Matt

Fair enough, but in either case that's not a club opting to not make money, provision of refreshments is an obligation of the ground grading so ultimately making 400k instead of 200k or 100k instead of -100k is the same thing in terms of bottom line.

Nope, it's not broken out, probably buried in the matchday income. There's just no reason we'd make no money from it though- it will either be a fixed payment a volume-based payment or most likely a combination of the two. It's not exactly controversial, anywhere I've ever worked with a canteen has outsourced those operations to a specialist.

They are making money from it though, in fact they should be making more than if they were doing it in house, otherwise their would be no point.

The fucking cheek of it considering how much Newham Council is on the hook for. Hope they move somewhere else- Stratford is a no-go zone when they're at home.

Moreso than when journalists went undercover into the warehouse to discover awful working conditions and Ashley was thrown in front of a select committee (where he performed terribly)?. Or when the company was subject to an SFO investigation? Ashley has proven thin-skinned and the 'annoyance factor' may have an impact on him, but it's not going to fundamentally alter the performance of the SD business.

I can't see the images you're referring to (might be blocked) but I had a look at this a while back as the number was a bit unusual- it's on p 459 of this thread. Essentially, I don't think the £50m lease has anything to do with the Strawberry Place car park at all and more likely relates to the stadium.

Amazing when you think about it. Barton was 1995?

What's that based on?

Can't remember which season it was but Shearer missed a load of pens as he started trying to place them instead.

The only person claiming it was a better offer was the guy who made it. If creditors lost out because the administrators didn't protect their interests then it would end up in court.

He’s only been appointed as a director- to be Ashleys eyes and ears, just as he is at NUFC. Not even a red herring.

There's very little MM, for anyone put off by the thought. It doesn't really make a lot of sense for him to do the sort of things he did at Rangers because whereas then he didn't own the club, he just loaned them money, at NUFC as he owns the whole show anyway. Any buyer of NUFC with a half a brain would tell him to terminate the contracts as part of the sale. The only exception might be the merchandising operation, where there would be some merit.

NUFC pledged the training grounds as secured property against loans made by SJHL to NUFC. That charge was filed on the same date as a charge in favour of Barclays which pledged central funding (TV & prize money), presumably as at that point we entered into an overdraft position while in the Champ. This may have been a defensive move to put the shareholder loans in a secured creditor status so that Barclays could not control an enforcemengt process and ensure that at the very least, Ashley* would rank ahead of non-footballing unsecured creditors. The Barclays charge has been satisfied as presumably we have cancelled the overdraft but the other charge remains, presumably as there is no benefit to cancelling it should there be a need to enter into a future overdraft. *The 16-17 account state the shareholder loans are from Ashley 'and companies under his control' which would fit the case here Essentially, there is nothing of any significance to it. As regards 'the grip', in any sale event, shareholder loans and related security would be eliminated on acquisition. He owns 100% and doesn't owe any external creditors (aside from trade creditors). It doesn't get much grippier as it is.

The TS stuff is wind-up drivel of course, but it does serve to highlight the importance of keeping supporters' complaints based firmly on the factual rather than fanciful. Our cause not being helped by Stelling and Shearer alluding to the idea that we haven't spent any money because it was all going to by HOF. So instead of the rightful stance based on our continued transfer profits, the HOF story is sent up as the test balloon and then shot at.

Accounting-wise this won't happen. A good chunk of the TV income will have been used in the running of the club, mostly on wages. Until the numbers come out we can only guess where the excess TV money is sitting.

Absolute horsehit. When we get rid of him, your not allowed to go anymore. You can go watch in a pub or something. So, unless you think all of this is perfect and foolproof, then you're not a proper fan and should go do something else and leave it to the true believers. I don't agree with the comment, but there's just no need for the holier than thou approach. While we're focused on Ashley going, that will only happen after someone else has come in. We need a buyer first. Right now all the major supporters groups / fanzines / sites are united. I hope they can take this opportunity to put together what they feel their vision for the club is by way of pre-engagement with potential future owners, hopefully stamping down the traditional 'expectations' myth. We shouldn't just think it's about getting rid of Ashley come hell or high water, let's think about life after him. Otherwise this all becomes 'Brexit means Brexit'.

So any Norwegians on the board, you are indirectly holding SD shares. This is all your fault.

Are you not planning to go to any aways? It's probably the best thing about playing at that level.

You cant ask about NUFC though, it had to be about SD. And the dealings SD have with NUFC are not really material relative to the size of SD, so those questions are easy to gloss over. They dont have to give answers to every minute detail of the business, just what could be reasonably required for investors to be informed.

Holding shares entitles you to sttend the AGM and ask pertinent questions. Bird and Caulkin did this but didnt frame their questions well and made them easy to bat away. The voting rights are pretty worthless as this is a company with 500m+ shares outstanding so they wont have any impact. SD regularly gets into scraps with institutional shareholders over governance (such as appointing unqualified in-laws to senior positions) but with Ashley holding >50pc he still rules the roost on most issues.

After his inital couple of years, he’s only put money in out of necessity when we’ve gone down. We should be furious at Ashley for his running of the club and how its holding us back, not his refusal for us to join the ranks of the bankrolled. Also, what Haydn said.

Or a handy excuse not to play a game they have no obligation to play as it’s a NL cup and they are now EPL.

If that's aimed at me, I was only offering some context. Happy to go get fucked if it helps.

Isn't it more the point that we are not dicked like Villa. Whereas they and Liverpool were examples of clubs who had creditors to pay, NUFC doesn't owe anyone and therefore has no such pressure? If MA had been someone with far less to his name and bought us with a raft of debt, he'd be long gone by now. If we survive this season spending FA then MA will have recouped close to £100m and maybe that's what brings buyer and seller together.

mrmojorisin75 raised it as the issue, not me