stevegrant

Let's see it then. You and others demanded that people revealed their sources for making statements like that, so now the boot's on the other foot. Practice what you preach.

Warne-esque

Your "quick Google" must have been incredibly quick, as you obviously didn't read any of the linked articles. Here's one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1221168/Emmanuel-Adebayor-celebration-leads-Manchester-City-ban--photographers.html The photographers who got the Adebayor celebration shots were banned from positioning themselves in front of the away section, not the ground, and not forced to pay the club for a pre-screened selection of images.

Do you have any evidence of that?

Well I've got the following quote from that article to go on: I would take that as a statement that they won't be paying SFC for photos. The football clubs that he expects to do business with to buy/sell players? That would really be a wise move.

Except on Saturday when the Plymouth Herald will be providing exactly £0 to SFC. Local papers simply don't have the budget to pay extra for photos not taken by their own photographers, so the club will receive the square root of **** all from local newspapers. Expect many of the clubs themselves might take issue with it as well, and impose reciprocal charges specifically for our photographers.

For the second time in 24 hours, words genuinely fail me.

Good.

I genuinely can't believe what has happened here. In slightly related news, apologies for the incredibly **** performance of the forum during all of that. It's the first time the new software's had to bear that sort of load and it epically failed. I've found a load of performance enhancements I can implement, so will be working through those this evening along with the minor update to version 4.0.5, with a view to it all being fine for the Plymouth game on Saturday.

In theory, yes. However, they would require Chainrai continuing to dip his hand in his pocket to fund the losses they're still making, and they've got a squad of about 15 players, the majority of whom aren't good enough, and they're under a transfer embargo so can't sign anyone else. It is only next summer when they have to come out of administration as FL rules state that a club cannot begin two successive seasons in administration.

No. They will only get another points deduction if they attempt to exit administration without a CVA having been formally agreed. There's absolutely no chance that they'll do that, because the minute they do, HMRC will simply revive the original winding-up petition and that'll be that.

I'm surprised they've not tried to claim image rights on it yet

The Championship would run with 23 teams, and only two would be relegated at the end of the season. 3 promoted from League One as usual, but only 3 relegated to League Two. 4 promoted from League Two as usual, only one relegated to the BSP. Two promoted from the BSP, and then it's up to the Conference board to juggle things around there to get the right numbers. They're used to it now, with Chester and various other clubs going bust in recent years.

Isn't that just what he stole?

To be fair, the Football League has been quite good at this sort of thing in recent years. Don't forget, it's as recent as 2003 that Leicester were allowed to be promoted to the Premier League despite having gone into administration and getting away with paying 10p in the pound to their creditors, the biggest of which was Barr, who built their ground. So they paid £3m for a 32,000-seater stadium. As a result of that, we now have the rule where administration means an automatic 10-point deduction (which the Premier League then also introduced, albeit 9 points to reflect fewer games played), the Leeds saga saw the introduction of the rule imposing further points deductions on clubs who exit administration without having a CVA agreed, with additional deductions for repeat offenders (see Rotherham, Bournemouth and Luton), and most recently both the Football League and Premier League have an agreement with HMRC to impose registration embargos on clubs who fall behind on their tax liabilities, and also rules forcing disclosure of individuals or companies who own 10% or more of any club. The next step, which won't happen for a number of years because there are too many clubs struggling at the moment so it would never get voted in, is to take the Italian approach and automatically relegate any club who can't financially support themselves through a full season. You'd soon see clubs fall into line pretty quickly if they knew that irresponsible spending and gambling on success will lead to failure of an epic proportion.

I'm more intrigued by the goalkeeper with no head

A packed crowd outside the High Court...

Correct.

Really? Claiming someone who doesn't agree with you must have "an agenda" doesn't appear to back that theory up, to be fair.

Full members can start polls on this forum

Just waiting for the case sleeves to be printed, I'll be collecting them from Chateau Baj on Sunday, then hopefully posting next week. I'll be emailing everyone today asking for postal addresses, obviously the quicker the replies, the quicker they'll all get sent out - ideally I'd like to send them all in one batch

I actually think the biggest issue now is Android's inclusion of the current players in the list of creditors, claiming money that isn't actually due to them yet, but will become due over the course of the players' contracts. The salaries are up to date as far as I'm aware, albeit they've been late paying them quite a few times, obviously, so it's not money that's actually owed to the players yet. Just because they're on fixed-term contracts, I'm not sure that entitles them to that money if the club goes under.

Expressions of interest and offers are very different things. We had, if memory serves me right, 33 "expressions of interest" in the first week. All that means is that the person or persons expressing their interest gives their details to the administrator, they sign an NDA and they get a pack with all the financial particulars in it. It's then up to them if they want to go further and put in an offer, or discuss any bits of the information they've been given in more detail.

Wasn't it the UHY-appointed lawyers who said it was advanced parachute payments rather than advanced TV/Premier League money?

Aren't the courts the proper channels?