egg

The problem is that trustees have an obligation to look after, and safely invest, trust money. Pumping money into a football club is not an investment. Whilst Markus wish may have been one thing, the obligations of trustees is very different.

...

Can't argue with our progress. But, if you were the owners would you get a return from any further progress? Would further investment yield a return? Probably not imo.

Unless he wins this power struggle he'll be gone. He didn't win it today and I don't think he'll win it at all. The liebherrs are massive. Cortese isn't. I'd expect a new man at the helm next season.

Cortese's plans are irrelevant though if he and the owners can't agree terms.

Someone posted this on the Sunderland build up thread: http://www.eplindex.com/31750/tottenham-1-southampton-0-indepth-tactical-analysis.html It's a bit heavy but it analyses our tactics comprehensively, and explains the changes we made to nullify spurs for most of the game.

Short term view. Long term the separation of the family is likely to do more harm to the kids, and the wider society. They'll have all sorts of separation issues and anger to add to their genetics.

Short answer is yes. We give teams much more to think about. Someone said we have no plan b. That's nonsense. We didn't under Adkins, but do now. Last weeks formation was different to the previous week, ie a different plan. We also defended slightly deeper in that game. Yesterday changes were made and both changes were involved in the goal. Results will improve after a full pre season, and a couple of signings to help give a cutting edge.

The kids are likely to replicate their parents behaviour. However, they will not turn out any better if they're dragged into care, then separated and then living a nomadic life. Hypo is right, it's not the kids fault.

You couldn't see the lounge floor.

Sadly I used to deal with these types of families when I did child care work. Part of my practice also involved defending families from eviction. Pugwash point is so true. I dealt with a case where the school were feeding the kids, taking the kids shopping, providing clean clothes and showers etc. They were constantly onto social services who did nothing despite regular complaints about alcoholic parents and the state of the house. This went on for a couple of years. Action was only taken after the family dog died and given a shallow grave in the garden. It's a sad indictment of our system when it takes a dead dog to prompt action that teachers were screaming for.

I've bought a cat c and a cat d. Both cars were bought from traders that I knew and trusted. I saw photos of the damage and was given full details of the repairs. The cars were fine, perfectly safe and complete bargains. Obviously they were sold on at less than a straight car, but I'd had them from nearish new and saved a mint so a small hit when the cars were older wasn't a problem. Often a cat d is just panel damage. That's purely cosmetic and should not deter anyone. The important thing is to know what the damage was and how it was fixed.

Agreed.

But I don't have an opinion, that's the point! It's the fans criticising the club without knowing what, if anything, they've done wrong. It's nuts.

There's a vehicle upholstery place just off of Bedford Place. I forget the name but it's the little side streey by the car park opposite the launderette. I know a couple of people who have used them and talk highly of them.

I couldn't care less whether we are at fault or Franny is. I have no opinion on it because I don't know the facts. I get uppity because alleged fans assume that because we settle a claim that we are a terrible club who treat people badly. I just don't get why people jump to such stupid conclusions without any knowledge of the facts.

Deeds, as such, no longer exist. Properties are registered at the land registry and the old papers traditionally referred to as deeds get lost in time. The office copy entries (basically the modern equivalent of the deeds, available from the land registry for a few quid) are unlikely to have the answer. You need the original conveyance which may be referred to in the office copy entries. If it is you may be lucky and get a copy from the land registry. If not, you need the pre-registration documents (basically the old school deeds) as the conveyance should be amongst them. They may be on your solicitors file if it hasn't been destroyed, or with the previous owners. First port of call should be land registry. If that doesn't assist then the solicitors who dealt with the purchase. As for rule of thumb, there is none. People say it's normally the right side but that's about as accurate as saying a spun coin normally lands tails side up. Good luck.

If there was evidence that we had done so I would agree with you. The problem is, and the sole reason for me getting uppity about it, is that nobody has a clue that we have actually treated Franny badly. Indeed, the only "facts" on this thread suggest that Franny was being a little over zealous in his claim and that the club stood it's ground before settling the case. There's nothing factual in the public domain which suggests that the club behaved badly in this case, and thus nothing to support what you say.

The club did defend its position, hence the case was listed for trial. The case then settled. The club/case would not need to proceed to trial if sensible terms are agreed as appears to have happened here.

I'm inclined to agree. He's a very good fullback but I think would a very effective wide midfielder. Clyne would also be great LB cover for Shaw. Signing another good RB gives good options and cover.

As per my posts, how do you know the club didn't? You're assuming.

The point is that some fans assume that the club were are at fault and that a club legend couldn't possibly have been chancing his arm. That's all done without knowledge of any facts.

How is it clear that the club caved and not Franny? Explain. How do you know that there was "nothing to defend"? Explain.

I can't say that we did of didn't do anything, or that Franny was or wasn't due anything! I have answered your question, more than once.

Mate, I've answered your question. I'm not saying that either party has done wrong. You think that the dispute would have ended if we paid what we believed we owed but Franny had a different opinion of the right number. Perhaps we sent that cheque but it was shredded - who on here knows. If you want to, carry on assuming that the club are in the wrong. I'll stay in the open minded camp but with the caveat that I'll criticise people that express an opinion without knowledge of the facts.