trousers

Hmmm....so how many of these Googling fans alerted the Football League at the time...? "Please sir, don't let these CSI hoodlums take us over. We'd rather go bust than have these dubious guys at the helm" Yeah, right....

I knew he was good but that's going some

Total accident or failed experimentation?

We won't know if he's right or wrong until we get promoted.

Tend to agree in principle but Adkins strikes me as the kind of manager who will pick a team on a case-by-case basis depending on the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition. If he sees a weakness in the Derby team that wasn't there in the Burnley team then I don't think he would have any qualms in tweaking the side to best exploit that weakness. Which is why I have a hunch he may start with Puncheon instead of Guly.

I'm guessing he can declare a vested interest by virtue of the fact he (UHY Hacker) are administrators of CSI and, as such, are the current 'owners' of PFC 2010. In other words, Lampitt merely runs PFC2010 on behalf of UHY Hacker.... AA pitching up at tomorrow's court hearing would be akin to the Liebherrs pitching up at a court hearing alongside Cortese. But yes, it's a huge conflict of interests IMO....the current owner of a parent company being involved in the decision to appoint themselves as administrator of one of it's subsidiaries....hey Ho...

Billy Sharp said himself it was an "easy chance" and "should have scored".

Alas, you won't get any (rational) answers from your average PFC fan.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4132685/Soccer-star-targeted-by-vile-Twitter-troll.html

Perhaps the government are waiting for him to declare he has a terminal illness and then let him go free on compassionate grounds...? Nah, can't see that ruse working...

Was thinking along similar lines. It bears all the hallmarks of the chairman discovering something going on behind his back...

Interesting stuff. What publication is that from? The stand-out statement in that for me is: "AA expected HMRC to put up some opposition, but nothing that he could not manage" In other words, he has enough cards up his sleeve and slight of hand to keep HMRC at bay. No surprise that AA feels HMRC don't have the wherewithal to outwit him. And I very must suspect he's right.

I second that motion. Seriously.

Already a thread on this but glad it's made the national press

Good point! I'll stop trying to be as clever as MLG in future!

MLG-esque intervention alert...it depends how many of those penalties denied a nailed on goal versus those that didn't.

Ian is Dusty Bin? Now I'm well and truly confused.

I love you (literally) :-)

He's Spartacus

Any objection if I consult my lawyer before responding to that one?

^This

Perhaps the next email the BBC should pick up upon is the one between a certain Portsmouth MP and the member of a certain football forum wherein said MP admitted to reading internal HMRC emails...?

Fair point but I don't see why some bright spark down at the Football League can't type "-10" into a computer this week and another "-7" (or whatever) next week. Until I see that -10 in black and white there'll always be an element of doubt (in my mind) that'll they'll get away Scott free again...

I repeat....They should already have -10 as they've given notice that they intend going into administration. The League's rules clearly state that the 'giving notice' event triggers the penalty not the going into administration itself (unless both happen on the same day of course)