blandy

I feel the answer to that is “No, No, No” [/paisley]

None of them have the bottle for being leader of a clusterpork, apart from May.

They're more like a political party or lobbying group than a "think tank", in reality, as well.

Pretty sure I read somewhere that there is some dodginess going on with charity funding here. TPA isn't a charity, but a charity was set up that then gives money to TPA, so TPA is getting funds from the taxpayer. And this also helps hide the original source of (some) money.

Made me fish out this. 6 and a bit minutes in, Some lovely shredding, like Television.

Mile Jedinak : John McGinn ?

Your amp goes up to 11! - that's one louder, isn't it? I've got Lucy Dacus, Historian on (at 3 short of "wake the dead" on the amp)

They might listen to Catweazle, though they'd be better off not doing so. His latest is "we can't stop it" (i.e. "I don't want to stop it, and will help make it happen, then when it's a clusterpork, I can be elected PM on the back of it"). But anyway, When everyone from Aaron Banks to Boris Johnson is saying where we've got to, we'd have been better off remaining, it just needs May hoofed, Labour to grow a pair and then the realignment can start.

Well, that’s my theory comprehensively debunked ? . Luckily the Villa won, so happiness is unbounded.

Alternatively, he’s known and said consistently that it isn’t a good idea and he’s waited until now to resign to create the most opportunity to stop it happening. To create a, er, momentum against May’s imminent deal and bring about a vote on staying in.

There's nothing in the EU laws to prevent that.

Actually that may be the wrong one. Given it's grayling, perhaps "not letting a crew-member aboard if he may, in fact, be a brain-sucking psychotic temporal lobe slurper"

No officer with false teeth should attempt oral sex in zero gravity?

I'm pretty sure choosing "number two" is what he'd do.

Says some random bloke on the internet ?

Thanks Peter. One person getting it is enough.

Many transfer payments are spread over a period of time - some now, some later. I think there's a national limit on the time, though - maybe a year for domestic and maybe 3 for international. But the selling club is handicapped if they can't spend the proceeds, because they haven't actually got them yet. It could help them with tax, but basically I think the options are quite limited in practice, because of rules about 50% up front, then the rest within X months, and the selling club wanting funds in. None of that is certain, just vague memory.

Yep, had that in Manc too. Yahoogled it and it seems the council changed all the rules, put up some half visible signs and bang 115000 people caught out. words. turns out about 15 successful appeals, so I paid the 30 quid. words.

Can you spell that for me? S. I. O. B.. Whoah, Who you calling a son of a bitch

Do you not slightly feel like there's something missing, now?

Sure. Though if you take the standpoint of a rival club, they'd no doubt say that "the new owners, knowing the situation, then went and spent more money than they had coming in on transfers in January, thus breaching the letter of the FFP law, while we complied. They muist be punished" Hopefully, for us there is. I wonder though. Because the clause you highlighted is specific to "exceptional bad debt" (bad debt being money owed to Villa, but throuhg unforseen circumstances no t getting paid to us - like if the sponsor went bust and didn't meet their contractual payments, for example). General being a "reckless money arse" might be a stretch too far, but like you say, let's hope.

Exactly. The previous reckless behaviour by the club (Xia, Wyness) has meant that income that under normal circs we'd have been getting this season was actually taken last season, which makes us worse off this season. I suppose it's possible the EFL will look kindly on the club now, because the current owners have sorted out the finaical burden they inherited, in a general way, and were lumbered with the consequences of previous owner financial shenanigans. But ultimately it's the Club not individuals who are required to meet FFP regs.

Mortgaging of future revenue would create immediate income, so would help the current years figures ( and harm later years figures) so I don’t think that would be it. But the general point you make might be right.

But were you at home? Because I suspect that's not the stock method.