benjii

He's a complete scatter-gun of weirdness but we usually do OK when he refs us.

Talking nonsense on a factual level isn't "reasoned debate" pal.

This post is just logically wrong on a number of levels. I have already explained why. If you don't get it then I'm afraid it's just a matter of intelligence and I can do no more to help.

Mental. Superficial semantics over reasoned thought. Your quote is a judge's two line summary of the evidence presented by one single witness, which would have been quite complex I expect. That witness, whose evidence was summed up in two lines, gave evidence based solely on their own testing and the base of their own knowledge. It was one witness. Johnson may have broader evidence - all witness evidence, plus secret service evidence not disclosed etc. which, overall, leaves him in no doubt. From that, these nut jobs conclude someone's lying and it's all a big conspiracy. It wasn't necessary to present evidence that it was 100% a Novichok - whatever "Novichok" means; it seems slightly nebulous in any event, which renders this sort of semantic argument a fool's errand. "concrete evidence of lies!!" As I said before, these people are paranoid and either incapable of thinking properly or willing to throw logic out of the window to satisfy their own cravings for subterfuge.

Gerard, Beckham, Lukaku. I asked a sample of "EPL fans".

Nonsense. That court application was to obtain permission to take blood samples from the Skripals so that they can be independently tested by the international body. It was not necessary to provide evidence of what the nerve agent was in detail or to prove its provenance at all; in fact, that is precisely the question which the taking of blood for the independent testing is attempting to verify. The court ruling does not prove Johnson was lying at all. It might suggest that not all the testing evidence was disclosed, which is probably correct for reasons of expediency, secrecy and pure practicality. Those websites smack of paranoid delusion and the logic employed is simple-minded and wrong. "concrete" evidence **** me.

Carrol and Sturridge. Job done.

Is it really worth a read? Looks like the ramblings of a swivel-eyed loony to me.

This is true. Look at the expensive ****e WBA and West Ham have accumulated.

This is correct. Even when "fit", I've been told he can't play Sat, Weds, Sat as his knees aren't up to it. If we stay up we could do with a major overhaul of our striking options (even though we've just spent 19m on one of them).

Not sure. The accounts will say whether we paid a dividend or not. I don't recall us paying a dividend.

The point is, you don't know. As things stand, the evidence suggests she has put around 40m into the club and taken zero out aside from perhaps some relatively modest interest on an 11m loan. Being paid by Gao is not taking money out. If Gao is shown to have dodgy motives or to be a bad owner then perhaps we will need to reevaluate but, as it stands, for someone who was essentially a reluctant owner one might say she has been a model custodian.

You don't understand what you're talking about pal.

She converted 38m of debt to equity according to this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/26813363 Odd move for someone looking to take cash out.

Answer the question. What money has SHE taken out? That doesn't concern whether or not Gao will or won't take money out but what money has she taken out? The money she got from Gao hasn't come out of the club and if a loan was repaid that's not money out either, it's netting off money in, save for any interest but the whole point of that loan was to be on better terms than the high interest loan Cortese took. So, I'll ask again, what money has she taken out? See if you can muster an intelligent response.

What money has Kat taken out then? As far as I can tell she wrote off about 30m of debt and she refinanced Cortese's offshore loan in better terms. Neither of those activities takes money out of the club. If her loan was paid back as part of the sale then ultimately Gao would have paid that one way or the other.

Probably not

We registered an identical charge in November 2016 as well.

The loan was taken out by the club. Read the ****ing document. The borrower is the club, not Gao.

Yeah, but if it is just a cash flow facility because the PL payments are lumpy then any lender would want to take security and an assignment of the payments. That would be very normal and it's so normal that there is even a detailed procedure for it in the Premier League rules. In fact, the more I think about this, the more I suspect it is all perfectly benign.

I agree that it's right to be concerned and I find the silence from the new owners very odd - I don't want big mouth owners but some sort of statement of intent and vision.

That's speculation. We've just published our best ever results. Edit - the on the pitch bit obviously isn't speculation!

The money goes to the bank to be distributed in accordance with the loan document. The loan will say how the debt is dealt with and what the club has left. Even if the whole of the money was kept by the bank, the club would have an equivalent amount of cash (less interest) from the bank to pay the wages. So, your scenario, is that the club changes its business model drastically. The loan is neither here nor there in that scenario.

Could well be as simple as that. Effectively releasing the value of the payments sooner and smoothing cash flow.

Yes, that's probably correct. It would be interesting to know what the size of the loan is though.