egg

Possible. Anyhow, stay up and all should be cool. This has made an interesting season even more interesting .

Possibly. Maybe that the tv money alone gave insufficient security for the amount borrowed.

That's one interpretation. But, why the need to borrow? Why give security over more than the tv revenue?

I echo that. The added concern is the additional security floating over all assets. It suggests tv revenue may be insufficient.

But we don't know what we have or haven't done. This may be 10m payable from prize money, or a 75m gamble based on staying up. Either way its a secured debt which appears to be a change of course.

No! Read the MG01. The charge is against all assets of the club.

Would be a cracking argument if there was a) certainty of the existence of a capital base, and b) certainty that the return on the capital base merited the cost of the borrowing. I'm not saying that we're on a poor financial base, I just don't know enough facts, but this could well be a large scale payday loan. I repeat could.

Is the security not against all assets?

The lender would want wide security for a large amount, lesser security for a lesser amount. Why would someone borrow at all if they're being bankrolled by the estate of a deceased billionaire? We are all ignorant of unknown facts, but shouldn't be ignorant to a potential sign of a problem. That doesn't equate to hysteria or bell endedness.

Courtesy cars? Hire cars? Doesn't make sense to me.

You can ask why any loan is needed if we apparently have wealthy benefactors.

An assumption, or based on knowledge?

All valid points, but you ignore the fact/assumption that we are being bankrolled. This appears to kick that notion into touch whilst revealing a debt floating over all our assets and future tv deals etc. Two shocks in one.

This. Can't we just have a decent panic about stuff that we know nothing much about without having a pop at mlg about a stadium that we definitely can't afford.

People have backed us, albeit with a loan. The backing of the family appeared to subside after ML died. Thereafter our transfer activity slowed *****il the summer) but despite that the family bailed us out recently. Now this. Details are needed but on the face of it something seems to be not quite right and we appear to be living well beyond our means.

As exciting as all this"I know stuff", "oh no you don't" stuff is, does anyone know what state our training ground is in at the moment? Do we still have decent indoor facilities as winter approaches?

Some have but I take your point. The points though are that he will never be tried now he's dead, and that in any event a not guilty verdict in a criminal court does not equate to innocence. People misunderstand the second point, e.g. John Terry. We can't assume he ain't guilty as he hasn't, and can't be, convicted.

What's a fair price to pay for lessons, and how many would be advisable for a complete novice to pick up the basis?

Hypo,I avoid debate with you due to your deliberately misquoting and/or inability to read all the words. If you read what you've quoted you'll see the word "apparently". Hardly an expression of sir jim being guilty.

Er, where did I say that. I've offered no opinion on his guilt, just an observation that people seem willing to give sir jim the benefit of the doubt.

I haven't labelled anyone a paedophile. I also haven't labelled him innocent which many seemingly have. If that's the general thought process it's no wonder abuse gets brushed under the carpet.

I think we're talking at cross purposes. I respect the criminal justice but there is a world of difference between being found not guilty in a court and actually having committed the crime. I ran a successful criminal defence practice for years and the cast majority of my clients who avoided conviction were in fact guilty of the crime. In this case people have come forward saying that awful things have been done to them. I find it sad that people jump to the conclusion that these people must be fantasists and that sir Jim must have been an angel.

What, so a paedophile once dead ceases to be a paedophile? Do murderers suddenly stop being murderers when they die too? Ridiculous thing to say.

Everything. Who says every allegation must be based on truth? Some are false, but many cases where there is guilt do not result on conviction. Only the naive would think differently.

Abused children are given a life sentence. Many abusers who have done appalling things to children avoid conviction.