The9

I think most of them are planning on using it as a shop window to get a decent deal somewhere else, but they have to have the club's consent to release their registration even if they're not playing for them...

Just checking, they went into admin on 13th February 2012, so 18 months is 13th August 2013 ? Which as 2013/14 will be a World Cup year is likely to be after the season starts. Thereby giving them the maximum possible time to remain in admin from the time they announced it until the time they have to come out of admin. Jesus, they did a lot of maths that didn't involve costs or paying for things when they chose their admin date didn't they ?

Plus judging by the reports of Birch spending the £12m Parachutes on settlements from Chainrai, all of the current money SHOULD be gone already.

Just about ties in then. But that's more than 18 consecutive months, isn't it ?

There is a reference to "The League also adopted rules that prevented any side from being in administration for either two successive seasons or eighteen consecutive months" here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)#cite_note-11 but nothing to confirm it. There's therefore no detail about whether that starts counting from the end of the season, the close season, the start of the next season, etc. But it does mean that they can't start 2013/14 in admin, so even if they develop a new model for signing non-contract players, they're still getting a -10 at some point in the next 12 months and 1 week.

I didn't actually see anyone say "they can't do 2 close seasons in admin as it's against FL rules" but it's been implied, so I'm pointing it out now in case anyone didn't know. Buggered if I can actually find it in the rules though.

That's because they had an agreed CVA. The Portsmouth -10 will be enforced on leaving admin because until they are taken over there's no punishment for them not paying the last CVA, because theoretically they still could.

It was just loading the graphics on their 14.4 modem.

Tch, missed the point again. I'm not moaning about signing inexperienced players, I'm moaning about ONLY signing inexperienced players (and pleased with the exception, the signing of Davis, based on his experience - but not necessarily his ability - yet).

I think there's a wider point (also at a tangent to the Matt Phillips "news") about the fact we've progressed up two divisions in two seasons and the limits that players signed to get us out of League One might be about to hit, but as the comeback for that one is "Norwich" as well, plus we've topped up (as opposed to bulked out) the squad over that time, so probably best pretend it has never occurred to me. Especially as "Lambert and Kelv are next for the chop" are pretty high on the inevitable conclusions to be drawn.

Hang on, are you saying MLG made a typo, I replied to it AND I DIDN'T MENTION IT ? That's it, going to have to hand over the Pe(n)dant.

Which adds to his general usefulness. If we could clone him, we'd have... a really short team with a terrible goalkeeper.

Yeah, but now there's a layer of 300 of the best (or best value) foreign players grafted onto the top of the domestic players which comprised near as dammit the entire top division until the early 90s, you'll forgive me for thinking the overall standard might have improved since Dennis Bergkamp windsurfed over from Hollandland in the year 2AD.

I'll leave that for someone else to work out if it's ok with you. As an informed guess, QPR signed lots of people who had Prem experience, Norwich signed lots from Championship and L1, and Swansea signed lots of randoms who suited their style, including Sigurdsson, who was the signing of the season, but already had top tier experience in Germany with Hoffenheim.

They can both play other positions, Guly's better as a support striker and Puncheon as a narrow left-sided midfielder if his time at Millwall was anything to go by. Still useful squad players, just shunted down the pecking order by new signings, we should be used to it by now - though we have run out of divisions to get promoted from. I wonder if we have players with bonuses for staying up, finishing in the top 2/3rd, top 10, top 6 etc ? They're the new "motoring through the divisions".

Based on that I should be a Cardiff City fan (or still a Newport County one now they're back at the level they were when they went bankrupt) and living in an SO postcode would work against me, but unlike the born-Sotonians I got to choose. The fact I chose to come to Southampton whilst living in South Wales suggests that (at least in 1991) the catchment area is bigger than people imagine. There are probably a few plastic Saints still in the Cardiff area from 2003 alone, as I know one of those too... though the er, Redbirds have hoovered up a lot of them now.

I was quite surprised by the sample size but it doesn't tell you what the actual questions were or any statistical bias that might have resulted. But yeah, the sample is decent, The Sun has just lifted the figures and haven't really put a skew on it either. It does still say only 9% of their fans are from Manchester though, so it's still ok to sing it, tedious though it is. I have met quite a few plastic Mancs in South Wales (a hotbed for all things plastic and football, just look at the Swansea and Cardiff attendances now they're not in Div 4 any more) and some of them even used to go. But the rest of it is depressingly familiar, as we all know, most of that lot never go.

Guessing one answers the other here... assuming of course that the guarantee exists, and isn't from a made up sheikh or something.

Probably an obvious point, but The News appears to be claiming here that Birch will only find out how many of the £100 pledges will convert to actual tangible £1000 cash AFTER he's agreed that the Trust can take over. You'd expect he'd be doing some digging for himself to try and get an accurate conversion rate, but I suppose it's only when it's definitely happening you get a realistic response to this. I wonder if there are any previous examples of pledges to Trust clubs and their return rate ?

Now that made me laugh.

Also amusing. Because they wouldn't want any creditors to lose out on money owed to them, how could anyone suggest such a thing ?

I think my favourite bit is this : I'm pretty sure that until Chainrai came out and said "Birch spent it all on player agreements" that pretty much no-one in Portsmouth had the foggiest clue it was coming out of the money they were expecting the club to get from the PPs. PST budgeted for there being PPs left AND agreeing to pay only £2m to the players, not £8.5m. But apparently this was "always" going to be the case. Also worth noting, the Football League have the PPs. The Prem has definitely paid the FL not Portsmouth directly. A just a little nuance of note to remind everyone that no-one trusts them around money any more.

You would hope so - see the recap above - oh, and sorry for misrepresenting your linking of the rules as being done by Torres, edited now.

And we are still wondering...

Ok, hold on, they're signing 10 non-contract players (allowed within the embargo as we established yesterday, but they can't get a fee for them if they leave) or they're signing 10 short-term contract players (which means their embargo has been lifted by the FL - which is extremely unlikely) ?