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.

I need more information on the SSC acquisition before deciding which way to vote, if at all. I don't accept the threat of armageddon in 6 months if we say no, which we won't. If we did there will be levers we can pull, however unpleasant, to keep the club going. If not, then how could the statutory accounts due to be signed soon be prepared on a going concern basis?

Yeah surely out of the 19 others one or two must have been pretty decent (by law of averages?) - shame we’ll never know :-(

DD - it's the same guy. The details on company websites that Omar Iqtidar Mir is a director of are the same guy being put forward to us.

We have no say right now OI this has been brought to us as “this deal or die.” I would trust an administrator more than I trust the DTB right now to pick a suitable buyer.

i actually wouldn't be surprised if Hammam tried it

Yeah I agree Nick that’s why I say that if the deal gets passed by our vote then it would only fail if another group decides that Mir does not pass whatever “test” they need to pass. And as for the ground the reason people want clarity is exactly this discussion - it’s not clear and a decision of this magnitude should not be made on assumptions either positive or negative.

We would hit administration soon because we have a systemic annual loss of over 2 million and no owners to cover it. The bond repayment might trigger it because getting a loan when you lose 2 million a year is not easy and banks don't really want to own a football stadium. It may not be 6 months it may be 12, it might even be 18. But then when it happens you have no say who buys it, it might be this lot owning 100% for a lot less money or it could be Hammam or Winkelman.

A covenant is different from designation in the plan as being suitable for a certain type of development. But the latter isn't a watertight condition - a planning committee must give due weight to the plan but can approve an application that varies from the designation in the local plan where there are material considerations dictating otherwise.

Wycombe's goal was bizarre. Johnson should have dealt with it before the move developed as far as it did but the ref blew his whistle BEFORE the ball reached the player that put it in the net. Given I sit on the half way line and the time for sound to travel, either he stopped the game to award a penalty or something else. However, he stopped the game. To then allow a goal after he had stopped the game is something I've never seen before in almost 50 years of watching live football. That will be because he cocked it up. He was probably too quick to whistle and knew it, hence in his head he thought the fairest outcome was to award a goal but he can't stop play and then pretend he didn't.

By the way, do we know that Omar Mir did change his middle names and that there isn't another different company director altogether called Omar Mir? I shouldn't imagine it's the most unusual name in the world.

it’s what happened at Plough lane when Safeway bought it - sports only covenant was lifted so doesn’t mean a thing unfortunately

Nothing to stop the designation for sport being changed in the local plan eventually, albeit the site has some things not in its favour for residential development (flood plain, transport congestion, etc). I would bet heavily, Trigger, that TWIOF gets transferred to HoldCo instantaneously with the rest of the deal. Very standard for docs to be held in escrow and all released together.

Trigger- on your points (1) has already been done by our lawyers as part of our due diligence and will certainly need to be done again by the regulator before they give approval, so I don’t see the issue there - even if you don’t trust our lawyers to do a competent job the regulator has the power to obtain that information (2) I thought it was pretty clearly stated in the presentation that we (ie the DT) keep control of the ground, however I would agree that getting that spelled out in chapter and verse does no harm, but again, if we go into administration (whether because we vote against or because the deal gets blocked) we will definitely lose control of the ground

I think there is a condition that Plough Lane has to be used for sport so most likely scenario might be Chelsea taking it for their women's team. Agree no upside to admin. This is the best deal we are going to get.

Nick I think the vote will pass and therefore if it doesn’t actually convert it will be because SSC are blocked from buying. If so the same would apply in administration.

Or another football club or rugby club would buy it and we'd have to plead with them to let AFC Wimbledon Mk 2 play there or at some other ground. I can see no upside to administration at all, compared to a transaction that we negotiate for ourselves.

Might buy it out of administration, I mean...

Nick: And not impossible that someone might be it in order to get their hands on the freehold of PL for development purposes rather than for the sake of owning a football club.

Nothing to do with the game but how would I add a photo from my phone to a posting?

Sorry Trig, but I have only just got back up off the floor….

A very likely outcome of administration would be that SSC (or one of the other 19 less desirable bidders) acquire 100% of the club, ground etc from the administrators and just have full control going forward- the DT would have lost its shareholding and wouldn’t be able to set any sort of conditions for the acquisition (and tge administrator would only be interested in maximising recoveries for the debtors and certainly would have no interest in doing so).

Just watched again, he blew before the foul for maybe an earlier foul by Johnson as the player had no advantage then bottled it. Bursik would have stayed on due to the proximity of our defenders when the "foul" was committed.

It also looks like the ball went out of play on the footage

a4e, it is indeed. Appalling decision.