I see Galatasaray fans have been banned from the club's Champions League visit to Liverpool later this month following crowd disturbances during their game with Juventus in the previous round. Will this decision have the same level of scrutiny as when Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were banned from Villa Park?

You can’t equate Hearts to us. Average attendance nearly 19k

Hi Aideen I will let her know, yes plenty of parking.

Bloom cannot invest in us - well hold a significant stake due to his stake in Brighton. He can give us free money though.

If we go into administration we will become the next Bury as no-one will want to fund a club losing £2 million/year in an 8,500 stadium. The land is worth more than the club. 50+1 is the first step in selling full control. It will attract more potential buyers than voting it down would.

Spot on Karen! By the way tell L I’ll be visiting her new venture next week. Is there parking?

Hearts got circa £10m last year for a 29% stake from Tony Bloom. They also do monthly pledges from their fans - £1.5m last season in total. And topped that up with another £4.5m in significant donations. And they have a 25 room hotel (including restaurant and conference/event facilities) which appears to be well run and highly regarded - though it’s difficult to find out specific financial results as it all roles up into the club accounts.

RK no offence taken, trouble is just as we get our brains back the Menopause strikes 🙈🙈

DO, essentially it works if the other clubs you're competing against are also subject to the normal financial disciplines with owners not covering losses.

Maybe he has a very large bet on the Old Firm not winning the league this year! He'd have got excellent odds before his investment in Hearts.

What does Tony Bloom really want from Hearts? He may of course just love the club and be happy to donate 10 million, but we will see. Would we welcome an investment from Bloom?

$6M there are probably people around who could do that. Take John Green, he's chucked in money without being a millstone contributor to the funds, and there have been others too. The problem begins when are asked to make contributions and then have liabilities too, which is whole other matter. Those that will be willing to chuck money in on a regular basis and take on liabilities will also be savvy enough to have an exit strategy, but also have the nous to recognise that unless they get 25% and a.n.other to support them to exceed that 25%, they would need to cover themselves via company law, its a huge ask,

RK, from earlier, as Meadow says, no apologies necessary. Our daughter still thinks she's dimmer than she used to be and her son's seven. Not helpful for her scientific/technical job. I've never really recovered I suspect.

Hearts have shown this season that you can be fan owned and viable at any level of the league you're in.

So we go into administration and get taken over by an individual or group who promise at least League1 or League 2 level funding. Some of our zealots set up a new fan owned club. Which will be your club?

Or maybe Wimbledon Old Centrals

Return to our former name Wimbledon Fc

AFC AFC Wimbledon anyone?

Fan ownership works if you have plenty of fans, a cheap stadium to run (KM) and play NL with occasional forays to L2. Ironically, our achieving the dream of opening NPL ensured that fan ownership is no longer viable. It will end, probably not voluntarily, within the next two to three years.

$6m man - I agree that the whole idea of getting a minority investor who agrees to give us a blank cheque to cover our ongoing losses, without taking a controlling stake, seems totally pie in the sky. I don't think that we would get anyone to agree to making that sort of arrangement legally binding and, if it wasn't legally binding, then in effect they would have taken control on the cheap, by simply being able to threaten to turn off the funding tap, on which we would by that time be dependent, so in effect they would be able to dictate control of the club by threating to stop the funding if they didn't get their way. I am not sure (other than blind ideology) why we don't just face facts and sell out control properly, rather than playing silly games on this.

New Zealand looking good for cricket WC final

For anyone unsure about buying a ticket for Stevenage, I ordered mine online on Sunday afternoon, and it has just arrived, with a first class stamp on the envelope.

You could throw them off the board but you couldn't force them to forfeit their shareholding. Even if you couid, HMRC would have a field day arguing about what the price paid for thr shares was with this sort of arrangement if they used the write off to claim a capital loss. In all likelihood all you could do is throw them off the board and hope they sell them to someone else willing to chuck cash in each year for no tangible return.

Agreed 6mdm - a good chair makes a good meeting. We don’t have a problem with people talking for long periods or trying to dominate meetings. So we don’t need rules which will end up with elderly members being manhandled out of the room. We’ll also then need a rule about no filming of elderly members being manhandled out of the room.

CW - Waggy said he intends to continue playing.