WarksRobin

On 06/01/2022 at 09:12, Monkeh said:

You do realise that the wages include every player not just first team don't you,

That's the 15 and 16 year olds on 120 quid a week to over paid strikers on 27k a week

On 06/01/2022 at 09:36, Davefevs said:

We’d already included him.

Transfer profit consisted of Eliasson, Szmodics and Morrell.  If we got a fee for Rory Holden, it was nominal, same with Jonny Smith.

Those 3 accounted for about £3m of the £6.2m

Could the ladies team be included in these figures, or are they accounted for separately? Unlikely to be a significant amount, but every little helps

46 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

80% of a Premier League club for £100m? Either ludicrously undervalued or there's a big catch/extra cost  that's not being reported. 

As suggested by @GrahamC it could be a Chinese investor who is desperate to sell due to the Evergrande problem, so effectively a fire sale of shares

21 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

£100m seems pretty cheap. It's the price of a single world class striker. Wasn't Newcastle £450m recently? A 'controlling stake' is normally at least 50% plus one share, often 75% plus one to account for special resolutions. That would value the whole club at only £150 - 200m. Seems very low?

If true then £100m for a stable Premier League team really puts into perspective the £80 - 100m investors are being asked to stump up for Derby - a basket case Championship side destined for League 1. 

According to the BBC it is an 80% stake currently held by a Chinese investor. The quoted value cannot be correct.

Newcastle chasing a deal for Trippier, apparently

Moron

Vyner looking lost the last few minutes, not marking and not in a good position

Got to take our chances

Well done Zak

Decent bench, to be fair

30 minutes ago, B1ackbird said:

It's pretty much the same squad as well isn't it?

Baffleing....

Lost Earl and Malins and haven’t replaced them, plus a couple of long term injuries

16 minutes ago, sglosbcfc said:

The official site's preview for the Luton game is 12 months out of date!

Which emoji is appropriate for ‘I am not surprised’?

Edit: seems to be corrected now

16 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

An Atlas of UK roads, some barbecue coals and a bird table it is then ... God bless the garages who stay open on Xmas Eve ...

Just don't get the barbeque tools, or anything else that could be used as an ad-hoc weapon on Christmas morning

2 hours ago, The Horse With No Name said:

I,ve always wondered how the home club enforce these bans anyway. I accept that if a banned person is caught entering the stadium, it is a criminal offence, however a big coat, hat and facemask would render anyone unrecognisable. They should just carry on regardless, obviously though with someone else buying their ticket.

It’s not a criminal offence. It would be trespass which is a civil matter.

Left back vacancy filled?

7 hours ago, Oh Louie louie said:

What if he turns out to be a dele adebola, a bob taylor, a mark robins, a mike smith, on the other side of the coin.

Even a colin gordon......

Or Matt Smith

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, I don’t get the argument that you must eat from the vendors at the game.

How else will we fund our January transfers?

11 minutes ago, Maltshoveller said:

ok 

Happy to say i exaggerated some what

but its not completely wrong

Looking forward to the evidence supporting your point, which I’m sure you will find easily

So basically it was Mercedes vs Red Bull in the stewards’ room, and the stewards gratefully agreed with Red Bulls interpretation

Just now, JamesBCFC said:

whats been said?

 

A couple of years ago the chequered flag was shown a lap early and the final lap was declared void, and the result was the positions at the point the flag was shown, ie a lap short of full race distance. I think a couple of overtakes were reversed as a result.

Mercedes have taken a barrister into the stewards room. Clearly ready to appeal in court or to CAS

10 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I know what the rule is...

The point I'm making is that, judging by what the commentators were saying, if they had decided to let all cars through then this would have taken another lap out of the race due to time, and therefore the last lap would also have been a procession behind the safety car. Are you saying that is not right?

That’s the rules, applied over several seasons. Why change them in the middle of this race?

1 hour ago, grifty said:

Not really got much to do with this though. The issue is the FIA should have either let ALL lapped cars through or none. Not the 5 in-between Hamilton and Verstappen so they could have a race on the last lap.

Just doesn't sit right with me and a shame the season had to finish under such controversial circumstances. There's lot of people (including a few in this thread) saying it was the first race they've watched in X number of years and won't again because of the ending. That's what this race will be remembered for.

As a side note, I was impressed at how magnanimous Hamilton was after the race. Obviously disappointed, but still did interviews, congratulated Max and stayed on the podium sprayed him with champagne and congratulated Max and Horner. Where was Max on the podium at Jeddah? He ran off out the back immediately the national anthems were gone. Seems strange that the 'Hamilton haters' won't bring this up...

The regs say that after letting lapped cars through, the safety car should complete a further lap before entering the pits. They just didn’t follow their own procedures. Reckon this could end in a count back and Lewis awarded the win.