benjii

Point f effectively apes standard boilerplate clauses in commercial / financial agreements, the point of which is to act as a sweeper in the case of some other procedure analagous to an English insolvency event taking place - hence the reference to "any jurisdiction". It also anticipates a change in English law ie. "Administration" as it is now, changes into something slightly different but similar etc. It would not be designed to move the goalposts of the preceeding clauses but merely to capture events that are not strictly defined therein. If they are relying on point f to catch us, they are changing the goalposts as there is no other jurisdiction involved and there is no analogous procedure. Basically, they fecked up the drafting or didn't anticipate this scenario. Or didn't care because they are such a clandestine troupe of old-ties that it makes bugger all difference to their sad little boys club in any case.

I expect they'll be terrible.

Certainly the use of "suited" seems to suggest someone with a footballing or more specific Saints/local connection IMO.

A company is insolvent if it's liabilities exceed its assets or it's unable to py its debts as they fall due. What are SFC Ltd's liabilities? I would imagine they are the staff costs - hence this depserate scrabble for some money before wages are payable. In any case, until such time as it cannot pay its debts it is solvent. I don't think they are the overdraft? I don't think (in fact I'm 99% sure) they are the mortgage repayments. Clearly the holding company's activities are all football related - there is no doubt. However, that is where the liabilities seem to lie, either directly or through other subsidiaries, not with the football club. It may be morally offensive. It may be a bit sly. But, if their rules are a pile of ****, that's their fault.

I think he has a bee in his bonnet about bankers/lawyers/accountants/anyone cleverer than him..... On a related point, I've just watched the Mark Fry press-conference on the Beeb site. I liked his reference to the FL appeal procedure which he said involves a bunch of QCs sitting around and considering the issue. He welcomed this as it meant that the process was being considered at the "right intellectual level" - almost a Loweism, but a point well made in any case.

Any notion that Lowe gave a stuff about genuinely wishing to atone for past errors and engender some unity went straight out of the window the day Pearson was sacked.... (which in Lowe's mind was probably the day he was appointed).

Sacking Pearson, closely followed by appointing Wigley, closely followed by sacking Sturrock at that particular time.

Don't care, I'll be dead.

Where did you paste this shower of guff from?

Brilliant post =D> (worth quoting if only that those who have limited attention spans have a second crack at reading it.)

Wonderful stuff. Well done GM.

That second one is wee-weeing, not filthmongering

A clean sweep ****ing underwater Being half-asleep, half-awake and dribbling

Eh? They don't have hedges because they're all too fat to get down the garden if there is a hedge there. Either that or they live in bullet-ridden slums. Fact - I've seen it on the tele.

Yeah, I saw him in Jumpin' Jacks ( :cool: ) once and he was a right fatty boom-boom. He was fatter than MLT, who was also there.

Ahh, yes. I do like a drop of London Pride actually. Maybe I will put that into the line-up too! Good shout.

'Arry?

Absolutely correct. Bang the FC Ltd into admin and you get a moratorium period.

Harsh but, generally, fair.

We are having a St George's day event at work. It is BYO so I have been toying with which ale to take along. I am currently thinking of Newcastle Brown but if anyone has other suggestions I am open to them. Thanks.

If you end up in litigation over a hedge then either one or both of you is a ****.

I wonder if anything "exciting" will happen at the match?

It's hardly fair to blame the manager for that per se. If he's not delivering value for money, then yes he should be criticised, but it's incumbent upon his seniors to either reign him in or get rid. His first and only priority is delivering the best football team with the resources available. If the resources made available are excessive, that's not his fault. Likewise, Burley wasted a lot of money through inexplicable team selections and poor signings and should be criticised but it's not within his purview to justify our balance sheet or P&L.