Uilleam

Why singe their beards when you don't actually have to? It seems that even if David K can get out from under, by, say, proving he is not the beneficial (or other) owner of the shares, it leaves the actual owners still subject to action under the 30% rule. If dispensation is required for the debt/equity swap then it could get messy; even if those in a position to grant such were acting with bloody minds, it could take some time to prove it. Has David K, boxed himself, and/or the owners of 'his' shares, into a corner, no matter the irrationality of being forced, at some expense, to offer to buy what one might classify as the unbuyable?

You'd let the Club continue? Didn't have you down as a softie, Rab.

Owned by a Trust, the beneficiaries of which are family, and others. Or am I mistaken?

Seems a racing cert to me, chaps.

It is David K's problem, if such it is, absurdity and all. It has been put to me that never before has the Takeover Panel acted against any alleged malefactor within minutes -minutes- of the response period expiring. Such apparent, and unusual, alacrity seems odd.

I would be surprised, but not much, if Daly did not know about this. I would not be surprised if he had spent a few months trying to find 'evidence' to drag other clubs into it.

Nonsense upon nonsense upon stilts!! And all, ahem, " in the public interest". It would seem that the CofS will endeavour to force David K, on pain of sanction, to make a costly offer for shares at significantly below market value -an overture which even the man in your local knows will fail- because, well, "Them's the rules", and irrespective of the particular circumstances of the Company, of the views of other shareholders,of the views of stakeholders (supporters, primarily), and of the clear risk that the public will regard this with hilarity, feeling that the Lords/Ladies of Session, and the Gentlemen/Ladies of the Takeover panel, are, in their application of the Laws and Rules, and in their interpretation of the greater interest, quixotic at best, pathologically pedantic at worst. A reductio ad absurdum, as they would have said in the Wine Alley.

Interesting. I wonder how far this will go. Can the Takeover Panel be seen to back down? Can the CofS uphold and enforce an unreasonable requirement upon David K? Is now the time for all good men to come to the aid of the Party? (And women, of course.)

I don't know. In general, as far as I understand, unreasonable actions may be viewed as legally faulty, throughout most, if not all, branches of law. From the layman's point of view, forcing David K to undertake an expensive exercise purely for the sake of undertaking that expensive exercise, seems an unreasonable position on which to found an action. From the same perspective, it does seem that undertaking this unreasonable exercise is not in the interests of the Company, nor of any of the shareholders.

Another red monkey on another red stick; or perhaps another green monkey on another green stick, variety being the spice of life. Maybe the Aberdonians' melancholy arose because they were persuaded, by Davie Provo's sage advice, to invest heavily against the 'Gers at the weekend. I certainly hope so. I heard part of last night's circus, but felt constrained to switch off when McLeod announced an item on that up and coming Scottish team, Derry City, reasoning that if I wished to hear about Oirish fitba', I should tune to an Oirish station.

Young athlete, has talent, seeks a principled adviser.

....She'd be sleeping with Brendan Rodgers?

If PC "...is yet to show his hand on which players he wants to keep", then why is the Club making an offer to McKay? It seems that contradictions do not appear on the Daily Mail grammar and spelling checker.

Completely insensitive by UEFA. Why do I feel no surprise?

The Takeover Panel has ordered that Dave King issues a Prospectus and makes a formal offer to all shareholders @20p/share, which as far as I can see is some 12p below current market value. This absurd exercise will cost north of £500K, per the Daily Rhebel, which may or may not be accurate, but we can rest assured that it will involve a significant amount. Quite why anyone, at all, would decide to sell at significantly under value is a matter for conjecture, but, to the man on the Cessnock omnibus, it seems pretty damn clear that such an 'offer' will 'flop'. That the Takeover Panel will pursue court action, with all the concomitant expense to both parties, to enforce this nonsense (which would surely fail any 'reasonableness' test to which it was subjected) is something which travels well beyond Dickens's declaration of the Law's asinine nature. Truly we would be witnessing, through the looking glass. a pissing contest conceived by Lewis Carroll out of Franz Kafka. It would be edifying to no one, and productive to neither party. I wonder if shareholders, en masse, could take a view, and an active role, here. If, say, sufficient numbers were to declare that they would not sell at that price, that they felt that the exercise was no more than a sham doomed to fail, and that, in their considered opinion was not in the interests of the Company, then, perhaps, the Takeover Panel would reconsider its position. I wonder, also, whether the imposition of a takeover bid, however nonsensical, will open the door for a counter offer, or counter offers.

BT Sport is putting this out live for the right price. All is explained on this link. http://sport.bt.com/football/champions-league/borussia-dortmund-v-monaco-live-stream-for-free-online-or-watch-on-tv-with-bt-sport-S11364171999092

There are matters into which a gentleman may not inquire.

If you had to select a team to preserve a 3 - 0 lead, you would pick Italian defenders. Right?

Yes, but, with respect, you are not a young athlete with a short attention span........

Like driving the getaway car.

Certain clubs gained sporting advantage. I do not believe that Stein's desire to protect the "good name" of the club was an end in itself. If the whole sordid tale had been brought into the open, there would have been significant ramifications: eg in recruitment generally, including, clearly, youth recruitment and development, and in brutal economics with match attendances very likely to have been adversely affected, to say nothing of sponsorship and merchandising.

I don't know if 'bulking up' is essential. I look at players like Ngolo Kante, and Sadio Mane, who are fast, strong, and effective (just a bit!) but who seem more wiry of frame.

Arsenal played a lot of football in front of the Palace defence. Palace, indeed any Allardyce team, will take that all day, and all night. Arsenal had insufficient creativity and imagination, and thus could not break down a resolute defence, for which the loanee Sakho stood out. The Arsenal 'star' men, Sanchez and Ozil were ineffective, and the most impressive attacker on show was Zaha, who showed pace, trickery, determination, and had enough strength to bully Arsenal's often timid defenders. The Palace team deserves bucketsful of credit for their performance. Alas, this will be swamped by acres of prose regarding the poverty of Arsenal's performance, and of Arsene's £20K per diem dilemma. The Palace crowd were terrific - what an atmosphere. So well done to them, also. As a footnote, re: Wenger, I find it interesting to note that, contrary to his early successful, trophy laden, years, when he was portrayed as a well rounded man of intellectual substance , an economist to trade, but/and a connoisseur of Japanese poetry and theatre, a litterateur, and a linguist, it is now suggested that his life is football, that little of value exists for him beyond it, and that this amour fou is the reason he refuses to go quietly into that Gunnerless night. Cynically, I think that the money may have something to do with it.

You could make a similar observation about players, Jean-Jacques.

I have just heard it trailed, heavily, on Radio Scotland. The strange thing is that that it has always been claimed that the Boys' Club was legally independent of Fhilth FC, a suggestion that BBC appear to confirm -"...It was created as a separate entity from the football club, but it has been closely linked throughout its history and acted as a feeder club,..."- and yet, despite this autonomy, Fhilth FC was able to sack Torbett from whatever formal post he held within the Boys' Club. Go figure.