trousers

The internet is much overrated as a source of information IMHO

I take it we're not releasing this news at the customary time (11:23pm) as that would be past this lad's bedtime? ;-)

Maybe this is just a 'once off' for the first game of our 125th anniversary because they want to 'officially' reveal the new kit as a bit of an exclusive? Or is this 'regime' in place for the whole season? Does seem a little control freakery-esque but nothing to get wound up about. It's only football.

Ah, someone beat me to it in the comments section of the BBC blog:

So, bottom line, HMRC screwed up with their timing? Brilliant. Although Matt Slater is making one huge assumption.....that all the non-HMRC debt was "genuine".....No?

11:23pm, surely?

Hmmm....

Hmmmmm +1

Stephen Wright? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1300706/Stephen-Wright-The-loneliness-playing-waiting-game-Liverpool-man.html

Step 1: unplug computer from wall Step 2: lock computer away in the loft (alongside scanner) Never say I'm unhelpful...

Surely 'someone' will be checking bank accounts to make sure what they said they owe is actually paid out in the agreed timescales... Yours with too much faith in our legal system, Trousers

How will the football league satisfy itself that the CVA obligations are being met? (and thus not dock any points for exiting admin without a viable CVA) Do they simply go on PFC/AA's words that creditors are being paid back at the agreed rate or will they be much more forensic about it than that? Or perhaps they (the football league) don't even have that juristriction. Is the 'pass' criteria for football league purposes simply having an agreed CVA rather than having a CVA that is actually being adhered to?

Just what I was thinking.....who determines whether the CVA is concluded correctly? As you say: "Oh....."

The closest analogy I can muster is Tony Blair and Gordon Brown got away with running the country (badly) for 13 years. 3 down, 10 to go ;-)

That's the bit I'm not understanding either. The case that was brought to the court by HMRC always had a fairly narrow remit in the general scheme of things. (i.e. Challenging the nitty gritty of the CVA) whereas the 'bigger picture' misdemeanour is surely the perceived wisdom that they were trading whilst insolvent? In other words, they were breaking the law of the land - pure and simple? Which begs the question....who's responsibility is it to report this overriding 'crime'? The government? The office of fair trading? Company's House? Or is it, if we (the general public) perceive it to be the case that we have perceived a corporate crime are we duty bound to pop down to the local nick to report said crime? How does it work? How does a company that is perceived to be trading whilst insolvent get called to account? Perhaps this trial has been a smokescreen for the 'real' misdemeanour ?

Were you going down the far canal?

This

That was my fear tbh

Using logic as a barometer, yup, worth a go,,,,

Cheers!

Ooops....

Matt Phillips?

From the font of all knowledge.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Phillips

And Michael Owen. And Skacel.

Deduct it from the £37m (HMRC's view) or from the £24m (AA's view)....?