Sadly that magazine is awful... I buy it but it take 2 mins to read and I nothing new out of it ... the editorial is Narcissistic and bias.. and it's news is nothing better than made up!



We have to convince Sadler that he is wrong ... we have to get the popular press on the case and any government body who will listen...



Mark my words we have threatened Box's empire and he will stop at nothing until the owners and the club have been eliminated ... that's what he does!



And I believe he will do everything in his power to ensure that happens!





But he is banking on the probability that people won't care enough to get out from behind their keyboards and challenge him!

Agreed. It’s like when you watch a police tv programme and the person they are interviewing continually says ‘no comment’. You immediately tend to think they’re guilty, whether they are or not. Adverse inference i think it’s called. It never looks good to the outside world whether it is the sensible move or not.

Not really in this case. It’s an editorial piece rather than a investigative one so he can only comment on what is in the public domain and then add an opinion to that. In this case all the talk so far has been from one side with no reply. The key is what, if anything, comes from him when the club makes a statement.

My point is Sadler wants to sell news papers. If he spent time researching he might get a better story and sell more but it takes effort and he has easier stories. He can't take forum facts. He risks being sued.



We on the other hand have an interest in getting the truth out there. We can use him to do it. It wouldn't be hard for us to give him some headlines.



Expecting him to do the work is like expecting your boss to give you a pay rise because you do a good job. Even though you are right it's not in his interest unless you go tell him why.

Because he looks a fool printing opinions that are clearly at odds with what is in the public domain if he chose to keep abreast of developments.



Given his alleged allegiance to Trinity you would think the above would count even more so.

On the subject of the op?

I have worked on many commercial leases, and I can't for the life of me understand how 88M can impose a £400k dilapidation clause unless all the terms and conditions from the original lease that he took over when purchasing the land from BOI stated that the ground would have to be brought up to a certain standard other than the state and purpose it was in at the time of purchase. As a tennant with a "maintenece clause" already in place, if WT had not being keeping the ground up to standards then they'd would be in breech of contract and been given notice to leave, doesn't appear to be the case so can't see this figure being anything like £400k in real terms, the only thing that the club couldn't be charged for would be the Benidorm flats at they are not "original fixtures and fittings" all the other stands have had a certain amount of "improvements" from original state in the last 130 years