Mark- the Wycombe player could have run around RJ twice more. Burzik could have come out a bit quicker.

[Link] I still can’t get my head around this

Looking at that goal, looks like Bursik fault maybe more than Johnson

Really appreciate you going to the bother if finding me Spartan, I look forward to starting the book tomorrow.

Bush, the pack said 2.4 million per year, that may be high but we are not pulling in close to that and there is zero guarantee about the future sales. If the current owners won't cover the losses then eventually we are insolvent if no deal is done. I think there are significant issues about the deal but for me it is the only game in town so I have to vote yes.

Administrators have to maximise what the creditors receive, not what the owners receive or desire. If option A raises more for the creditors they cannot choose option B because it is better for the former owners or even the community. Otherwise they could be sued by the creditors.

*no more than 3 hours per night

RK, Oh joy. Another hour added to the middle of the night as wake up from my ability to sleep more than three hours per night.

RK - this is one of my least favourite days of the year for that very reason. I hate it when it gets dark early and I end up walking in the dark and the rain. I can't want until the last Sunday in March. That is, conversely, one of my favourite days for exactly the opposite reason.

Don't forget - clocks go back ONE HOUR to GMT at 2am Sunday.

Today's tribute to Mikey T. I tried to upload to Flickr but couldn't work it out. [Link]

Aideen - it was nice to see you today, albeit very briefly, enjoy the book. Ps, and thanks to Mags too, for trying to help find her. 😉

Thanks Oddsock

Regarding parking near the ground, this is the sign in Hazelhurst Road [Link]

Economic rights is spin for ownership because it sounds less like we have been deceived in the 50.01% vote, which we clearly have. I spoke to a few at the game today and their understanding was 50.01% was about ownership, which was what all the talk was about beforehand but not what it said on the resolution. If that is not deception then I don't know what is. SSC will own 90% of the club within a few years. That includes the stadium and everything else. Exactly how is that protected? This is a vital question. Personally, I doubt it will be a bullet proof protection as during this 5 year tenure (should the deal last the full duration) the club will be so dependent and subservient to SSC that it will cede to whatever it asks for next or face the blackmail of no funding. If Mir is as rich as he is painted out to be he will be able to absorb any financial hit if we are brave but it will cost us our going concern status and then he (via another vehicle and another name no doubt) could pick us up for a song if he wants to from the administrator. If it runs the entire term and we have (hopefully) been successful he will sell out and make his money. Even though the pack says any new buyer will inherit his financial funding obligations, good luck enforcing that when the time comes from a position of poverty and weakness.

I’d also want written statements from all board members saying that they will not benefit directly or indirectly from this deal.

Also totally agree with 6MDM about Mir. He's clearly the most important person in this (if all goes ahead he'll soon own 90% of the club's value) but we know so little about his background, his motivations or expectations. I'd find it hard to vote yes without hearing more from him. Questions definitely need to be answered on the relationship of the other four to him and how much direct contact the DTB have had with him.

OI - thar £2m is without factoring in player sales, right? I'm not fully on board with the line that relying on player sales is unsustainable as it's part of our model and we've done it pretty consistently well for a few years (in large part with sales from the academy). But anyway, I can definitely see a scenario where we'd need to drastically cut the playing budget and face a growing risk of dropping out of the EFL, and then big questions of sustainability at PL and risk/likelihood of administration. I do feel a bit that the short term worst case scenario is being built up a bit to help get the deal through.

Hash - i have asked the Q as to whether that means the economic rights aspect was all the same with the other bids (which would make sense) or if they also all involved giving up football control.

It is right to ask questions about Mir, who seems to get positions by referencing other positions he has. Bad football managers get jobs like this. Is his supposed wealth his own or just money he controls? Yes, the regulator should validate all this but they are new and nobody knows how thorough they would be. As for just worry about the initial £16m and nothing else, I do because we can't get those shares back and have nothing else to sell (and given the introduction of HoldCo, I'm not even sure of percentage ownerships anymore). If the DTB were sensible, which they're not, they would pay off all the bonds so we are debt free, keep a lid on operating costs and players salaries for now, and hold back this cash to bridge the gap in future operating losses until this Mir develops a track record of paying up.

Reminds me, still need to read Ivor’s book

Thanks Nicander. 6MDM: I think the going concern thing is significant - things can turn ugly quite quickly if not signed off on a going concern basis.

Tomswig - I use this site [Link]

They did say that among the serious ones the structure of the deals was the same - so presumably it would basically be the same deal as this but with less money involved

Changing the subject completely for a moment... does anyone know why the Police's actions in relation to Megan's Dad are controversial? I can't quite figure out whether the controversial bit was sharing the information with Megan or not telling other police forces? I can't figure out why they would do the latter, given that neither the crime nor the criminal were in the UK.