Theoz

Dammit. You got me. Not even a Wednesday fan. Just been waiting on here for this exact thread. And I’d have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for you pesky kids.

I explained earlier though appreciate it’s getting to be a long thread to read every comment. Being sprayed means you were there, it doesn’t mean you are guilty of any offence. Even if the police did a mass identification using this technology all it proves is that you were at the location at that point in time. If you have a mobile phone, have purchased a match ticket using your legitimate details or are captured on CCTV / video surveillance that can equally be used to prove the same thing. This gives a higher evidential quality of your presence - eg you can’t claim someone stole your phone, you can’t hide your face with a mask or you can’t give false details. The police still need to reach the same evidential bar that you have committed an offence.

I’ve done my best to explain how it works, what it’s used for and also what it doesn’t do. I have no affiliation to the police or the company that manufactures this. I simply wanted to inform and myth bust. If there’s anything I’ve said that’s not clear, ask away. Though I’m really intrigued by how you think this can be used to control you, by stealth or otherwise.

Neither. I’m an international man of mystery.

Or you could look at it that a small minority of “fans” cost the club thousands in paying for policing, divert resources away from stopping prolific offenders and clamping down on crime hot spots and cause genuine fans to be treated differently from other members of the public. I guess either viewpoint works. As with the minority of football “fans” there’s a minority of SYP officers who discredit the majority.

What happens is the police have a significantly enhanced chance of meeting the standard for a successful prosecution and the people who are attacked have a greater chance of receiving justice. For those innocent people inadvertently caught by the spray. They have the inconvenience of having a non-harmful substance on their skin or clothes for a few weeks that they’ll never know one way or other that it’s present or not.

That’s numberwang. Yes, exactly that. Calling it DNA spray leads to a lot of the mistrust around it. Bad naming. Good scientific invention.

In that scenario there is no realistic chance of any prosecution. You were there, so were thousands of other people. When used in a bank vault, slightly different metrics. Though when used as intended for the match, it supports a prosecution. On its own, it’s fairly worthless.

I refute any suggestion that I have ever been on the rubber dingy rapids.

Not trusting SYP - that’s good judgement. The whole purpose of the spray, why it’s described as DNA spray is that it links you to a specific location, date and time. It cannot be used to link you to another scene of crime. It’s designed to do the exact opposite of that.

Nope, again misunderstanding its purpose. It prevents someone saying “not me, weren’t there” as the presence of the spay proves beyond reasonable doubt you were. They’d still need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you had committed an offence. A combination of video footage, witness statements etc could support the latter. If you’re sprayed as an innocent bystander the likelihood is that video footage would identify you anyway. This is for those who wear masks or shake their heads vigorously to avoid detection.

Totally agree with you on having a healthy distrust of authority and the comments above about (a section) of SYP engaging in nothing more than thuggery. Just actually see this technology as being beneficial to counter both of those. Big fan of both science and technology. I humbly withdraw my accusations on your choice of headwear. Peace out.

Does the tinfoil not make your ears itch? All the spray does is prove you were in a particular location at a given time. Every other element of burden of proof that you committed a crime needs to apply. You may have noticed that certain sections of society figured out during Covid times that wearing a mask makes you harder to recognise. If the police had witnessed or held video evidence of a crime being committed by a mask wearing nerdowell, this spray can be used to prove who that was. Approximately 2% of the population have a skill known as super recognition. The police use those with this skill to review video footage. So basically, whilst you might be wearing a mask, you can still expect a knock on your door if you’re recognised. And if you’ve been sprayed, you can’t deny being present.

Not sure if you’ve misunderstood what this spray is / does. This isn’t collecting anyone’s DNA nor is it going to tag every fan. In the event of disorder, the spray is deployed at those involved. If - big if - they’re arrested in the following weeks the spray will still be present and detectable on their skin and clothes. The “DNA” part is that the spray is uniquely attributable to the event / date / time used and can be proven that the person was present. It’s not draconian, Orwellian or any other kind of Ian.

As satisfying as it would be, it’s purely wishful thinking. The EFL *could* waive the 25% rule though that would then apply to any unsecured creditor. Like a divorce, it’s better to pay up and not be the bitter ex. If we either didn’t pay him as an unsecured creditor or the EFL agreed that we didn’t have to pay all unsecured creditors 25% all that would achieve is having legal liabilities hanging over us for months if not years. He’s in for almost £120m in unsecured loans across the two companies and he paid £35m for us in the first place. Whatever the outcome, he’ll be substantially worse off. Meanwhile, for us, the future’s bright. The future’s blue and white.

The Co-Op in Castle House had a pretty big area for both clubs. We later had our own outlet in Orchard Square. As mentioned above, the stalls tend to have high prices because of the rental charges being pretty steep. If we sorted out our web shop that would be a much better plan.

It’s ok, I got that you didn’t understand my post. It’s fine that you didn’t. Peace out.

Ah, when you said it’d be great to have something like the Common Room I didn’t realise that you didn’t actually like the Common Room. And needs to be no effort nor cost to get there for everyone. Struggling to see why it didn’t work last time tbh.

The tram takes 15-20 minutes from Middlewood to West St, 2 minute walk and you’re at the Common Room. They’d love your custom midweek. See if you can drag yourself out the house to go support them.

It’s like a canteen or a social club bar. Nothing wrong with it for a couple of hours on a match day. Will never work as a regular pub. Could possibly do 1970’s theme nights on a weekend if they put bingo on and some racist fat bloke doing mother-in-law jokes.

Interesting listening to the fans forum from last night. Seems you might need to explain this to the administrators as they still think there’s a charge held over the stadium and that they’ll have to repay the loan in full. You can explain to them that NAP only had 7 days to enforce it and so now are an unsecured creditor.

Whether they believe that relaxing their ruling would leave them open to legal challenges will be the big consideration for them - not just from other clubs, from our former owner himself.

You're making me blush. First thing to understand is that a higher price wouldn't have benefited them. They were owed ~£7.3m. If they'd have sold the stadium, they could have taken what they were owed, plus interest, plus charges. Anything left over they'd have returned to Sheffield 3 Ltd. So £10m or £20m matters not to them. They would have to sell for a reasonable market value given a distressed time-bound sale. The stadium itself is only really valuable to the football club. Without a football club to play in it, the value is in the land - and all the costs associated with demolishing the stadium plus negative publicity that would have come with it. So my understanding is that from a risk perspective, their best chance of getting their money back was to have both the stadium and the club sold as one. Therefore they worked with the administrators to create the environment where both Ltd companies would be placed into administration at the same time and both sold as a going concern to the same party. Basically, the separation of the stadium from the club and the subsequent charge over the stadium is the thing that finally forced our former owner's hand. He is also jointly and severally liable (they can go after one or both parties) for the repayment of the loan - so they could, and still can, go after him for some or all of the money on a personal basis. They still hold the charge, so the administrators need to work with them to agree the sale of the stadium; though that should just be crossing your eyes and dotting your tea. The charge makes them a secured creditor in the administration of both Ltd companies meaning they will receive what they are owed - without any of the faff of getting involved themselves, or having to pursue our former owner through the Thai courts.

Good summary. Definitely an unknown as to what the figure owing to DC is aside from what was in the last published accounts. Could be more if he put money in, or less if he took it out. There was ~£55m owed by Sheffield 3 - not stated who to though assumed to DC as no interest payable. Unsecured creditors to Sheffield 3 should not fall under the 25% rule as that's not an EFL sanctioned entity, though I would still expect something to fall into that pot. So your £75m may be about right.