stevegrant

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

From Dan Roan of the BBC:

I would suggest for anyone who wants to post on their live coverage, that you don't go direct from this forum. They may be able to see which site referred them to the page...

So now all of a sudden the Echo are reporting things in real-time? The parachute payment proposal was accepted on 10th May (BBC report), so Cortese's letter refers either to the vote taken on that day, or the original meeting on the matter (as reported here at the end of April). As a result, it seems as if the Echo got hold of a copy of that letter some time after it was sent.

There is probably nothing public about when the regular FL chairmen meetings take place because the FL, by its very nature, is a private members' club. They publicise the annual conference thing because there's either a major issue to be dealt with or they want to be able to put out some sort of press release that keeps the Football League in peoples minds. If it's anything like the annual conferences I've been to with companies I've worked for, they're nothing more than death by PowerPoint and a bit of mutual back-slapping for a job well done over the previous twelve months. The real work is done in the meetings that aren't publicised.

Surely that is the worst possible outcome? If you exit administration without a CVA agreed, HMRC will simply re-issue a winding-up petition and you'll be back to square one.

Where have we established that 1, 2 and 3 are true?

To an extent, although I think it's quite a dangerous game to be playing, picking a fight with what is essentially the governing body as these sort of things have the habit of coming back to bite further down the line. I guess the whole situation stems from the new parachute and solidarity payment vote, where it seems he was unhappy with the pressure being applied by the FL board to accept the proposal (although nobody's posted the full letter there either, so clearly that must be untrue as well, eh, MLG? :roll:), and in terms of the medium to long-term plan of getting back into the Premier League, the acceptance of that proposal does in theory make it harder for any club not already in receipt of Premier League revenues to break through. It probably means a bit more investment might be needed from Markus, which may not have been part of the original plan.

That was the Premier League, who are more concerned with their "brand" image than actually sticking to their own rules. They waited for their relegation to be all but confirmed before allowing them to sell players outside the transfer window, although they ended up failing to do so (or even look like they were trying) anyway. I wouldn't read too much into Sonko playing on Saturday, the player registration rules for testimonial games are significantly different to the rules for the league.

And rightly so. They'll also be getting their teeth into that lot down the road in the not-too-distant future.

I would imagine that there are many more regular FL Chairmen meetings than get publicised, but the discussion points at the majority are probably so mundane that it's not worth reporting on them. It's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that they hold a meeting every month. I'm trying to verify the rumour via a few contacts now.

When you say "refit", you mean "rotated everything 180 degrees", don't you?

it is - the big heading on the "My Predictions" page says "My Predictions - Saints Score First"... will emphasise it again though.

Probably won't get a pre-season one done, but will hopefully do one within the first week or two of the season.

Saints score is always first. Important to note for cup games that may go to extra time and/or penalties, the score is the score at the end of playing time, either 90 minutes or 120 minutes where applicable. For example, the Norwich and Torquay JPT games last season would go down as 2-2, not any sort of Saints win.