OTD ,I think that was the match when I won us a penalty, being the only one to shout penalty at the lino and he gave it.

OTD is indeed Lee Carroll. But I only know this because I looked it up :-)

If you want some good news Bet 365 has us as slight favourites for our game v Crewe. We are 2.50, they are 2.55 and the draw is 3.30*. Maybe there is hope for us after all.

And another example of how it’s really given West Ham fans the success they were looking for.

As clear as mud ;-)

Disappointing yesterday, but I did have to smile when the PA announcer seemingly innocently read out a birthday greeting for a Mr Wayne Kerr.

Stu, Radcliffe has 27.7% that alters his rights he has in company law. 25% wouldn't achieve that, it needs to be higher than that, the additional 2.7% does that.

The exact mechanism of how SSC hold the value still seems opaque to me but maybe I'm missing a clear explanation somewhere. Also will our three directors (plc or holding company) still have a veto? Would it be over anything or not the playing side? Are SSC happy with the idea that three people they have never met might walk into a board meeting and throw their plans out?

Nick D, had listened to the podcast last night. The SSC stuff is what it it is, and what's been said is many amongst many conversations about this. Only doing the deal will reveal any form of truth of any argument. That's not me endorsing anything, but a fact. I respect every or anyone's right to be guarded. My take on the podcast was George's now open condemnation of the inner working within the DT(b) Some of us in the Proboards days suspected that things weren't as things were presented and sceptics were right to hold those views they had. Unchained George certainly made an otherwise sceptical panel, no criticism there, put some flesh on the bones of a once hamstrung member of the inner sanctum. Agree or not, that was my view.

Silk - I agree it isn't very clear but the word "share" in the second sentence there refers to share of economic rights not shares in the company. They can't ladder up to 90% of shares because then the DT would only own 10% and we haven't voted to allow that. If that were part of the deal, the voting thresholds needed would be higher.

TF - West Ham kind of do the same thing. They get interest on loans they made to themselves. Different wording of the same thing.

United is also the only English football club where the owners pay themselves from the club’s funds.

LD-it was supposed to be held in France with more teams but Australia secured it with a cut price version with less teams

When reading the stuff around Man U, I realised that they have a similar model with Sir Jim Radcliffe who owns around 20% of the club and that has given him control of football operations. This isn’t a new concept then it seems.

How SSC’s economic rights grow SSC starts at 34.7%. Its share rises only once each capital injection has been verified as paid: to 40% after 2026/27, 65% after 2027/28 and 90% after 2028/29. Paying early does not speed this up. Under the proposed terms, the figure is capped at 90%.

The Rugby League World cup has the weirdest qualifying structure. 3 pools A, B & C. Pool A is sensible as it has 4 teams where they each play 3 matches against each other and the top 2 qualify for the semi-final. Pools B & C each is mad as it has 3 teams that are combined into one group. Rather than playing the other two teams in their pool, each nation plays the three teams from the other pool. The top 2 in from the group of pool B & C qualify for the semi-final.

Silk, i think you are mixing up shareholding with this "economic value"

About yesterday when I said he did a Tuchel it was to point the lack of striking options on the bench due to having four injured. Having Tilley up with Stockley is not as attacking as having another striker and Yiadom will not give you as much attacking wise as Tilley at wing back.

$6M - the cap on shareholding is 90% for SSC not 34.7% - each new capital injection after that will give them a bigger share of the club.

In caae you missed it, the special joint super-podcast featuring the guys from SOW, George Jones, Stu, and me is available now. We spend the whole show discussing our thoughts on the investment proposal. Available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube via [Link]

I'll stop boring everyone with thoughts about deal structure after this as I need to leave my hotel in Cheadle and head home (plus I'm merely guessing as we're not told). The only other option I could think of, if SSC are truly to have their shareholding capped at 34.7%, is if these additional contributions are deemed to be part of the original purchase price and are added to the share premium account. That might work but the capital contribution agreement would need to be carefully drafted. It still wouldn't explain how economic value works (which is less of an issue for me) but it would deal with the control and ownership concerns.

One thought I had about this deal. If the initial slug of money (£16m) is to buy 34.7% of the shares in AFCW PLC as that Hugh bloke said, but the rest is just to fund operations (be it to the playing budget or improvements in infrastructure) then that would not be a capital injection but either deemed by HMRC to be trading income (so risks being taxed) or a contribution to a capital contribution reserve (but not without tax risks either). His point that paying money in stays in the business so increases the value of their investment doesn't wash with me as for every £1 they pay in their investment would only go up by 34.7p. This is why the legal mechanism on how this is supposed to work and how the DT supposedly retains majority control and ownership, but not the majority of whatever economic value is, needs to be properly explained by someone who knows and is not guessing (like the capital allowances explanation Graeme gave when asked).

Has anyone who has emailed the info@ address had a direct response?

OTD is Lee Carroll? If so, his profile says “He holds the distinction of becoming the first AFC Wimbledon goalkeeper to be sent off and was for a time the only one to have scored, before the controversial goal against Hartley Wintney was credited to Kevin Cooper by the club's disputed goals panel”.

Hey Spit, I hope it wasn't Gary and bus Glitter Band. 😎