarantees that the rule provides, clubs and players would look seriously at what they are being offered, and by whom...

It might not be illegal (and i'm honestly not at all surprised by the ruling), but the FL (and the PL, and football in general) needs to take a long hard look at itself if it thinks it has any kind of moral responsibility. Football tries to position itself as the people's game, the national sport, all inclusive etc etc, but then condones - or rather actively encourages - clubs to p*ss money up the wall and in to the pockets of mercenary twunts (e.g. Tevez, Joey Barton, most of the PFC squad from 2008 to 2012) rather than, for example, charities or local businesses. It's utterly shameful.

There is a (cynical) argument which is: 1 - Cortese reckons/knows that every game is going to be sold out this season (give or take) 2 - a season ticket holder brings in less revenue than 19x separate tickets 3 - a short season ticket window allows those who already definitely wanted a season ticket to get one (people on this board for example), whilst discouraging (just by making it a bit more awkward) those who are on the fence about it 4 - Profit!

Insightful!

When you failed to pay Sol what he was owed, we were there, we were there... #DFCSBs

Congrats to him. Wouldn't have been on the radar even if he'd had a stunning season in the Championship.

MLT's testimonial at SMS. A truly memorable night.

I'm sure he could get a game down the road

Not to mention that the two teams are massive local rivals with City having lived in United's shadow for several decades. Plus the Tevez saga (remember the "welcome to Manchester" posters?) and also Rooney's on/off move to City a year or two ago. And then there's Balotelli...

Our pitch invasion was better