Matt

"Ah, good to see you again Paolo, Abyssinia soon mate"

You wouldn't want to buy a business and still have the former owner as a creditor. It does happen sometimes (called vendor loan notes), but it's not usual practice. If the loan was bank debt and the business was sold then the banks (or bondholders) would receive 100% of the money back before until the shareholders even got a penny. They would only have a say on a sale process if the business was in distress or administration process. If the loan is Ashley's then it doesn't really matter, he can accept whatever he likes because the owner and creditor is the same party.

The rest wouldn't be there if we were sold, it would be eliminated at the point of sale. I do love how they bang on about the change of control on the secured loan. Aside from the fact anyone buying a company assumes all debt has to be repaid, it was even in the public domain (was mentioned in the Chronicle a couple of times).

Crikey. The book value of that loan was around £50-60m at the time of the takeover, the break fees on the loan must have been horrific. That's why you do due diligence, boys! Also, last time I checked a 'cash advance' is a loan. I don't mind the board running the club as they see fit, but their obfuscation around financial issues drives me up the wall. What they are say here is "Mike doesn't want his loan back, apart from the bit he did. Which we've paid him".

I cannot understand this mindset that somehow the accounts of Ashley the man and his 100% owned business are somehow on a seperate footing. They are all part of the same empire. If fans think we have some kind or 'moral minority stake' in NUFC then Ashley will be delighted, it means supporters will be more willing to part with their cash and give him a much better chance of making a few quid in the long run. If he's loaned the club £100m on a totally arms-length basis (which it isnt here) and it gets paid back then the club's equity is worth another £100m so when he comes to sell, that's when he makes his cash. It means exactly the same to the club's financial position as well, because the owner and the creditor are the same party. What is he going to do? Write a letter to himself demanding repayment? If you were analysing this as a takeover target, you would simply ignore the shareholder loan altogether when valuing it, on the basis it would be extinguished on sale.

I fully expect NUFC to do what they have done in previous years- front-run the publication of the results with a carefully-spun article to get the headlines, then wait for the actual numbers to be released to little attention. And will people please stop talking about clearing the 'debt' to Ashley. Paying himself back a loan or taking a dividend out of the business is (to all pragmatic purposes) the same thing.

Liverpool 1994 (or 95). Rob Lee scored then Ian Rush equalised with Pav letting in a sloppy goal.

Not even the cameras can keep up with out wastefulnes

At least we didn't pump a high ball into the box that time

There are certainly incidents where you could review without impacting the play (where the game is stopped for a goal or offside), but equally there are others where it would. Referring challenges for red/yellow is a good shout. I don't have any issue with the concept, but I'm just sceptical that it would be implemented correctly. But none of this is a reason to not use GoalRef.

No the reason to not use replays is that it would likely break up the game too often. This doesn't, so your 'all or nothing' argument doesn't stack up.

And you can do all that instantly in your mind? Impressive. I would use a chainsaw to chop up massive logs, but I wouldn't then feel obliged to use it when making dinner.

Sorry if already posted, but here is the better option (German, naturally): http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/bf/ln/referenzprojekte/goalref.html I cannot see why anyone can think this is a bad thing. It's a no-brainer. Human eyesight is not a good way to tell if a ball has crossed a plane 30 or 40 metres away. This technology is very good at it. Equally there is nothing as good as the human mind at interpreting the complex issues which go into judging a foul. Use the best tool available for the job. One of the stipulations of these technologies is that it doesn't interrupt the flow of the game and as such I don't think this in any way signals that we're going to introduce replays or video refs. If we do, it won't be because of goal-line tech.

It's not correcting officials, it's making the decision in the first place. The techonology trialled provides an instant and automated indication that the ball has crossed the line, there is no man in a box checking back a replay. Goal-line decisions, ball in -out decisions are unique because they are the only instance where we have proven, instant automated technology. Offside as it currently stands in the laws is not a clear matter of fact decision. Now if people actually think about what the officials have to do- this makes their lives much easier- especially on corners where linesmen can know they do not need to make goal-line calls and can position themselves better to get a view of offsides when you get a spot of pinball in the box.

It's not instant at all, you have to decide if someone was interfering with play or not. Introducing goal-line technology is an absolute no-brainer.

Simply because the technology is there and works. If there was a technological solution to offside, that would be in play as well. Also it is virtually impossible for officials to have certainty over a goal-line decision while keeping in a position to watch the game. It's physically impossible and it's entirely factual whether the ball has crossed or not. They should use it for all ball in-out situations and leave the officials to worry about matter of opinion.

Christ Anita, has he retained the ball once?

Shola, who are you flicking it on to?

'They've not not won away from home for no reason' says Little.

For once betting on us works, though I chickened out at 1-0. Still £75 up.

£50k is about right, believe it or not.

Missed the chance to lay off as Chelsea equalised, just taken £35 though. Happy with that from a fiver.

Only ever go on Betfair, gives you the flexibility to take advantage of the odds as they change.

You think it's too soon?

Chelsea cannot be that bad in the second half, it's simply not possible. Reckon Ba and Mata will be on at HT so I'll take the money.