dvaughanwilliams

I have no idea why the trust are celebrating this decision. At best it is *only* a PR disaster. It has made all parties look amateurish. If the developer's change in terms is only an increase in the "peppercorn" rent, that completely ruins the trust's business plan. If he's pulled out completely, they're dead in the water.

My point would be that the judge couldn't rubber stamp a sale to a buyer who didn't have the money. The case doesn't set a value and then wait for a potential buyer to roll in. PKF needed to turn up to the court, ask permission to make a sale to a particular buyer and to get authority to make the sale. If the money isn't there, the court can't make a hypothetical valuation. Which sounds better: trust is bust or trust is toast?

The case is about 2 things: first, whether PKF can make the sale of the ground at all; second, if they are authorised to sell, what the valuation should be. If the first part is fatally flawed, that's game over. If the funding of the PDT bid means that they can't currently afford to buy the ground, the case will fail, which may be why they're asking for 28 days, to find another source of funding. If the case goes ahead and the PDT are found to be potless, or if PKF pull the plug, I don't think that they'd get another date in court to try to force the sale with different backers. It's looking like checkmate.

Then Trev can't sell the ground without Chainrai's permission. The trust say that this means the club will be liquidated. Portpin say that it will mean that the club will be sold to them. Pick the source you consider more reliable.

If this is true, the trust is finished.

I wonder if the March deadline applies to this case like other admins. It would be funniest if they came out of admin in April, got relegated on their own merit and had the -10 apply next season.

I thought that it was only the club's debt that was covered. The PDT have signed an agreement that on purchase of the club, they will instantly transfer ownership of the ground to REL. It would be REL's debt, not the PDT's.

I think that if the problems with REL are what everyone thinks, then PKF will withdraw the case, having racked up thousands in legal fees.

So, reading between the lines, it seems that Robinson made the agreement to buy the land before arranging the funding. He has presumably been going around his usual lenders and discovered that there aren't all that many people that are keen on lending money secured on a football ground, especially when there was an imminent court case to have a different charge removed from said ground. Now that the court case has come up, some difficult questions are being asked and he has had to come clean. If this speculation is remotely close to the truth it's now Chainrai or bust.

Are you able to discern whether these are genuine losses or just accountancy losses for 'tax planning'. Property Companies are renowned for their ingenuity in their uses of loopholes.

So, it looks like Chinny wasn't going to contest the case based on valuation, but based on whether it is right for the administrator to make the sale out form under his charge at all. If he can go to court and demonstrate that his offer for the club is substantially the same as the PDT, why does the sale need to be made at all, at any valuation? If he can show that his bid has not been treated fairly and that the PDT bid offers creditors nothing better than his bid, I don't see what PKF/PDT can say against this. Now, if Chinny had failed the Owners and Directors test, then his case doesn't stand up. Given that PKF have requested the adjournment, it seems that they don't have an answer.

I found the video to be unconvincing and low on facts or proof. All it had were leading questions. The problem I have with all conspiracy theories is the asymmetry in testing the evidence. In my view the conspiracy has as many inconsistencies as the official version. Was there a rocket? I assume that you agree that there was and that this element wasn't faked. Where did it go? If there was a rocket and it did leave the atmosphere, why would they not attempt to go to the moon? When did they discover that they couldn't get to the moon? They must have filmed the fake shots before the launch as there are films of the crew in space or do you think that they were faked too? Why couldn't they go to the moon? Why would the scientists and technicians have agreed to the plan, rather than actually make the attempt, especially given the patriotic symbolism of the space race? How much of the mission is fact and how much fiction? If some of the mission were true, then NASA would have needed 2 control rooms, one for the fake stuff and one for the real. How did they keep the real stuff hidden? Faking it seems utterly illogical and fraught with danger.

It's all explained in the MythBusters videos posted already. Have you never noticed how bright the moon is in the night sky?

In every interview I've seen with people from the trust, they always say that the PDT's ownership will suddenly bring in more sponsorship, attendance and corporates, purely by being "fan-owned". A business plan based on these pie in the sky optimistic assumptions is a recipe for disaster, especially with the increased scrutiny on their finances from the Football League. As I recall, things looked pretty tight on the financial front, even with the optimism. Let's hope the FL impose some realism on the playing budget...

This has been debunked. It's not fringes of photography, it's the nature of the light coloured rock. The flags had a metal rail at the top to keep it square. Gravity acted on the rail wobbling the flag. Also:

Overall a fairly good performance. The game was very physical and niggly. The referee deserved some, but not all of the stick he was getting. Puncheon was the best player on the pitch and was ultimately the difference between the two sides. Rodriguez had his best game in a Saints shirt in my view, but still has more to do to justify the price tag.

I thought it was people cheering LUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUKE.

Honeymoon period typically only lasts 8-12 games, according to the study.

I agree totally with what you have written. I was attempting a direct rebuttal to people whose comments seem to imply that a change in manager would improve results, when the typical result is that things get worse after a brief honeymoon period.

The point I'm trying to make (badly it seems) is that firing a manager doesn't always produce a better outcome, in fact, the statistics show that it often leads to a worse one. The sackings of both Wigley and Poortvliet weren't enough to save us from relegation in the respective seasons and while there may have been some improvement afterwards, it wasn't enough. Firing a manager only guarantees upheaval, uncertainty and cost. Since it's impossible to prove a counterfactual, who knows what the result of not changing the management would have been. Could a different manager be getting better results from our current squad? Maybe. It's certainly a lot easier to fire a manager than hire one.

I meant the opposite. That they were appointments that lead to worse results rather than better.

Improvements do happen, but it is not guaranteed and certainly not the norm. I could equally quote Poortvliet, Wigley and Wotte.

From: http://www.wbs.ac.uk/downloads/news/2009/10/what-is-the-impact-of-changing-football-manag.pdf Whilst I know that this proves nothing, I thought it would be useful to put the calls from some people for a change in manager into context. I can think of very few situations where a change in manager has produced a significant improvement in results in a team other than Redknapp taking over from Juande Ramos, but lots of times when a change produced no improvement or the team got worse: Terry Connor, Les Reed, Steve Kean, Sammy Lee, etc.

The formation that we played today seemed to suit us: 4-4-1-1. This gave the defence a bit more cover and allowed Ramirez to have some freedom. We had a lot of possession and created lots of good chances. We didn't put in enough shots, but overall it was much improved performance. We need to cut out the individual errors at the back though. Giving away easy chances is becoming too much of a habit. I think that the vocal support for Nigel at the game shows that there is a majority of the fans who want to keep him on.

Very attacking team and our defence will depend on Puncheon, Ramirez and Lallana's tracking back. Should be interesting; both Swansea and Saints have had relatively high possession stats and will be interesting who comes out on top.