egg

So players only contribute if they score? How about being available to receive the ball? Keeping the ball? Running at defenders, earning free kicks, adding energy and something different? Would you be moaning about RL going off if Gulys 20 yarder snuck in the corner?

But Punch and Ricky weren't our best players. Morgan, Fonte, Gazza, Davis were. He took off two underperforming players, one of who was tiring. He bought on two players who helped the team more than the players they replaced and ultimately those players helped salvage a point.

Mayuka and Yoshida as our right side? Not for me. JR wasn't great but had more energy than RL so stayed on by default really. We needed height and power on the pitch for set pieces at both ends so Guly was an obvious choice over Mayuka for whichever of the strikers came off.

This is down to the discipline of players, and a lack of on pitch leadership. Guly had a link role so that didn't affect the general shape. Chappers was a like for like positional change. AL isn't a leader or organizer and it doesn't help that for all his qualities, he gets into awful positions.

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.