benjii

4 years is pretty common for an initial contract. It's not worryingly short, is it? It's what Mane and Clyne signed (and probably a host of others), for example. So, no.

Goodbye to the Golden Ponytail

Clearly no nepotism down there then.

That's not what Lowe did at all. The PLC wasn't a shell company, it was the holding company (and he didn't try to liquidate it, he put it into administration). The fixed term debt in the group at the time was split amongst various subsidiaries, which was entirely normal given it was incurred for what was essentially the project-financing of a stadium. It wasn't some clever trick and only really became a subject of conversation in relation to trying to escape a footballing points deduction on a technicality. Gao may very well have established a company for the purpose of making the borrowing but it won't be a "shell" company. Why would a commercial lender lend to a company with no assets? If it did, it would expect to charge a very uncompetitive rate of interest. I agree with you that the debt may well end up on the club's books eventually though - that would not be a surprise.

Not fretting, merely pointing out that there are some questions and the situation is now far more complicated than it was before. And you sound a bit like a Skate. Frankly, I have an emotional attachment to the football club and I would like to know who its owners are and what their motivations are. Despite the cast of owners we have had over the years - some good, some bad - those questions have normally had pretty transparent and straightforward answers.

I'm not sure you understand what "security" means in this context. It is quite possible he intends to use revenues generated by the football club to repay the loan. The issue of security is separate and distinct to the question of where the money to repay the loan is coming from. "Security" means assets which are available to the creditors if the loan is defaulted on. The fact that SFC is not security for the loan (if that is a fact, which I expect it probably is) does not mean SFC will not be paying for the loan in one way or another. The caveat to all this is that the loan itself is not necessarily bad news, although the details of quite where this money has come from and the cost of the money - and indeed whether SFC is expected to fund that cost - are somewhat lacking.

Would make more sense to increase the prices.

I've no idea what half of this means but I like it anyway. It's got soul.

It's probably the thing they issued the embarrassing public apology about, Titty Jan.

He's got the Jason Statham not-a-lot-of-hair-in-a-good-way thing going on. That's up some people's street. It's good to have a few rugged ones in with the pretty boys. When I think we used to field a team with Kevin Hurlock, Iain Dowie, Barry Venison, Matt Le Tiss, John Beresford.... just look at the boys now. So much fitter.

Well, yes, that would actually be much more helpful than the self-validation-via-social-meeeeja route.

Chase Da Money?

He's quite dishy. People might not think this is important (and the for the avoidance of doubt, I am not "virtue signalling" as a woofter) but I prefer it when our team is reasonably good looking.

I'm not bothered about the transfer window spending either and I'd probably be more concerned if he was saying, "we're going to spend loads this window now" as that's the sort of strategic idiocy you expect from West Ham etc. Saying nothing has happened to be concerned about seems a bit Ostrich-like, however, when you consider: 1) The original investment vehicle could not finance the deal due to: --- a) Chinese government intervention; and/or --- b) a more fundamental lack of funds 2) The Premier League seemed to have some serious doubts about the chap's suitability 3) Initial reports on completion suggested the deal was paid for "out of his personal wealth", whilst subsequent reports seem to have confirmed that all the money was borrowed * * * Now, none of those things are "proof" that he is not going to be a good owner and none of them taken in isolation is grounds for a hysterical reaction but there are certainly reasons for a justifiable level of concern.

It all sounds a bit **** but as long as we retain a decent day to day management team and structure then hopefully there is little actual footballing impact. When he appoints his nephew as President of Transfers, or whatever, the writing will be on the wall!

****ing Visigoths, letting the Moors in.

I like the bit in the middle where he gets 10 years older and changes his appearance.

What do you mean "virtue signalling"? That doesn't make much sense in the context you have used it. Is this something you have read recently but don't quite get?

Why? Of all the reasons to boo a player, being unprofessional, disrespectful and disruptive is one of the better ones. It's a much better reason than just playing ****, which is the commonest reason people get booed.

I've wondered about this. Maybe Yoshida has indicated a desire to move on - perhaps closer to "home". It would make his contract situation and the long-term view on Bednarek more understandable.

He won't be playing alongside Schneiderlin, he'll be walking around in the same space Rooney will be trying to play in.

Probably because he's a better defender.

A lot of the players certainly didn't like Puel and the morale of the team suffered as a result. I doubt anyone deliberately sabotaged performances though.

Stephens is way over rated by some on here.

Ahh, I got the sentence count wrong!