egg

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.

JD?

So jacko, oj, grobelaar et al were all innocent because they weren't found guilty?

Plenty of evidence coming out. I don't know the truth but I'm stunned that he is being given the benefit of the doubt rather than "victims".

Why the support for someone who has apparently abused kids? Dead or not, a paedophile is a paedophile.

Surely if someone can be pardoned posthumously, they can be exposed? Just out of interest, has anyone seen evidence that the transcript is a spoof and/or that Paul Merton has distanced himself from it?

True, but none of us know who NA prefers in that position. Everton certainly seemed like an audition for Reeves and I wouldn't be surprised to see him in the side on Sunday. Does anyone know if Shaw played the full 90 for the ressies yesterday, and if not who else played there?

He's decent. The lad played LB as youth player. He's only played further up since his introduction to the first team. Perhaps he's played in a more attacking role to develop that aspect of his game. The club have done that with Shaw too but he's still regarded as a LB. He's also played LB for the ressies recently. I wouldn't be surprised to see him there against Fulham with clyne at RB.

The Horns are showing the Everton game. Will find out if they will be showing others.