Matt

How about if someone was introduced to the crowd before a game as the new owner, did a few keepy-uppys for good measure and the deal still collapsed? Because that has happened.

I'm as surprised as anyone that NUFC360 have got something wrong, but the word 'Deposit' in that document is in the notice to the Account Bank who are holding an amount of cash (this is the 'Deposit')- this letter notifies the bank of the security created and instructs the bank not to allow withdrawals if the balance falls below £13m. It does not refer to a deposit paid on purchase of shares in NUFC. FWIW, they've done well to find a bank who would agree to such an arrangement. In some places I have worked in the past we would only do it as a favour as the operating costs involved are much higher than any benefit of holding £13m on deposit.

The use of a vendor loan note by SJHL is signficant- it's a clear indication (and probably the only hard example) that Ashley genuinely wants to sell the club. It also suggests that the 'Vendor Loan Agreement' was executed 'on or around' the date of the security arrangement (these documents are usually executed simultaneously). Another conclusion is that Staveley might be able to afford to live on Park Lane, but she doesn't have any cash on hand to invest in the club at this point in time. Firstly, her shares in Cantervale (which I presume will be the SPV holding her shares in NUFC) will be pledged to the Reuben Bros who are lending her some (but presumably not all) the funds needed to buy her stake. The remainder of the cost of the shares is being provided by SJHL as a Vendor Loan at a structurally subordinated level- SJHL (ie Ashley) does NOT have security over the shares in the club- his security is limited to the assets of PCP including the value of their legal claims. Interesting to note that the borrower is Staveley personally, and not a holding company.

How do you void travel costs exactly, and where does this money come from? Also this decision has been taken by the leagues and ratified by the FA. It's not been imposed unilaterally. The lack of revenue is crippling everyone. The 'advance' from the PL (not a donation, an advance on next seasons' money) came to £13k for each club in Step 2. It's far more damaging than the difference between being in Step 2 and Step 3.

The cancellation of step 3-7 is done and dusted as it's been ratified by the FA. There is no appeal and legal action won't change the outcomes. I guess clubs could seek damages but not sure on what grounds. The FA are effectively the supreme power in these situations. Step 1 & 2 (National & North/ South) are now voting on ending the season. Then there will be a vote on how the season is to be concluded- either null and void, or decided on PPG. Even on PPG I can't imagine the National Leagues Cttee deciding to relegate clubs from Step 2 when there are no clubs coming up from Step 3.

I hadnt realised you could do that without a separate agreement to reduce pay. Jesus, that makes the actions of LFC, NUFC etc even worse.

Only if that's a stipulation of the lease, which it may or may not be. For the 2000 redevelopment the club raised around £60m secured on the assets of the club, including the stadium- so there clearly isn't a covenant preventing pledging it as security. Anyway, this is probably beside the point. If Ashley can't see this is a good time to get out and he's getting most of what he asked for, then he's absolutely batshit to turn it down.So he probably will.

If the clubs furlough players, the government would give them about £500 a week and the club would make up the remaining £69,500. There's absolutely no point, but I guess they could. There isn't any wage cut imposed as part of the scheme, the employer has to make up the difference.

So, what rules would you put in place which would exclude an employer being able to access the scheme? Don't get me wrong, PL clubs using this mechanism is completely wrong but I don't see this as a failing of the government. Would it be better that clubs simply laid off their non-playing staff? You know for sure what Ashley would have done faced with that choice.

That's correct. Tories gonna Tory I guess. If you are going to roll out a scheme like this quickly- and it's what everyone was clamouring for- then you have to accept that some organisations will take the piss and take advantage. It's something you just have to bear, there no time or capacity to vet every employer. There will be a load of fraud going on no doubt as with any time the government announce new schemes.

Step 3&4 also want to end now (unanimous amongst the leagues). National League (Step 1&2) have said nothing yet. Not sure how they can plumb it into League 2 though. Maybe just only promote one side from the National on a PPG basis?

The share price hasn't moved much at all.

The first time pass on the second goal was lovely.

Been a load of problems there over the years.

The cut in the budget doesn't excuse his behaviour. He absolutely shafted the club. Look, I disagree with a lot of things the board have done over the years. There is desperate need for new blood in the boardroom. But it's simply unfair to criticise someone for refusing to pile any more cash into the club after already putting in half a million.

Armstrong left of his own accord- despite being under contract- and as a parting gift he decided not to activate the contract options on a host of players, some of whom he them scooped up in his new role at Darlo.

A terrible appointment, put a bit of publicity over getting someone with a clue. Too late now- they are relying on the AGM Cup for any hope of staving off relegation.

Maybe I'm horribly out of touch having not set foot in SJP for years, but is there really a sizeable group of people who have kept going through all the crap of the last decade but are only just now thinking of jacking it in, but could be convinced to keep going by a bit of takeover speculation, again and again?

Branding is not permitted in club names in the English professional game or in the top four levels of non-league either. Dunston UTS had to change their name when they went up this summer.

Cracking OG for PSG's third against Lyon

Awful keeping on both goals too. I don't get what he's thinking trying to punch the ball on the second- just make yourself as big as possible.

I walked up the Lea Valley path as far as the North Circular the other week. Reminds me of Middlesborough.

BZG was clearly bollocks from the start. That loon on WhatsApp. Those vague statements that led some fools to believe they had signed a sales and purchase agreement. The way the story broke as "NUFC have been sold!!" when they hadn't been. The love letter to Mike to end it all. It was comedy gold. You clearly enjoy letting everyone know how clever you are, so I'll just go back on that SPA comment- which was in a comment from me (although I can't find it). There was discussion about what a 'deal' could have meant (given the initial report was out of the blue claiming it was all done and only awaiting PL verification- and clearly the journo who vouched for his story was sold entirely duff info). I was trying to make some sense of the story and have brought it up on several occasions like I was claiming some kind of ITK knowledge. So are you calling me a fool?

I found it strange just how far he fell out of favour. He always struck me as a capable player who improved us last season when he came on a few times for the comparably static Shelvey. Should get picked up by a Champo team no bother.

Large sovereign funds are generally well-diversified- they aren't a single objective fund. They invest across all asset classes and sizes (although sometimes they have investment subsidiaries to specialise in niches or in smaller investments). The fact that investments are different, rather than comparable in size and nature means nothing in context of this deal. It's quite possible for the Saudi fund to designate an amount for sports related investments under a sub-investment strategy of $xbn. Maybe this whole deal is a non-starter, but that's a particularly shit line of logic as to why it wouldn't happen.