egg

Purely based on the fact that mayuka hasn't delivered, that forren hasn't featured and that IMO gaston has flattered to deceive. My comment that it was 20m wasted was a bit flippant. 20m that probably could have been better spent would be more accurate. Either way, that transfer business looks pretty poor based on what I've seen so far.

Tokes,it is bad enough having to read your drivel at the best of times, but when you go off subject it becomes very tedious. It would probably be ok if you were as entertaining as you think you are, but you're not.

Btw this is a great thread and I for one couldn't give a monkeys if bear is Tokyo, turks is del, dd is batman, scooby is ****gy or whatever. Can you please take that sh1t to the muppet show, or wherever. Cheers.

To be fair, buctotim makes many good points. Mayuka, gaston and forren has been 20m wasted. Irrespective of who is right and who is wrong, we have drawn bad press. The contracts given to Barnard, butterfield, Davies and others over recent seasons has to be questioned. I'm in the "yes" camp but its not wrong to highlight errors in NC's judgement.

If that's right then nc is gone. The liebherrs are massive, nc isn't.

I have no idea of the trust arrangements. The club may he hived off from the other assets, or part of a pot. My gut feel is that the trustees are concerned, or are being advised,that throwing money at the club is not a sound or proper use of trust monies.

Trusts contain assets which can work in varying ways. Ordinarily, the assets within them become the property of other people, the beneficiaries. They, or other beneficiaries, could also receive an income from the trust assets. The trusts are managed by trustees. Their obligation, always, is to the beneficiaries. Common sense says that no trustee would want to pump money into a football club forever more.

The problem is that trustees have an obligation to look after, and safely invest, trust money. Pumping money into a football club is not an investment. Whilst Markus wish may have been one thing, the obligations of trustees is very different.

...

Can't argue with our progress. But, if you were the owners would you get a return from any further progress? Would further investment yield a return? Probably not imo.

Unless he wins this power struggle he'll be gone. He didn't win it today and I don't think he'll win it at all. The liebherrs are massive. Cortese isn't. I'd expect a new man at the helm next season.

Cortese's plans are irrelevant though if he and the owners can't agree terms.

Someone posted this on the Sunderland build up thread: http://www.eplindex.com/31750/tottenham-1-southampton-0-indepth-tactical-analysis.html It's a bit heavy but it analyses our tactics comprehensively, and explains the changes we made to nullify spurs for most of the game.

Short term view. Long term the separation of the family is likely to do more harm to the kids, and the wider society. They'll have all sorts of separation issues and anger to add to their genetics.

Short answer is yes. We give teams much more to think about. Someone said we have no plan b. That's nonsense. We didn't under Adkins, but do now. Last weeks formation was different to the previous week, ie a different plan. We also defended slightly deeper in that game. Yesterday changes were made and both changes were involved in the goal. Results will improve after a full pre season, and a couple of signings to help give a cutting edge.

The kids are likely to replicate their parents behaviour. However, they will not turn out any better if they're dragged into care, then separated and then living a nomadic life. Hypo is right, it's not the kids fault.

You couldn't see the lounge floor.

Sadly I used to deal with these types of families when I did child care work. Part of my practice also involved defending families from eviction. Pugwash point is so true. I dealt with a case where the school were feeding the kids, taking the kids shopping, providing clean clothes and showers etc. They were constantly onto social services who did nothing despite regular complaints about alcoholic parents and the state of the house. This went on for a couple of years. Action was only taken after the family dog died and given a shallow grave in the garden. It's a sad indictment of our system when it takes a dead dog to prompt action that teachers were screaming for.

I've bought a cat c and a cat d. Both cars were bought from traders that I knew and trusted. I saw photos of the damage and was given full details of the repairs. The cars were fine, perfectly safe and complete bargains. Obviously they were sold on at less than a straight car, but I'd had them from nearish new and saved a mint so a small hit when the cars were older wasn't a problem. Often a cat d is just panel damage. That's purely cosmetic and should not deter anyone. The important thing is to know what the damage was and how it was fixed.

Agreed.

But I don't have an opinion, that's the point! It's the fans criticising the club without knowing what, if anything, they've done wrong. It's nuts.

There's a vehicle upholstery place just off of Bedford Place. I forget the name but it's the little side streey by the car park opposite the launderette. I know a couple of people who have used them and talk highly of them.

I couldn't care less whether we are at fault or Franny is. I have no opinion on it because I don't know the facts. I get uppity because alleged fans assume that because we settle a claim that we are a terrible club who treat people badly. I just don't get why people jump to such stupid conclusions without any knowledge of the facts.

Deeds, as such, no longer exist. Properties are registered at the land registry and the old papers traditionally referred to as deeds get lost in time. The office copy entries (basically the modern equivalent of the deeds, available from the land registry for a few quid) are unlikely to have the answer. You need the original conveyance which may be referred to in the office copy entries. If it is you may be lucky and get a copy from the land registry. If not, you need the pre-registration documents (basically the old school deeds) as the conveyance should be amongst them. They may be on your solicitors file if it hasn't been destroyed, or with the previous owners. First port of call should be land registry. If that doesn't assist then the solicitors who dealt with the purchase. As for rule of thumb, there is none. People say it's normally the right side but that's about as accurate as saying a spun coin normally lands tails side up. Good luck.

If there was evidence that we had done so I would agree with you. The problem is, and the sole reason for me getting uppity about it, is that nobody has a clue that we have actually treated Franny badly. Indeed, the only "facts" on this thread suggest that Franny was being a little over zealous in his claim and that the club stood it's ground before settling the case. There's nothing factual in the public domain which suggests that the club behaved badly in this case, and thus nothing to support what you say.