Red and White Army

Seems like Palace have been reading from the same books of ethics as Poopey. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/apr/30/crystal-palace-agilo-player-sales

You have not thought your argument through. Without this inane football creditors rule clubs WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CHEAT. Why? The agents would not let their players sign contracts the club could not hope to honour. It is no good for the player, and no good for the agent. Given the choice of signing for 80k per week at Poopey that has a 25% chance of being paid or 50k a week at a club with better finances the players would opt for the 50k a week. Now they can sign contracts with impunity and know they will be made good, even if the club goes bankrupt. If this protection was removed and they knew they would have to stand in line with the other creditors you would find them being a lot more choosey about how solvent their employers are Think CB Fry think, think before you troll.

OK - sorry I miss the wheat for all the chaff on this thread sometimes. It is hard to keep up with the volume of posts. Yes, I believe they LOST the case there and LOST again in the Court of Appeals? Well, they have challenged this rule and appealed it before - why would they waste time and money on something with a clear legal precedent that rules against them? Are they allowed to throw good money after bad in this way? I am not sure if there are any key differences in the Leeds & Portsmouth cases that renders the judgements against HMRC irrelevant this time? If not - hard to see what grounds HMRC have for believing any appeal will be successful? Any insights here? Hard to see that holding up to be honest, and again - how is this difference to Leeds where HMRC have been defeated and defeated in Appeals? I would think HMRC should lobby to change the law rather than fighting the same battle in the courts over and over?

The Metro reports http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/821909-premier-league-parachute-payments-to-be-extended-from-two-to-four-years However another source - Associated Free Press says The Android opines thus

I don't think HMRC have the option to block any deal, regardless of whether they want to or not. They don't have 25% of the unsecured debt, so have no power to block it on their own. They would need to convince other creditors to join them in blocking the CVA - how feasible that is I have no idea. For the extra 2 years worth of parachute payments - extending the current two years to four - has there been any definitive source for this? I can't believe they would pass it mid-season and make it immediately applicable but I guess there is no reason they can't do so.. I would welcome a link to a credible source either way.

And a couple of great cup runs.

I hope anyone who wants us to lose games we play ****s off and supports our fishy friends down the road. Take alwhine skate with you.

Assuming they can be sold. We struggled to sell Rasiak remember.

It is possible, but the creditors might prefer to receive 30p in the pound over five years (example) than nothing in the event of Poopey being liquidated.

F*** me. What a disaster Poopey are. If "football debt" is classified as unpaid transfer fee's, unpaid salaries/bonuses and unpaid agents fees then this is 21.2 million, which needs to be stumped up for them to continue playing. 91 million of unsecured debts, and HMRC owed 17 million. Secured debt of 14 million. So, if football debts are repaid in full then the unsecured debt would drop to 70 million, and HMRC's 17.1 million is 24.4% of the unsecured debt total which would mean they can not block the CVA.... quite handy..... With AA's past track record of inflating debt in precisely this sort of scenario I can't imagine HMRC are going to be particularly happy with this 24.4% figure.

You, by re-hashing this subject continually. It is clear what you think, if if you don't explicitly state it? I could phrase a question "Does TDD continually rehashing the cup run vs league form mean he is a troll who craves attention and can't resist winding up forum members to serve his own pathetic agenda?" without explicitly stating what my opinion is... it's hardly big or clever - rather pathetic to hide your views behind insidious little questions actually.

Yawn. Change the record, Dull Days.

I thought you thought he was a bit lightweight and crap, based on your then experience of never seeing him play.

It really does look like these cheats are going to get away with this. CHEATS.

I fly it regularly (2-3 times a year over the past 8 years) and don't find much turbulence at all as a rule.

Jail without internet access, if SWF has any luck.

Who do these muppets think are going to fund this investigation? The Premier League? No way, they want this mess swept under the carpet as it reflects abjectly on them and their rules. The Police? No way, they will investigate any criminal fraud but not to the extent of producing reports and a big picture summary Any of the past or current owners? No way,. for obvious reasons. Any supporters group? No way, no money and no access. Maybe they are used to getting something for nothing and think money magically appears out of thin air.... but by now you would have thought that they would have been disabused of that notion CHEATS.

TDD boring pointless negative thread while being utterly wrong shocker.

Fantastic!!!!

That is in the Telegraph, not the Guardian!

No sign of the Guardian expose that someone here mentioned.

And the twot alwhine saint arrives.

Sounds like BS to me. Can not think this Rob Lloyd character has genuine links to Old Mutual and a NY based hedge fund. Even if he does (0.1% chance) then both groups are after economic returns and investing in Poopey is the definition of a mugs game - you might as well burn your money. Mabe Rob Lloyd has money from elsewhere but I can not really think Old Mutual and a hedge fund are behind it. Strange he did not borrow money from there instead of issuing shares at 1p in Eatonfield Group, effectively giving his company away.

Fantastic!!!

Anyone have a link to the BBC twitter feed?