egg

Guly was more involved than RL had been in the 2nd half and solidified the middle whilst offering something going forward. People moaning about RL going off are judging him on his goalscoring ability rather than his 2nd half performance. The team benefited from Guly being on the pitch. I can't believe anyone honestly believes that Puncheon should have stayed on. He left Yoshida exposed and offered no threat going forward. Chappers tightened up the right side. Does anyone really feel that Chappers for Punch hindered the team? Was RL really more effective 2nd half than Guly was? None of the moaners have said what subs they feel should have been made. I'm as frustrated as anyone that we didn't win but I don't think that was down to NA.

Absolutely. Obvious change. Mayuka was the only other choice but we needed someone to track Riise, and support the middle. Chaplow was the only option.

Disagree. Chaplow for Punch was the right move at the right time. JR was much more involved so had to stay on, and Guly was very effective in influencing the comeback. What changes should have been made instead?

What does that prove? Injuries can happen after interviews.

I wouldn't start him. If Ramirez is out I'd like to see RL played a little deeper and JR up top. Like you I would like to see him used as an impact sub.

Absolutely. This point also extends to the victims who didn't speak out at the time. How anyone can try to defend this bloke is beyond me. It's true that he can't defend himself, but there's no reason why anyone should want to do it for him.

Thinking about this, there may be an angle but I'm no accountant so could be way off beam. If our tv money goes in this years income pot but we somehow defer payments of transfer fees into the following year then we could, on paper, make a profit. If we have a loan could that reduce the profit and thus our tax liability. Interest on a loan is at a lesser rate than tax.

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?