Clapham Saint

What a fantastic thread! Could all posters also include a contact number for their finance director please. Thanks, CS

You really are a tit aren't you.

It is sensible for any business to monitor customer opinion. I'd be very surprised if the club doesn't monitor a range of forums. I'm sure they're not reading every single post but it would be silly to ignore a source of free customer research.

I'm Anthony Pulis

15,000!?!? They wish

"Gordon, can I have a quick word?" "Velocity"

In the spirit of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly... The Saints, The Sinners and Ian Dowie

Touche. It doesn't change the fact that Saintandy666 is spouting off whilst completely misunderstanding the points, although there a number of sensible arguments on here from others. Its the absolute certainty with which people who don't have a grasp of the points they are making argue until they're blue in the face which bugs me rather than the rights or wrongs of each individual policy.

For somebody so vocal (or whatever the web equivalent is) and adopting such a patronising tone, your lack of understanding is frankly staggering. Unfortunately I only have mobile access to the site today and so will have to keep this brief but... 1) National debt is a £ amount. It is you who is confused, confusing debt and debt as a % of GDP. Despite your protestations, if you run a deficit, debt will increase. Or maybe I shouldn't worry if my wife spends more than I earn, because as we will be running a deficit my credit card bill will actually go down . 2) your inistance that labour left us in a better position than when they came in because of defecit and debt figures (as a % of GDP!) just continues to highlight your lack of understanding of the economic cycle. After over a decade of (artificial) boom we should have been running a surplus in order to allow us the ability to properly deal with the dip (double or otherwise). Having lower (as a % of GDP!) debt/deficit after a sustained boom than at the end of a recession is absolutely nothing to be proud of.

I can't seem to post the picture in this link directly but NOT well... http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/sport/8427018.Extra_time____with_Walton_Casuals_boss_Neil_Shipperley/

Am thinking about popping out to watch the BIG ONE this Tuesday. The Walton-on-Thames derby! Not sure who to support though. Walton & Hersham are closest to my house and so my "local team" but Walton Casuals (probably an extra 20 mins walk away) are managed by the legend that is Neil Shipperley. Its going to be a tough call.

We moved in at the end of may. 24 hours travelling back from honeymoon in Hawaii, landed at 7am, back at the flat in clapham by 10, removal chaps showed up at 11 am. Was SO knackered!

Actually, given that we're all being pretentious about it I suppose I should have said Walton-on-Thames

Walton, so not far from DPS. Been here nearly a year now and although I miss the buzz and convenience of living in London/clapham sometimes I wouldn't swap back for the world.

Does this memo have the words "private" or "confidential" on it?

The liquidation process is often just the formal closure process for the company at the end of the administration and so it is common (usual) for the administrator to become the administrator. Above anything else it is cheaper for the creditors as a new liquidator will need to spend time (and therefore run up costs) getting up to speed with the details of the case. As for "covering their master's tracks" don't forget that an Administrator is an officer of the court. He is acting in the in the interests of all creditors in accordance with the insolvency legislation. Your opinion of AA is obviously your own to amke though.

Baker Tilly are a reputable firm and will do the liquidation properly in the interests of creditors. (No I don't work for them)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A80956353 They can't even make up their own minds. :lol:

If you make a loss becuase you don't get paid then this reduces your profits, and as a result you pay lower taxes. They'd still rather be paid.

The first payment is now due in 1 April 2012. Until then a newly formed Company ("PFCR") owns a football club buisness. A football club for which it has (as yet) paid absolutely nothing. What's the likelyhood of either: a) The club being sold on before 1 April. The PFCR would still owe the agreed 20% to the old company. b) No sale being agreed, the club not being promoted and there being insufficient funds to make the first payment resulting in PFCR eventually being placed into administration, although this will no doubt be strung out for a while after the first payment should have been made. In the case of a) the owners of PFCR can get a return on their "investment" before they even have to pay for it. In the case of b) they haven't had to put any money in anyway so don't actually lose anything further.

The amount of the "swindle" is irrelevant. It was a swindle and he deserves everything he gets.

The last couple of series were terrible. Lets hope its back to its best.

If (and I haven't read it so I don't know) the CVA agreement stated that payments could be moved and the the creditors voted in favour of it there wouldn't be a lot that the FSA, ICAEW or IPA could do. Excecuting a clause that is in an approved cva document wouldn't be in breach of any rules. Some might think that this was the intention right from the begining and that the initial payment plan was only included to trick creditors into voting for something which would promptly changed but could they prove it?

If you rent it furnished then you can claim a wear and tear allowance of 10% of the gross rent. Reducing the resulting tax payable on the rent.

Wow! Well done.