hutch

It's a very fine line between 74 & 76. No need to be pessimistic .

Not related either to UFO's or Abductions, so entirely OT, but related to the Galaxy/Universe thing, and what is, or might be, "out there". IMO, we don't know what is out there. Even with our (presently) best telescope technology, we can only see what was out there at some time in the past. How long ago it was there depends on how far away it is (or was then). Right now, there might be nothing at all out there. The sun could have disappeared at any time in the last 8 minutes and we wouldn't know about it (yet). We can't see anything that is travelling away from us (relatively) at faster than the speed of light. And anything that is travelling towards us (relatively) at faster than the speed of light will appear to be travelling away from us (not entirely sure about either of those, I worked them out while lying in bed last night). We have a very, very limited understanding of the true relationship between time, speed and distance. Until we fully grasp those concepts, we will not have a clue what is actually going on out there right now (if right now actually exists). As far as I know, our Galaxy alone is around 100,000 light years across, never mind the size of the universe. Unless and until we get to grips with these things, we're just sitting ducks. If the environmental global warming-ists are to be believed, it could be quite important in the future.

Or, in four words, yes & no, yes and yes. HMRC challenged the football creditor's rule in 2004 (Inland Revenue Commissioners v Wimbledon FC) and lost on appeal. So it is legal as things stand at the moment. That's why, as a matter of principle, they won't agree to any CVA which provides that football creditors get more than them. As football creditors must receive 100%, one way or another, before the playing licence (golden share) is renewed, HMRC won't sign a CVA that gives them (and therefore by default all unsecured creditors) 100p in the pound.

I think I'm right in saying that Leeds had the points deducted anyway, even though the CVA was approved (just) by more than 75% of the unsecured creditors. The Football League don't like cheats!

Ask their suppliers or service providers.

I go with 86 (76 net) as well. Seems to be a popular number, and all things considered an excellent season.

Did you include reading all of the linked press reports and articles?

If I understand it correctly the dispute relates to whether VAT is payable on player sales. Pompey have received VAT from buyers, but haven't paid it to HMRC because they say it isn't due. If they lose they owe HMRC (with interest), and if they win (odds, anyone?) they have to give it back to the buyers. How does that affect their overall debt position?

IIRC it was originally 14.

It's much more interesting looking at these things from the outside. I thought Boulton had GB on the ropes on Sky yesterday. It looked to me like Gordon was in "I'll keep repeating what Mandy told me to say" mode. What has actually struck me most was, at the same time the Tories pledged to cancel the planned NI increases, IIRC at the same time they also said they would cancel the proposed tax on phone lines. Why does nobody think it's insane that the Government wants to tax phone lines? If it moves, tax it. And if it doesn't, slap a tax on it anyway. I'm not saying that the broadband network might not need investment, but does your car tax and fuel tax all go on investment in the road network? The Government should concentrate on governing the country.

I'd prefer it if Tommy Lee Jones helped him out instead.

Oh, OK. We'll give it back, then.

Funnily enough, yes I can, for this season anyway. Once, at Hartlepool. We've gone behind to the first goal away from home 9 times this season. We've won 1, drawn 3 (Carlisle, Orient & Brighton) and lost 5 (Huddersfield, Swindon, Leeds, Colchester & Tranmere). And to help the "feel good" factor, at home we've won 5 after going behind to the first goal (Torquay, MK Dons (league), Walsall, Hartlepool (again) & Orient).

Sheltering from the rain in Pretoria.

The real problem at the moment for AA isn't getting a CVA accepted by the required %age of creditors, but being able to put one on the table in the first place. A CVA is an offer of some pence in the pound to settle debts. In order to offer some pence in the pound you need money. Without a buyer, he hasn't got any. AA himself acknowledged recently that to go down the CVA route, Chainrai will have to put more cash into the club now. Would you?

It wouldn't fit with Investec's profile here. Much too "short-term high-risk". There are more progressive lenders here for that. But their profile in the UK could be different. However, given Standard Bank's close shave, I doubt it.

Investec have also been mentioned, although confusingly described as a New York hedge fund. Investec is a South African Investment Management Group. Given that it was Standard Bank who wisely precipitated this whole collapse a year ago (and who are also my local bank here in SA ), there is no way either Old Mutual or Investec would be interested. They have a reputation down here for being pretty conservative.

Either of whom would immediately turn to a failed scouse property developer to be their UK frontman. Well you would, wouldn't you?

Dune, you do know how big Sub-Saharan Africa is, don't you? I regularly travel between SA & UK. It takes 11 hours, and after 9 hours you're still flying over Africa, and then 2 hours to cross western Europe. Do you believe that the British nation is doomed to failure because of what is happening in Greece? Or Chechnya or Bosnia? And Chalet hit the nail on the head. This ET thing is a storm in a teacup. You lot on here are getting more het up about it than the average South African.

Well I think so. Saints have played 52 competitive matches so far this season, and the opposition have scored first in only 17 of those matches. And of those 17, Saints have turned round more that half of them, going on to win 6 and draw 3. And we've only lost 2 after scoring first, the last time being in September against Bristol Rovers at home. The only other time was against Birmingham in the cup. What a difference from Saints of old.

I'm not surprised, especially if the limit was 30.

I think Palace only got deducted the standard 10, and IIRC they've been in admin before.

If you'd ever been to Senegal, you would understand. The whole Country is football crazy. The atmosphere in Dakar when Senegal are playing a match is electric. Top bloke. Sign him.

AA made the position very clear in his interviews reported last week. The ONLY option he has is to put together some kind of CVA and hope the creditors go for it, with Chainrai remaining as owner. The only problem with that plan is that it requires Chainrai to put MORE money into the club now. IF he is secured, he appears to be the only substantial secured creditor, so he'll get his money back from sale of the assets in liquidation anyway. Apart from the odd leak about previous misdemeanours, and consequent future points deductions, I'm not expecting anything to happen on the admin front until after they get dumped out of the FA cup by Saggy. I'm guessing that AA is clinging to the forlorn hope that he might be able to sell this year's FA cup winners. Once that door is slammed shut he will have to face the facts. Unless he can secure a large injection of cash from somewhere, he will have to seriously consider liquidation. The longer it goes on the way it is now, the worse it gets for them. I'm pretty sure that AA is haemorraging around £1m a week of next season's income at the moment just to keep them going. The longer he leaves it, the less he has to offer the creditors in the CVA while keeping enough back to at least try to run some kind of football operation next season.

I do. It isn't. Edit: But they're showing Spuds v. Skates live this afternoon if you need a laugh to cheer yourself up.