Toonpack

le supposition puis

Really ? and Really ? Is that supposition, I don't recall reading anything particular on those matters/views ?? The only tangible way I've seen Pardew "losing the players" is to injury and suspension.

Is 100% correct PL. The "backup" kids (and Pardew) are not unmitigated shite CT, the problem is we've had to play way too many of them together in a patched up team time after time. Ideally your young depth would come in "occasionally" into a settled side not en masse to cover for the majority of your better players all at the same time (better players, many of whom, even when sporadically available, have underperformed). You cannot expect expansive football when we have played our complete first choice XI (I think) for the sum total twenty five minutes at Sunderland all bloody season-ish. January won’t fix this (even if Ashley splashed the cash, which he won’t) you’re not going to buy another Cabaye, Tiote, Colo, HBA or Cisse because even if you could, what happens when those players get fit again, few outside the bazillionaire clubs have anything like near-same quality replacements for their best players. We have to suck it up, and as PL says, stay patient. Which sadly won’t happen and some of the youngsters may not recover from the vitriol from the stands.

I think this is one of those "legal technicality" things. They paid EBT's which are legal, if they are loans with an expectation to be paid back. HMRC took the stance that all the Rangers EBT's were never ever intended to be paid back and levied tax liability and penalties on the club. The judges in the tribunal (not unanimously, but by 2-1) decreed that as the payments were EBT's they are simply loans which could be paid back (in the eyes of the law) and thus would attract no tax liability. As NJS states NO F'in WAY were these ever going to be paid back. That said, the tribunal also noted: "Mr Thornhill noted five cases where peculiarly trust payments were made in respect of guaranteed bonuses. These relate to Messrs Selby, Inverness, Doncaster, Barrow, and Furness, as confirmed by his instructing solicitor’s letter of 29 September 2011. The Appellants concede that in these cases there is a sufficient nexus with a contractual right to create a tax liability" These are the "side letter" folks (disguised names obviously) That means there is some liability but not the £100 Mill HMRC were looking for on all the EBT's. Importantly that section also hands at least 5 cases of dual contracts to the SFA on a plate. On the EBT's themselves, if oldco Rangers had not died no way would the loans/EBT's ever have been repaid, however given the liquidation I would be very surprised if all recipents of EBT payments will not at least be asked by BDO (the liquidator) to pay them back, they are loans after all which could get very interesting as the beneficiaries will obviously argue through their lawyers (as we are talking millions here - Boumsong as an example was paid over £3Mill I believe via EBT) it was their pay and not a loan so can of worms re-opens. Bottom line IMO, they cheated and financially doped but football yet again kicks the revenue in the nuts, and the law remains an ass.

Hiya Walter/Derg/Dirty Bristow (on smb)

Same here, although it's not just young kids, my daughter in law starts getting hyper as soon as the first Christmas Coca-cola ads been on TV, first sign it's officially christmas season in her opinion (she's 25) !!!!!

Who are you on Skunkers Benny ??

Pardew IN

I love the oil&gas industry, nee fucker (except some of the the finance crew) wears a suit day to day, can't recall last time (outside interviews) I wore a suit to work or even a tie.

Aye but we also played a settled (or mostly undisrupted) side in that stretch as well, the whole strengthening thing is a red herring, we wanted a CB and FB, our weakness in putting teams away (or even scoring) would not have been solved by those additions, that's my only point really. We actually did add depth to our midfield, of the right kind (developmental/cover) we weren't going to replace Cabaye/HBA/Tiote/Jonas. They've hardy played as a unit all season. The first goal yesterday was a gift from one of our top players (and yeah I know no-one tracked the run, but they were completely wrong footed by a perfect twenty yard pass from our goalie to a winger in space), one of our other top players (Colo) has hardly played, even if we had strengthened at the back even the prospective "new" CB would have been a step down from Colo (playing well) because it's Colo, our best defender, that were missing at CB.

Our blue chip goalkeeper was the massive part of the first goal we conceded, the second was on the break when we were chasing the game. We had 27 shots and 10 on target, sum total one goal, conversion rate is the problem, should have been out of sight.

Nowhere near the problem, a bereft midfield and inability to cross or take chances is not on defenders.

Can't agree, little hoof today, played some good stuff, got into good positions created chances didn't convert and still no-one can cross

21 shots 7 on target, created loads scored nowt, one shite kick by Krull and then caught on the break chasing the game. Hey ho, played well considering the teams been decimated. Another day would have buried them.

We haven't been, just can't bloody score.

Defenders all wrong footed by the shite kick, Santon closest and didn't really bust a gut sadly

Going next May (via Atlanta) for two weeks driving about, courtesy of sufficient airmiles and a rather brill BA offer. Anyone been, any tips etc (I will be implementing avoidance of having to squeal like a piggy procedures as a matter of course).

The point is, if you had previously worked with someone and they asked for advice, what would be more unusual, saying OK, or saying no (particularly if you'd had a reasonable working relationship previously, which I assume is the case as why'd you ask someone you didn't get on with). It's nowt to do with obligation, it's about what would be normal/abnormal for you. In her position, given the obvious conflict of interest that exists, saying yes is a far more "normal" response than saying no. Given the OP's emotional reaction, he's patently not suited to senior management anyway and should be fired IMO, never mind promoted, as should his girlfriend given she's going out with someone so unstable, good job we don't have guns he'd be blowing the office away within a few weeks at this rate.

It does, see HF's earlier post which I quoted/agreed with. It's nowt to do with obligation either, if you'd previously worked with someone and they asked for help/advice, would you say a straight "no" ?? I wouldn't, and I absolutely wouldn't say no if I had a relationship with someone involved in the same process, becasue that "no" could look like a conflict of interest as it could be seen as unusual.

Someone else who doesn't understand the "whiter than white" concept.

Spot on tbh

???? Link

There's being clueless, then there's CT, Stevie-esque tbh

Well that's any hope of a return to decent football put off for 2 months then. Vital worker in our best team. Shit !!!

He had a good chance to be good until he got fucked. Always thought Brownlee and Blackley were OK an all. (for Hibees)