stevegrant

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?

:lol: That's probably the best of the lot. Failing to spot that finding a way of clearing £140m of debt is somewhat harder than clearing £140,000 of debt

*checks CVA proposal* Strangely, I can't find any mention of that... who'd have thought it?

In terms of the Premier League points, it would depend on whether the club chairmen were offered a vote on it, I think. If Scudamore and Richards did it unilaterally, they could probably argue that players they played in the second half of the season, who they couldn't afford, were directly responsible for a loss of points and therefore potentially a loss of revenue if it affected their league position. Not sure we'd have any comeback for the FA Cup though.

"No" is the simple answer there

I've just double-checked the cash flow forecast in the final CVA proposal, as I'm bored on my lunch hour. Year ended 2011: Premier League and Sky TV facility fee: £18,894,499 Year ended 2012: Premier League and Sky TV facility fee: £14,449,339 Year ended 2013: Premier League and Sky TV facility fee: £7,738,467 Year ended 2014: Premier League and Sky TV facility fee: £6,560,651 Total: £47,642,956

Right, so they've been advanced the parachute payments (despite the lying **** Scudamore saying at the time that they couldn't do so because the Premier League doesn't keep millions of pounds of cash resting in its accounts), but the CVA budget includes all of the £48m IIRC...

Slight correction, tax avoidance is perfectly legal. Tax evasion is a criminal offence.

Loads of roadworks on The Avenue and Hill Lane as well, by the way...

How much did you win? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/8343247.stm He was signed in 2009. I guess they've not lost out too badly in the end as they got a good attendance anyway (even though it was fairly obvious there weren't going to be any first-teamers having played Reading on Saturday), but I suppose for them it's the principle of it, and somewhat rubbing salt into their wounds that it was Paul Doswell's Sutton United who did get a Saturday friendly out of our first team. If it's in the contract from the transfer, we should be honouring it. It's not really much of a hardship to take a team 5 miles up the road for a friendly on a Saturday, I wouldn't have thought.

None of the reporters there seem to fully grasp what's going on and what everything means, so I wouldn't read too much into that. The judge said he'd probably pass judgement on Thursday.

Believe it or not, unlike some posters on here, I'm not infatuated with what one particular member decides to write, preferring to read threads and attempt to ignore who is actually making the points. If I happen to see something that's not on, I'll deal with it. If I don't, the only way I can know about it is if someone reports it. I do have a day job, believe it or not, so I can't a) be on here all the time, and b) read every single post in every single thread. I'm sure you'll be giving due praise to him for this voluntary act... I'll ignore the ostrich comment. You seem to have something of a problem with me, which I can't quite fathom out. Feel free to PM me if you would like to discuss, otherwise I'll consider this an end to the matter.

And yet only one person took it upon themselves to report the post...

Considering it had been infracted and deleted before you hit "post", I look forward to your apology

It's only the regional press (i.e. the Echo and Radio Solent) who would give a toss anyway, the nationals don't care what's going on down here right now.

It wasn't you who fell asleep in the courtroom earlier, was it?

£30m would, according to the figures on the official administrators report of the vote, represent only 22% of the total eligible to vote - somewhere in the region of £137m. Which raises more interesting questions about the debt "bottoming out at £78m", and even the £124m including secured creditors from the original creditors report...

Not sure I like the look of that comment, really... Surely it's exactly about precise figures, that Andronikou artificially and illegally struck out some of HMRC's voting entitlement so they could not block the CVA?

I've seen worse, to be honest