About yesterday when I said he did a Tuchel it was to point the lack of striking options on the bench due to having four injured. Having Tilley up with Stockley is not as attacking as having another striker and Yiadom will not give you as much attacking wise as Tilley at wing back.

$6M - the cap on shareholding is 90% for SSC not 34.7% - each new capital injection after that will give them a bigger share of the club.

In caae you missed it, the special joint super-podcast featuring the guys from SOW, George Jones, Stu, and me is available now. We spend the whole show discussing our thoughts on the investment proposal. Available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube via [Link]

I'll stop boring everyone with thoughts about deal structure after this as I need to leave my hotel in Cheadle and head home (plus I'm merely guessing as we're not told). The only other option I could think of, if SSC are truly to have their shareholding capped at 34.7%, is if these additional contributions are deemed to be part of the original purchase price and are added to the share premium account. That might work but the capital contribution agreement would need to be carefully drafted. It still wouldn't explain how economic value works (which is less of an issue for me) but it would deal with the control and ownership concerns.

One thought I had about this deal. If the initial slug of money (£16m) is to buy 34.7% of the shares in AFCW PLC as that Hugh bloke said, but the rest is just to fund operations (be it to the playing budget or improvements in infrastructure) then that would not be a capital injection but either deemed by HMRC to be trading income (so risks being taxed) or a contribution to a capital contribution reserve (but not without tax risks either). His point that paying money in stays in the business so increases the value of their investment doesn't wash with me as for every £1 they pay in their investment would only go up by 34.7p. This is why the legal mechanism on how this is supposed to work and how the DT supposedly retains majority control and ownership, but not the majority of whatever economic value is, needs to be properly explained by someone who knows and is not guessing (like the capital allowances explanation Graeme gave when asked).

Has anyone who has emailed the info@ address had a direct response?

OTD is Lee Carroll? If so, his profile says “He holds the distinction of becoming the first AFC Wimbledon goalkeeper to be sent off and was for a time the only one to have scored, before the controversial goal against Hartley Wintney was credited to Kevin Cooper by the club's disputed goals panel”.

Hey Spit, I hope it wasn't Gary and bus Glitter Band. 😎

I was too busy in the north end tavern enjoying a glam rock tribute band ,then a kebab from the best kebab shop around Nefis to post about an excellent result at Stockport ;-)

I started watching the 2nd Q&A meeting but after listening to Graeme Price's explanation of what capital allowances were (which was totally wrong - it is a deduction allowed for tax purposes against taxable profit when disallowable costs such as depreciation and amortisation are added back, not the garbage he came out with) I skimmed over the rest as it just turned into a talking shop going over the same things without answering specific questions with specific answers. I still don't know by what specific legal mechanism the DT retains control, what they define as economic interest and by what mechanism they get 90% if it isn't a shareholding. When they refer to capital (balance sheet) investment, what is it? If it goes on the top half, it has to appear on the bottom too. If it's not share capital at the bottom then what is it? I didn't expect to find out anything new and I didn’t.

Maybe we're fed up with losing. I really CBA to discuss a match that we've lost.

I've never known it so quiet in here on a matchday. Barely a post after the game commenting on what went on.

Finished watching the Q/A session. Some people really do love the sound of their own voice don't they? Can people be a bit more courteous? There are many people who want to ask questions. You don't have to spend 5 minutes explaining the context of your question. Just ask your question. It's quite simple.

Problems with signalling north of London may mean some of our fans are having a nightmare journey home

Blackpool could well be off as its international weekend

6m$, yes it's fine to hold it on tje 14th which is only three days after Rememberance Day

Have we missed the boat on nominating a home game to be our designated Rememberance Sunday match? We don't have a home game now until we play Blackpool on 14/11/26 and we didn't do anything last week because that was when we paid our respects to Mikey T.

We had the low Autumn sun in our eyes in the first half. I positioned myself near one of the plethora of supporting pillars that the gazebo roof was attached to try to block it out as continually holding your hands above your eyes was getting tiring, especially as the ball was down the other end most of the time.

We were unlucky today. We didn't go defensive with substitutions as has been suggested on here by people who were not even there. We had a weak bench and we juggled positions as Cornick can only do 60 minutes. When he was substituted for Oggs, Yiadom went to RWB and Tilley moved into Cornick's position. Nothing Tuchel about that. Maycock had a great chance when clean through but hit it too close to their keeper with a silly surname, who thought nothing about shoving players out of the way at corners in full view of the referee. How is that not a foul and penalty? It's not challenging for the ball. If it was the other way around you can bet a player would get booked or sent off for violent conduct.

AC Milan v Inter Milan on BBC 2 tonight.

Result was inevitable after Stockley scored but still better than what I was expecting today. “Fought hard but still lose” is the mark of a relegation squad but plenty of teams will lose at Stockport this season.

OI - You would hope that they had assumed relegation this season - if not it doesn't say much for the football expertise of Mr Bertrand. In many ways it wouldn't be entirely a bad thing for them, as the extra investment would go further in League 2 and they could start with a winning season. If we turn the deal down (or it doesn't happen for some other reason) relegation doesn't really matter anyway, as we probably won't see out next season, whichever league we are in.

At this point would we consider changing manager without input from the consortium? I suspect they factored in relegation as they probably knew they couldn't pump up the budget much this season.

JJ has the look of a man who is under the cosh and not getting much sleep at night and has looked that way for most of this season. The team put in a decent shift today keeping a top of the table out and executing the game plan. They got bodies in the way and kept concentration until they didn’t. Agree that it would be interesting to see what our manager could do with a proper budget as for most of his tenure he has handicapped by finance, which to some extent has dictated his game plan. I hope that, should we take the investment, it will bring some fun to matchdays. Still have doubts about the group that want to invest and can’t divorce them from the Sam Hamman syndrome. Hope I’m wrong

Indeed OI, BW have only dropped 4 points so far. 12 points ahead of second place Harrogate.