BigWalrus

Tiote is apparently very doubtful, whilst Simpson has miraculously recovered from his "injury" picked up at Arsenal. Does this mean Cabaye and Guthrie in midfield, or will we bring in Perch to sit on front of the back 4? Personally, I think Perch does a better job than Guthrie as a holding midfielder, but doesn't offer much going forward. The away game at Norwich was a funny one - we didn't actually play that badly but were completely done by set pieces and balls into the box. I have faith that Colo and Williamson can do a better job than Perch and Simpson did last time. Howay the lads.

The loans do not involve any holding companies, they are directly from MA's personal bank account. As explained, whilst they are shown as loans on the balance sheet, they're essentially part of the purchase price. Undoubtedly, MA will struggle to get back the £240m he put it. However, when he first bought the club, he would have struggled to get £50m. By turning the club into a profitable entity, he will obtain a much higher selling price. I imagine any buyer would stipulate that the loans are written off as part of the deal. The buyer has the power here, as MA paid over the odds in the first place, and paying silly money for a football club isn't a particularly smart thing to do...

It's not really a loan. MA paid £100m to Shepherd and Hall. He knew in advance that the loan needed to be repaid due to change in ownership. The other alternative would have been for Shepherd and Hall to pump in their own money to repay the loan (which they certainly wouldn't do - S&H both took millions and millions OUT of the club) then MA to pay them the extra.

In terms of looking at the balance sheet, we have a "debt" to Mike Ashley. However, in substance, this is simply part of the purchase price, but is recognised as a loan as it is more tax efficient than converting to equity. Think of it this way - MA pays Shepherd and Hall £100m for their stake in the club. MA knows full well that once the change in ownership takes place, the loan covenants on the loan from Barclays dictate that a change in ownership immediately makes the loan repayable. MA then has two options - either renegotiate a loan at 10% interest rates again, or stump up his own cash. He opted for the latter and it is better for the club in every way. Ultimately, whilst he owns the club, there is no point at all in charging any interest on the balances. When it comes to selling up, he can dictate whatever terms he wishes, but only with agreement of the buying party. If they buyer doesn't like the terms, they will pull out of any purchase. The results are VERY positive in every single aspect. We no longer have any reliance on banks, we no longer give out or accept credit on transfer dealings (which makes the accounts much more transparent). The player trading profit is not as simple as it seems, as it can often include player contract write offs. I imagine the likes of Xisco and Alan Smith will have had their contracts written off early as the club clearly has no intention of playing them. Comments such as, "We are still technically insolvent" from Happy Face are so completely misinformed, it's embarrassing. If you don't know what you're talking about, it's better not to say anything at all...

Bloody hell. It's fans like you who give us the "deluded" name. We are struggling at the moment because we have a small squad, with our key players risking burnout. We are struggling because Williamson is nowhere near the player Steven Taylor is. What exactly would you do differently that would catapult us further up the league?