Minsk

But surely, if the wages had not been paid the PAYE and NI were not yet due. I am not sure that the taxes due on future contracted earnings would have been included into the CVA. Therefore, as these 'payments' are for owed wages from their contracts they 'should' also have to pay PAYE and NI on them. It would be an awful shame if HMRC also thought this way (if the club are not paying it anyway) and were to subsequently issue another winding up order for unpaid tax. Anybody know anyone at HMRC we could ask about this situation?

Wasn't having a dig at you, I was having a dig at them - sorry if it came across wrong. The bit in bold is what I was alluding to re eating squirrels (copy-write RB in the PTS). I am amazed at how much they keep spunking, from their year in the champ (I sooo desperately wanted them to miss out on promotion) to the huge wages they have taken on this summer. And even more so when their chairman says they are their limit, so we should be too - when we haven't splashed out anywhere near their amount, and then go and sign someone else!! It's strange, I used to quite like West Ham but am now starting to dislike them immensely.

Who have they shifted out to free up the wages? Or is he going to play for free and eat squirrels whilst living in a tree at their training ground?

I thought Gold said they had hit the 52m limit. They will have to send (at least) one out on loan before they can bring Cole back in.

You can pick them up quite cheap in Iceland.

Are you saying we gave a club permission to speak to him before agreeing a fee with them?

So, he was even tapped up by this mysterious better, bigger, premiership team than Saints? How could they offer him a higher salary than he was getting at Saints if we turned down their approach - despite quoting them a price and them meeting it, allegedly. Until a bid is accepted no team is allowed to talk to a player to offer them wages. Why haven't we reported this team for tapping him up? Why didn't that team come back with an improved offer, especially after having gone to the trouble of tapping Billy up? Which team are we talking about? What were the other two prem teams interested in signing him? Why am I bothering to ask these questions when I know they will be ignored or, at least, not answered?

Especially those that they still owe money to.

Yep. He's looked pretty impressive.

They've been good too. Better than Lallana usually manages.

We only have those two free slots because of the late loan out of Puncheon and the last day one of Mayuka. I also seriously doubt we will sign any non-contract players (as WC pointed out, if they are out of contract they wouldn't need to be bought) but it is nice to have the option to do so on the off chance that a player we would like suddenly finds himself 'out of contract' by mutual consent - or if was to buy himself out of one - (I know, this a Skate tactic and not something we would do). In any event, I don't believe if a prem club had met our valuation for Billy with a firm bid we would have turned it down. That, in itself, does not make any sense.

So, just to clarify, all of last season you used your adult season ticket to buy a cheaper (U17) one for away matches?

No, they were actually being kind to him there. Note that all the other managers are wearing ties in their team colours. On the occasions that Pochettino does wear a tie it is always blue. They simply couldn't fins a picture of him wearing a red tie.

You cannot leave any players off of your 25 man squad if there are spare places. We have only named 23 players, which HAD to include Sharps, Lee, Barnard, Martin and Forte. We would not have been allowed to only name 18 players with those still on our books.

I see that article also claims that Puncheon is not much more than a Championship-level journeyman. That won't sit well with most on here.

Are you saying that Glasgow is a liar?

Fully agree with all of this. I also think loanees should only be players who are 23 or younger, except for emergency goalkeeper loans.

This is indeed correct. Which is another reason why I don't believe a club enquired about one of them, was given a valuation, and then we refused to sell him when they agreed to pay the price we had set. It would make no sense at all. Even if these players subsequently go out on loan, tyhey now count towards our 25. Still, at least we still have room to sign two more non-contract players - should the need and opportunity arise.

1. I have no idea what you are talking about re Charlie. 2. I have never asked, let alone 'demanded', who your source is. Nor would I bother to do so, as I am pretty certain you are just full of bull excrement. 3. This is exactly the sort of post I would expect from someone full of bull excrement. 4. Why wait so long before giving a pitiful attempt at a response to my questions? One would think you had to take time to try and figure out how best to try and bs your way out of them - without actually attempting to answer anything. 5. In short.........

A typical Alpine post. You appear to be the only gullible one who is taken in with Glasgow's claims without questioning them; purely because they meet with your agenda. It comes as no surprise that Glasgow has replied to many posts since mine, yet my one remains ignored. I wonder why????

Excellent posts.

Which three premiership clubs? Which one made the bid? What was the bid/our asking price? Why didn't they come back 'with an offer we couldn't refuse'? Where are the links, with direct quotes, to back up your claims?

Exactly!!