cudoz

45 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Okay fine when someone dives but what about the Kane incident (or anything remotely like it)? 

You cant just pull out an example where the solution is obvious to then justify VAR as being simple to implement and operate.

So much of football is not black and white, technology will not help that as it will at times still boil down to someones opinion and individually, we will sometimes agree with that opinion and other times we won’t.

The referee should have set questions he can ask the VAR official to look into, for example;

1) I'm not 100% sure if that was a 'foul' - VAR can you confirm if there is any reason why I cannot/should not give a penalty/free kick?

2) I'm not sure if that foul warrants a red card - VAR can you confirm if there is reason to provide a red card?

3) I'm not sure if that hit his hand or his head and went in the goal - VAT can you confirm if there is any reason I cannot award the goal?

4) Off the ball incident not seen by the ref?  - VAR either contacts the ref to stop play, or play continues whilst a check is undertaken.

5) Marginal offside - referee asks for a check if he is unsure the linesman has made the correct decision.

Technology works for Rugby and the basic situations it can be used are pretty similar.  It should be there as an aide for the referee or to catch serious infringements.   

9 hours ago, TRO said:

• Imo Leeds were commendable for their "Gift" but it was only after they realised they had crossed the line morally.....That was their get out of jail card.....and just about everyone's bought it.....In hindsight, I wish we had of refused it.

The skeptic in me thinks that the 'gift' was only given as they had c.20 minutes left against 10 men and may have thought it wouldn't matter.

39 minutes ago, praisedmambo said:

I don't think this bit is true! I'm not sure what's going on with this table.

Birmingham received their 9 point deduction in the same period.  So they have actually collected 9 points in the last 10 games and then been deducted 9.

8 minutes ago, Robtaylor200 said:

We have ***** done it unless Bristol or Derby win by googles 

 

Derby can get to 76 (Bristol 72)
Boro can get to 73
Bristol can get to 75 (Derby 73)

So only Derby can overhaul our current points total & only Bristol can match it (but on a far inferior goal difference).  They play each other so both outcomes cannot happen.  We're in the playoffs.  

16 hours ago, DaveAV1 said:

We have now gone toe to toe with two PL clubs over two of our most significant players this season and they are both still with us. Perhaps we won’t always come out on top and the window is still open, but the significance of their resolve and ability to not be swatted aside, shouldn’t be underestimated. And all done without grand statements to the press or daft nonsense on Twitter. When you’ve really got it you don’t have to flaunt it. 

But Abraham isn't out player so I don't understand how we went toe-to-toe against Wolves?  Their stance on Grealish was admirable and desperately needed, but I don't think they be given credit for Abraham.  If Chelsea had decided to recall him as per the apparent terms of the loan agreement, there is nothing they really could have done?

5 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Well that's true.

Weirdly we had one of the best defences in the league the year before Terry signed as well.

Pure luck I guess  

Ah yes.  The season where we conceded fewer goals than we scored because we wouldn't cross the halfway line after Bruce was appointed.

Back on topic.  I wish him the best as Wednesday, but I think he had taken us as far as he could and I'm not entirely sure his appointment will be a success. 



 

4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

The current coach...?

Yes, but there's a slight difference between being a coach on the sidelines and being on the pitch covering up the issues.

17 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

He doesn’t train players yet we had one of the strongest defences in the league and best record of any team for holding on to leads. I wonder how the players managed that without any training. The same players that are now leaking goals like there’s no tomorrow. 

John Terry....

23 hours ago, TheEgo said:

We've seen the documents. there are all on here. Your point is exactly the same as mine. It was prepared pre play off, to use in the eventuality we didn't go up. Pointless debating semantics. 

As for the share resolution, I agree we DON'T have to issue shares, but it would be less than usual to apply to to remove the restriction and then not to and of course it's all speculation unless you're Tony Xia or I am. Should we just not speculate at all? may as well close the thread guys 

Firstly, my point about never seeing the documents is that we will never see Wyness's service contract, that is commercially sensitive and is not a matter for the public record, so we will never know exactly what was changed.

Secondly, it might just be how I'm reading your posts, but they read to me as if you were saying that the share resolution was filed was in reaction to the playoff final defeat (as you continually referenced the filing date), my point is that the filing date (and indeed the playoff final loss) is irrelevant in respect of this resolution, if that is not what you were implying then please accept my apologies.

In any case, this is now adding nothing to the thread so I'll leave my input here.

34 minutes ago, TheEgo said:

My point about not being filed until AFTER was that the release of shares seemed to be a Plan B of sorts to be acted upon if we lost. We did and it was acted upon. That's it from me on that part. 

The change re Wyness. Nobody knows what it it, but speculation seems to suggest a change in responsibilities/role etc to which he would have to agree.....hence the fallout. Now whether it's about the authority to be able to enter into admin or not. It is again speculation, however given your points, if they're correct then it appears this isn't the case and not possible (if someone is verbally suspended and then in writing, can they still as CEO take the club into Admin? I'd say not)

Whatever your view though, something happened with those filings that lead to the ultimate suspension, legal retort and final termination. We just don't know what that is. That is my view anyway!! thats haven spoken to several people that know more than me away from VT

Re. Your first point.

The alteration to share rights was a resolution by shareholders sought under the Companies Act and was made before the final.  This resolution would have been filed whether we were promoted or not, as legally it couldn’t simply disappear should we be promoted, it would still need to be filed with the Registrar.

The important date is always the date of the resolution, not the date it was filed.  It seems we were being prudent and planning for both eventualities, we don’t have to issue new shares because of these documents but we now have the power to seek external investment.

We will never see the documents referred to so of course this is all speculation.

20 minutes ago, TheEgo said:

What exactly is it you think people are looking for that isn't there? it's a fact he has unrestricted shares, so that would suggest he wants to release new shares, that normally happens when converting debt to shares (like Lerner) for investment purposes and a sale? 

I think that's what the change of service for Wyness was thought, to remove authority, all call it security if it reads better. We don't KNOW for a fact, but it's a reasonable guess given what's happened, plus the talk of Organ and Ho also being part of any legal action (they would have effectively been the ones to physically stop things and get him out of VP)

You made specific reference to these not being filed until after the playoff final & I have seen others making reference to a delay in these documents being filed.  The only delay appears to be that caused by royal mail and Companies House.  The timing of the playoff final and these documents appears to be irrelevant.

You cannot remove a specific director's authority to appoint Administrators as that power is covered by both the Insolvency and Companies Acts, not a director's contract.  It would also be gross negligence and a breach of the insolvency act to do so as, once insolvent, a boards duty of care shifts from the Company's shareholders to the Company's creditors.  Security in these instances would be a bank and/or secured creditor holding a charge over the Company which was registered at Companies House.  I'm am fairly certain that these documents have nothing to do with any attempt by Wyness to place us into Administration.

13 minutes ago, TheEgo said:

Yes they were, my point being is they weren't lodged until AFTER the play off final, so he was waiting to see whether we went up before seeking to restrict shares. So it was clearly his plan B before it all got out in the press. 

**Edit "Unrestrict shares.......not restrict. Don't want this to be even more confusing ha!! 

 

Just to note that all of the now available forms were received by the registrar on the 31 May (look at the sticker on the top left).   Companies House usually operates with a 7-10 day turnaround time so I think people are looking for something that isn't there.

P.S. You also cannot restrict a directors rights to place a Company into Administration.  The Insolvency Act allows anyone with a registered security, or the board of directors, to file for Admin.  I am not aware that these rights can be fettered by any other act.

 

Wishing everyone who is running VLM all the best.  The hardwork is done so enjoy the atmosphere etc!

I have my first track meet of the season tomorrow.  It's only a early season test of where the training is, but I can't help by battle the nerves!  

I've been part of my local running club for two years now and I've had a bad habit of getting to a certain point, feeling a niggle and ending up with a full blown injury.

However, I've learned to try some adding dynamic stretches and drills to your warm up routine to your runs.  Toe walks, heel walks, lunges etc. Once you have finished your run make sure you get some static stretching done.  I would also look at your hydration prior to running.

Also, have you had a gait analysis done?  Poor footwear can lead to issues in the calf in particular. 

3 minutes ago, John said:

If Gestede had been included in the deal £3m + Rudy would have seemed like daylight robbery to me.

Any deal with Boro in this window will effectively be Gestede plus £x though. Just not in the same deal.

He made a couple of good  runs into the box yesterday which went un-noticed, and should have had a penalty if not for the diabolical ref..  However, for the rest of the game he was largely giving the ball away and generally being ineffective.

That being said, he performed well for Forest last year, so there is a player there somewhere.  It's just can he produce it here.

I'm nearing the end of the main story, and whilst it is by no means a perfect game, the comradery between the group and the little nods to past games are fantastic.   The fact that the battle system is much improved on XIII is a bonus.

Some gripes however (Spoilers ahead)

21 hours ago, BOF said:

Who's your friend who likes to play?  Bing Bong, Bing Bong

I would not be against this.

2 minutes ago, PieFacE said:

So the Leeds link is true, so the idiot actually followed them on Twitter and then decided "oh this is a bad idea" and then unfollowed them?

 

Perhaps his phone was in his pocket?

6 minutes ago, useless said:

If they were that ambitious and financially powerful, they'd just pay up the contracts, which the article goes on to say that in some cases they might be willing to do. 

They'd be stupid to not try and at least get some offers for those we no longer want.  If we have no takers in say a month, then by all means open discussions about paying up the contracts..

1 minute ago, dn1982 said:

No idea what Gamez is like but I doubt he is better than Janmaat so as long as NUFC keep buying lesser players than what they've got I'll be happy!! £68k a week for a no mark RB it he championship?? Fair play Rafa!!!!!! 

The guy is saying we offered £68k p.w but he chose to take a paycut to join NUFC.  Not that it really matters, it's all complete nonsense anyway.

43 minutes ago, avfcwills10 said:

Has anybody seen this?

From a newcastle fan on twitter by the looks of it, even if he has rejected us I hope it's true because offering  £68kpw shows extreme ambition. 

Thomas Clements ‏@t_clements  8m8 minutes ago

Reliably informed Jesus Gamez snubbed an £68k p/w contract offer from #AVFC. Has taken paycut to join Newcastle United. #NUFC

 

Gamez: "For me, Aston (Villa) are of no interest. I took paycut to sign for (Newcastle) United. I am delighted to be here."

 

Edit: very unsure of reliability

 

The guy is a wind up merchant.  He just sticks the bait out and waits for bites on twitter.  

Those "quotes" are recycled from his "ITK" about their two signings last week.

Whispers deletes tweets and doesn't know anything.

He blocked me last year for pointing that out...