Whitey Grandad

It's important that we get our first win, so whatever tema achieves thst I shall be happy with.

I understood it to be about ex-Saints players and how well they are getting on.

Holes in the road are not surprising after the frosts we had last winter, although they should have bee repaired by now, and would have been if councillors ever cycled to work. The problem with cycle paths on the pavements is that when you get to a side road you no longer have priority, unlike in Holland where cyclists have priority over motorists changing direction.

All areas which are crying out for productivity improvements :-)

Caravans? Are they any good?

My daughter first noticed this. She hasn't been for a while due to maternity leave and saw that the halfway line is now to the right of the players' tunnel. We should be able to tell from videos of old matches.

I could see a definite darker streak along the edge of the pitch which I concede may reflect the way that the new pitch was laid rather than demarking the old touchline. Having said that, the pitch was definitely narrower than it used to be a couple of seasons ago. I can usually tell by looking at the spacing between the 10-yard tick on the goal-line and the edge of the penalty area. Out of interest, was all the grass replaced, or just the playing area?

That's how I saw it. We looked a good solid team with a cast-iron defence (apart from Harding's daydream) but up front we were short of pace, power and penetration.

Yes, definitely narrower. I pointed out to my daughter that you could see where the side lines used to be. I think maybe almost two yards shaved off either side. Not only that, my seat in the Kingsland is normally two yards to one side of the half-way line an yesterday I was looking straight along it.

Chill everybody, what's the rush?

I don't believe the figure has ever been disclosed, but feel free to enlighten us.

Thanks, that helps to clarify things somewhat. Wasn't there an alternative CVA on offer that would have given HMRC more money? How about the argument that they have been unfairly prejudiced because some of the creditors who voted were always going to get 100% of what they were owed? And if the late, extra assessment on image rights were included they would get a bigger share of what little pot was remaining?

If I understand the judgment correctly, the judge has said that it is ok for a company in administration to agree a CVA that pays some creditors more than others, providing that they have 'rules' that state that this is what will happen. This would seem to be contrary to insolvency law.

Brilliant work, Deano. Why weren't you in court?

Such an operation seems so far-fetched that I cannot believe that it would ever get past the regulating bodies of the Football Association, or even the appropriate tax authorities. There would be almost certainly a court case and the operators of such a scheme couldn't possibly have a hope of winning that, could they?

I agree to some extent but if true it would indicate that Cortese is not familar with football and how it is run in this country at these levels.

I'm not clear what happens regards regualr tax payments and other outgoings when a company is in administration. Presumably it gets difficult to obtain any form of credit, but if you don't pay you taxes what redress is there for HMRC?

So... how likely is it that they will pay the PAYE and NI on the next month's wage bill? What's to stop them holiding up two fingers to HMRC? (again)

So, same again tomorrow, chaps?

How can it have been a fair competition if one club was allowed to receive extra money early? There must be several others who were not so profligate and who could have used advanced payments to strengthen their squad.

That was ok until they started claiming the tax back. I bought a couple of cars there myself, both went on for many years. I remember seeing Dave Webb there a few times. This would have been just after he had managed Bournemouth.

At that time they had not been relegated.

Money which should properly have gone to creditors, especially those who had long-term oustanding claims at the time.

But if they are creditors (or were at the time of the vote) this would mean that they would get 100% and not 20% like everybody else.

But this must be one of the crucial issues in this case. Are the TV/parachute payments 'assets' of the company or not? If they are paid early, or diverted to pay another creditor at a time when a club is in administration or subject to a possible winding-up order, then how does this square with all unsecured creditors being treated equally?