stevegrant

Also, a nice big LOL at Sussex... they had Yorkshire pretty much dead and buried at 80/6 and then 178/8. Yorkshire are currently 328/9, having put on a ridiculous 140 for the 9th wicket!

They'll be looking for Schteve next...

The funniest bit will be when they start singing Vegetables' name and fail to spot the irony...

Au contraire. There's plenty of people who'd like to buy SFC. However, there's not many at all who are actually able to do so.

HMRC will only be able to block the CVA if they (and other creditors opposing the CVA) hold 25% or more of the debt. Given the massive sums owed to Norwich Union and Barclays, I'd say it's highly unlikely they'd be able to block it on their own. Even with that information, I still maintain that administration is simply not a road we want to be going down. Simply, there are no guaranteed benefits.

Wouldn't be surprised to see the FA add a few games to his suspension, seeing as it was against United. I'd be interested to hear Phil Brown's reaction to that when it happens...

That as well.

So did Leeds...

Of course it's an over-reaction. We've been losing to teams like Rotherham in the cup for as long as I've been going to games. Just off the top of my head: Port Vale, Shrewsbury, Stockport, Fulham (when they were two divisions below us), Rotherham (twice), Notts County, Bristol Rovers, Tranmere, Peterborough...

Beer isn't available to away fans in the ground at the Keepmoat.

and of course most of that is on PPV in this country as well.

They didn't intentionally ditch it, it was because the Competition Commission at the EU and the Monopolies Commission in the UK decided that Sky couldn't have exclusive rights over ALL of the live Premier League games. So, in the interests of "increased competition and a better deal for the consumer", fans now get to pay £129.90 for 10 months' worth of Setanta Sports instead of the £50 Prem Plus season ticket. What fantastic value.

Blame Liverpool, Everton and ManYoo (and probably a few others as well, to be fair) for threatening the Football League back in the late 70s with a breakaway league if they didn't change the rules to ensure the home club kept all of the gate receipts.

Not really, everyone knows damn well that Gaydamak Snr is the real money man behind Pompey, it's ****ing obvious. Proving it, however, appears to be the tricky part. Then there's also the small part as to whether a) Pompey fans care that they're potentially/probably being funded by illegal arms sales to Angola when they're seeing the best and costliest Portsmouth team in living memory, or b) the Premier League care, seeing as they managed to allow Thaksin to pass the "fit and proper persons test", which has been proven with that very decision to be a complete and utter joke. The only person who has ever failed that test is the former chairman of Rotherham because he took over when the club was in administration a few years ago and then saw them go back in there last season, and one of the criteria is that the person must not have been on the board of a football club that has gone into administration twice during their time serving on the board.

David Conn wrote about this in the Guardian today. He's usually an excellent journalist, but I really couldn't see where the story was in his article. He basically said the Premier League are investigating after Gaydamak Snr's listed assets in a newspaper included PFC, yet the only quote from him (or rather one of his advisors) said that "it's a family asset, but wholly owned by his son". Of course, that's clearly bull****, but until someone provides clear evidence to the contrary, nothing will be done about it (and unfortunately, rightly so).

No problem, good idea. Pretty unfair, IMO. I don't think any of the young players brought in this season have looked out of their depth or lacking quality. Lacking in a bit of strength, perhaps. Who's to say they're better? The vast majority of the more experienced players showed themselves to be utter ****e last season under three different managers. No argument here. Unfortunately, the second word in that sentence is probably the key one. Askham, I would imagine, is more than happy sitting at home having (I think) retired with plenty of money in the bank. He paid the square root of **** all for his shares in the first place, which then obviously got multiplied when the reverse takeover happened, so even if his shares went for a penny each, he'd still be likely to get back more than he paid for them. I suspect it would take somebody making him, personally, a very good financial/positional offer for him to switch allegiances. I would rank Askham much higher on the list of SFC-related figures to hate, as at least Lowe and Wilde have done "some" work (be it good or bad) and put in some effort to aid the running of the club in recent years. Askham has sat on the board but seemingly offered no input and still took plenty of "expenses" (quite what for, I've no idea) out of the club even in his later years as a non-exec. In an ideal world, yes, but I can't see it happening until: a) we're on the verge of administration and someone makes them some sort of rubbish offer in a "well, it's better than the 'nothing' you'll get when the CVA is drawn up" deal, or b) someone proves that they have ideas and a bit of funding to help the club out of the mess it finds itself in. I would be very interested to hear whether Lowe and/or Wilde (and indeed Crouch) would accept a SISU-esque share placing in exchange for a substantial cash injection now, considering the way everything's lurched even further downhill in the last year. I also wonder whether they regret not accepting the SISU deal...

So who's going to buy Lowe/Wilde's shares? Who's going to be able to convince the bank that they can reduce the debt in a reasonable time-frame while keeping the club's cashflow acceptable? Who's going to be the new manager, given that there's no money to spend and the majority of the players are under the age of 20? Plenty of "ideal situations" being thrown around without any thought whatsoever as to how it's achieved and by whom.

As soon as I hit "Submit Reply", I knew someone would reply saying something like "Saints got a point". Glad you didn't disappoint.

Yes. Quite what it means, I don't know - for all I know it might just be a restart of his original contract following his loan spell at Hertha Berlin.

I saw the Spitfire flying overhead when I was walking home from the King Alfred after the game on Saturday. Was there some sort of special occasion?

I heard some interesting news regarding Skacel a couple of days ago. On the latest FA bulletin, it seemed to suggest that he had signed a new contract on 7th August...

Service-wise, Virgin is almost certainly the best. Unfortunately, you'll pay a premium for it. I've never had a problem with BA, and they've got a sale on at the moment (finishes tonight, so you'll have to be quick!). I've just had a quick look and you can get a return from Heathrow to JFK for £298.60, which I'd say is pretty decent.

The compensation figure hasn't actually been confirmed anywhere, and it'll be a looooong time before Sheffield United get their hands on any money as you can guarantee there will be appeals left, right and centre from West Ham. I personally think any compensation should come jointly from West Ham (the offending party) and the Premier League (the numpties who didn't have the balls to enforce a proper punishment in the first place).

Yes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu41PrgBxPc

Wasn't the referee's fault. He's believed the linesman is in the best place to judge whether it's crossed the line and hasn't factored in the linesman's abysmal lack of perceptive vision.