stevegrant

Don't suppose anybody's got a link to that article? That's probably a fair assumption. Not sure I entirely agree with that, although it's certainly much more likely with the crap attendance figures we've been getting so far this season. A bit harsh to pin it all on Wilde given that all three of the main shareholders made it pretty clear that they were against it. Quite possibly the only time the three of them have been singing from the same hymn sheet. If it had happened a few more times over the last 3 years, perhaps we wouldn't be in such a mess... I would be very interested to know, given that they apparently received a private response from SISU answering their questions, what was in those answers that ensured they maintained their "against" stance.

I'm not convinced being a PLC is either an advantage or a disadvantage in terms of prospective buyers knowing the full financial picture. Any buyer worth their salt would insist on carrying out full due dilligence on the accounts regardless of whether there were publicly available summaries or not, and at the end of said period of due dilligence they would (should) have a clear picture of how the finances stack up, again regardless of whether the bottom-line figures are public knowledge or not. In terms of the Premier League broadcasting revenue, I'm not convinced that's going to be affected by the "credit crunch". Viewing figures abroad are increasing at a ridiculous rate and there are likely to be more than just Sky and Setanta bidding for the next domestic contract when it all begins again early next year. The likes of BT Vision and ESPN are likely to want to get a piece of the action, and, in much the same way as Setanta have done, they are likely to use the Premier League rights as a loss-leader in terms of getting subscribers on board which can then lead to other revenue streams. While Sky's profits fell from £750m or so to £60m last year, there's not a cat in hell's chance that they won't do all they can to keep what is basically their flagship. If Sky didn't have the majority of the exclusive Premier League coverage, I think their business model would start to fall apart.

As far as I am led to believe, they did respond privately to the public questions raised by Wilde, Lowe and Crouch. If they never had any intention of taking us over, they wouldn't have gone to the trouble and expense of making an indicative offer.

Unfortunately, bad news is (on the whole) much more newsworthy than good news.

Except for last season and at WorldNet... Squad at the moment: Steve Grant Scott Griffin Rob Healey Chris Summers Jouls Ganley Andy Mintram Mike Florit Ben Rankin Luke Yeates So needless to say, we could do with a few more players. Not heard back from Cooper so we don't have a keeper yet.

Meh. Exhibit A

A hedgehog.

Football365's Mediawatch section noticed that strange bit of history re-writing today as well. I'd say I'm surprised, but given that he's probably still banging the "I took over Pompey when they were fourth from bottom and kept them up" drum (despite the fact that they were actually 16th when he took over and they ended closer to the bottom 3 that season than when he took over), that would clearly be a lie.

Does Mrs Darling know about this? :smt050

You might be right there, I wasn't aware there was any sort of limit or restriction on when the CCA applied.

Am I right in saying that the bailout is basically a complicated loan agreement between the Treasury and the banks, whereby the banks will have to pay the money back when they have recovered sufficiently? If so, the actual exposure to the taxpayer should, assuming the financial sector does recover sufficiently, actually be nil in the long-term and in fact may even generate a profit for the Treasury. Pretty sure that's the plan in the US bailout anyway, I noticed both Bush and Obama have made comments along the lines of they hope it'll actually turn a profit eventually rather than costing the countrry anything.

No real surprise there - it is called "retail banking" for a reason

But in the banking world, it's entirely possible that a transaction may make the company £x million over the current financial period, but then cost the company ten times that amount in the future. That is why so much of a fuss is being made about banker bonuses, because they gambled on the sub-prime market remaining relatively stable for long enough that they would qualify for a bonus big enough to retire on safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't have to face the pressure of recovering the situation when it all went tits-up.

I'm intrigued as to how the bailout in this country is a bugger load more than the similar bailout in the US, considering the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the nationalisation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are considerably bigger than the single nationalisation of Northern Rock.

Is this from the same source that told you Harry Redknapp was certain to be sacked by Gaydamak, and the same source that told you Bill Gates wanted to buy Pompey?

Yeah I know - I'll sort it tomorrow if I get a spare 5 minutes

I'm on a 5-year fixed rate for another 3 years, but I'm not in the slightest bit bothered regarding the interest rate drop. I know exactly how much I'm going to be paying out for at least the next 3 years on my mortgage, rather than worrying about whether the Bank of England will decide to help homeowners or savers next month.

As with all credit agreements under the Consumer Credit Act, you should have a 14-day period after you sign the contract where you can cancel it.

And therein lies the problem the game in this country faces. It's the "success now, ******** to what might happen in a few years' time or even further into the future" ethos Sky and the Premier League has built. For as long as people are happy for their clubs to be spending money they very clearly don't have, the situation will continue to fester, until one day a Premier League football club is suddenly going to be faced with ruin because they can't afford to pay the wages anymore. Only then will the other clubs wake up to the truth of the situation, by which time it may be too late for them as well. You only have to look at the "la la la, I can't hear you" fingers-in-the-ears attitude of Richard Scudamore to see why the clubs aren't all that bothered right now, but it'll be interesting to see what happens when the next TV deal is up for renegotiation. If the rights remain as a package, i.e. all of the clubs are part of the same deal, I am pretty sure the overall amount offered by Sky, Setanta and whoever else wants a piece of the action will be a fair bit less than the current contract. Sky's profits fell from £724m to £60m last year, so despite being the biggest revenue-generating broadcaster in the country, the profits have gone through the floor, so they're not likely to be able to afford to increase their current spend, and may even have to cut back. It's possible that the bigger clubs might see an opportunity to cash in, although with the PL constitution stating that 14 clubs have to vote in favour of policy changes like that, it won't be easy for them to push the deal through, but it's not entirely out of the question that they will want to negotiate individual contracts with the broadcasters like they do in other countries. That would mean massive amounts of money to the big 4 (and maybe Spurs, Newcastle, Man City, Villa, Everton), and the square root of **** all to the rest, because, let's face it, unless you're a fan of any of the smaller clubs, there aren't many people who are interested in watching the games involving those teams.

Well of course it's not a problem - he still gets paid his salary regardless. I cannot wait for the day when the **** really hits the fan and one Premier League team gets into real financial trouble. I wouldn't want that club to go out of business, because they've all got history and heritage, but it would act as the wake-up call the likes of Scudamore need. Sadly, I fear Scudamore will have already "earned" his fortune by that point...

From my point of view (I have no kids), their aims are entirely worthy, but the methods they are famous for are a bit of a double-edged sword, and they're in a catch-22 situation. On one hand, they need to do something that gets their cause a bit of media attention, but on the other, some of the things they've done could (and is) be perceived by many to show exactly why they've not been given as much access to their children as they feel they deserve. Some would argue that breaking into Buckingham Palace (in an age of tightened national security) and climbing onto a balcony doesn't paint a particularly good picture of a responsible father. Anyway, that's a slight tangent. Good luck.

But if we were in the Premier League we wouldn't be financially crippled and be forced into playing the youngsters (a number of whom are good enough already for the Championship, a number of whom aren't, IMO), so no argument on those lines is ever going to produce any sort of decent comparison because the environments are almost the polar opposite.

I thought you had a season ticket there anyway?

Which, knowing what the FA are like, will involve them asking the clubs to provide them with information about who owns them. They won't get much co-operation from the clubs because it's not in their interests to do so, and the FA will shrug their shoulders and say "we're satisfied that all of the owners of our member clubs have the club's supporters, community and future at the forefront of their thoughts", and it'll all be brushed under the carpet. After all, bugger all's been done about the Quest/Lord Stevens bung inquiry because there wasn't any legal obligation on the part of those involved to co-operate, let alone hand over any personal documents.

Top 3. AC Milan will presumably win the group. Heerenveen put 5 past Ajax last week, so they won't be easy opposition. The other two are a bit "meh" though. Man City's group looks particularly tough.