benjii

Uberlol.

Yeah, there must be a really high chance of a banning. It's probably best not to go at all, that way you can be safe.

I've already removed "troll". I apologise for that. You're not a troll - you didn't start this thread. Just a numpty

Yeah, anyone who gets a mention in The Echo will be banned. When they do full-page spreads on schools, all the kids featured are banned. Also, if you've ever bought, or even looked at, a copy you are banned.

Yeah, we knew that

Who cares anyway? What if they did? Now they don't? So what? I wouldn't encourage any business to communicate in real time on an open forum unless there are sound reasons for doing so. Telling a few over-excited people how many tickets have been sold for a match is hardly business critical.

No, of course not. Don't be so obtuse. It is obvious though. FACT you're a massive, boring, ego-maniac.

FACT some people are complete hopeless cases.

FACT you can't please everyone all of the time.

FACT most of those are sensible decisions that affect the average fan not one jot.

Yep. The only problem I can see is that it would have been nice to have had more warning about the interest-free installment plan (a ridiculously generous and potty perk) being removed. Other than that I have no issue and the positives: implementing a clear strategy for the club at every level whilst recognising that the first team is paramount; recruiting top people; allowing the manager time; far outweigh the grumblings of a disgruntled few, many of which grumblings appear to be based on unsubstantiated hearsay.

He completely glosses over anything to do with the specific facts of what actually happened procedurally in this case (understandably as you wouldn't put your case in the public domain before trial). He just makes some general points about authorities and HMRC tactics etc...

It's complete red-herring. HMRC voted in favour of AA producing a proposal that included, as one element of it, the winding up of the company and the transfer of everything to a new company. HMRC's vote in favour of that proposal would have been predicated on then receiving their full voting rights when that proposal was put to the vote and in all other things being conducted properly.

I would not be particularly reassured by that if I was a skate: - some wishy points around the court case; frankly, Lampit is not a lawyer and the person reporting it is probably not either. I doubt either of them really understood what they were talking about. - some wishy points around signing players; we all know this will be done on a case-by-case basis with each one assessed by the FL on its merits, they aren't going to be able to scam people here and they aren't going to be able to persuade everyone to let them have players for no fee and no wages. - Chanrai, fit and proper; he is doing the test on the offchance they might win their case. Great, so if they lose.... curtains?

TBF, you don't have to buy it.

Exactly. This thread is an example of strange behaviour. That is all.

Newsflash: when speaking, people involved in the football industry say things that, when written down, would often be: misrepresentative; or nonsense. To be fair, y'know, at the end of the day.

What a waste of space this thread is. Can't be arsed to read the recent pages but unless someone is prepared to confirm the reason for any banning then we have no idea if it's justified or not. It might be, it might not. Dunno.

Maybe it is costing them nothing? ie, no loan fee and no wages. If that's the case it's hard to think of any rationale why it shouldn't be allowed. The article thanks Tony Pulis for making it happen so it sounds like the terms are, er generous. Alternatively, it hasn't been ratified and they're just being silly buggers.

Possibly a fairly accurate summary IMO.

My point is that NI's post seems to say that he hasn't managed to speak to anyone about this *****il yesterday). I find that extraordinary. If you phone the number given for the ticket office on the website you will speak to someone. I'm wondering if he did that? If you are complaining to a company you don't demand to speak to the CEO (or whoever, "senior management") you follow their complaints/enquiries procedure and if you're not getting anywhere you escalate it. If he's not been able to speak to someone after three weeks of trying then I would suggest he has been phoning the wrong people.

Exactly!

Indeed, if all the grounds for appeal need to be examined in court (ie if HMRC don't get a simple slam-dunk on the factual questions around voting procedures) there's no way they will be finished in one day. The issues around football creditors voting are complex and require in-depth legal argument.

That is certainly a valid point - there is no doubt the PL is an international brand and players images are worth something overseas. I've no idea what the tax implications are around that though. BUT It still doesn't get around the fact that they appear to have paid more than Man U did. I still think Rooney is worth more in Malaysia than Hayden Mullins. HMRC are not challenging the concept here (they might another time) - they're challenging the amount.

Nah. Loads of things that get discussed on here are completely irrelevant. But that's not the point, we weren't talking about relevance, we were talking about credibility which is something quite different.