I don't claim to know exactly what this means. However, you seem to be equating the Company's House information with a failure to file with the PL. Do you have any evidence that the club failed to file the required documents with the PL? If not, why do you imply that part is the issue.

Second, on the government's own web page discussing what a strike off might mean:

[Link]

Again, we simply don't know if this is an actual problem or whether it is part of a restructuring (which seems a reasonable guess given that all of the companies related to the club have the same notice to be struck off, and that appears to be one of the main reasons to do that), or something else.

Given that previous years accounts have shown few, if any, real problems I suspect (based upon the typical reasons cited in the government's guidance linked above) that the club is restructuring. However, I don't know that and neither do you. Despite that fact, and it is a fact that neither of us actually knows, you seem intent on making mountains out of every single mole hill. Of course, it is reasonable to ask the question in the first place, but it does not seem reasonable to jump to conclusions without real evidence.

I’m sure you’ll find something, somewhere to grumble about.

Pathetic really don’t you think.

I haven't said that at all; that's just something you've made up. I'm assuming that we have filed our accounts with the PL (particularly as awaiting a sign off from the PL was the reason given for late submission to Companies House when this issue was originally picked up by the media). This is now being reported as a technical issue and it's not unreasonable to comment on whther this "issue" is with the PL.

I will comment on any issue I choose to, as and when I choose to, in any way that I think fit, so get used to it.

Failure to file accounts on time is a criminal offence and lays the directors open to prosecution. Do you really think that's something to be positive about?

Not only is it a criminal offence but it's shocking PR too