EastleighSoulBoy

Photoshop?

Best postcode to use is FCK 0FF

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8840717.stm

More feasible than their C.V.A. proposals.

?

About 3 years ago some travellers moved into the Ford car park at the back of Stoneham Cemetary. Traffic were going to move their artics in and block them so that they could not move. The legal eagles in Fordland (Yes, it does exist!) quickly warned against, as it would be in 'breach of their rights to move freely' (this from a legal dept. which, honestly, takes no prisoners). They obtained an injunction within 12 hours and the travellers moved on the next day. Allegedly, within the plant, there was tale of money exchanging hands. That same weekend contractors came in and installed height restriction barriers at all access points to each car park.

Thereby placing one great big hex on the Jan. transfer window for the FCSBs?

The BBC should take a leaf out of the Echo reporters jotting pad and read this thread thoroughly.

Fair comment, so not more than twice the amount of sales that DBPRS originally estimated, although nearer to the figure he more recently speculated.

It's all a bit subjective really. Elsewhere it was mooted that 31 was the wrong side of 30 with others opining that 35 was the wrong side. So 13,500 is well past 13,000. As would be 28,756,000 ? And even more well past the figures DBP mentioned.

Whole life, from birth? If so then parents would be responsible. Fair enough. What about a baby born with an illness and nobody has, so far, paid the baby's health care? Would anybody with costly long term illnesses be expected to pay the same as others or more? What about children who are then orphaned or their parent, through no fault of their own, loses a job or becomes ill and incapable of working again? At the moment we can all choose to pay extra for health cover (many don't I can see) although they can't then choose to not pay into the NHS.

From that same article, AA said: I laughed.

He went down B & Q for it but anybody connected to Poopy is banned after those 'incidents' with some of their players.

With breakfast and snacks taken care of, what's for lunch, dinner and supper?

Agree.

I didn't.

Please, do ask.

The wimmin ave orl gun up there to get CSA notices served on that StewRomseyRant.

I wonder how many footballers would suddenly decide that they would be better off 'working for a living'? That comment doesn't apply to most of them but certainly does to most of that rabble which spent a few, boring, weeks in S. Africa. Jamo being one of the exceptions by my reckoning. He's still a skate though!

Haven't you got crabs already?

As posted on another thread, earlier today.

Presumably that means those who are either A In continued good health or B Economically prudent to treat Those who cost too much, and even life illnesses such as diabetes are very costly, might fall prey to the chase for 'economical prudence'?

I agree, I was just putting my view out there and hoping people would correct it or support it. Sorry if I appeared critical of your point. As you say, the whole thing is a Pandora's Box and may well be viewed that way by the Judiciary which might leave them to a Laissez F'aire decision and fail the appeal for HMRC.

Which is exactly why AA is using the term 'Vexatious' when he talks about HMRCs appeal. He deems it to be for annoyance and interference this explains. Truthfully? It's interfering in his quest to get the best deal for his client when, any plausible Administrator, would be working for the best possible deal for the creditors. AA has form for manoeuvering debts to suit and this was noted, in court, during a previous legal process.

Just trying to be even handed here. I believe a C.V.A. would not work that way. My rather simplistic view of what would happen is, the sums would have to be done again. All the debts would be added up, each creditor would then have their percentage of that total debt worked out. That percentage, for each creditor, would be applied to the moneys held or due to the business, to get the sum which would be paid to each creditor. This is how Pro-rata works. So the football creditors will find their payout (currently 100%) will drop drastically while other businesses, currently due 20% (not of the total debt but their own) over the length of the C.V.A., will find their payments actually increase. Example. A club owes £100 Million spread among it's creditors. It can only, during the life of the C.V.A., realise some £50 million. One club is owed £6 million, 6% of the total debt. Today they would get £6 million (forgetting other football debts for this example). After a change their £6 million (6%) would become £3million (6% of the debtor clubs £50 million). Mr Bun The local baker is owed £1 million, 1% of the total debt. Today he would get 20% (of his own debt, which is what the Skates propose) £200,000. After a change Mr Bun's 1% would change to £500,000 (1% of the debtor club's £50 million). All rather simplistic and from experience of helping someone through an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (I.V.A.) where the principles are, I believe, the same?