um pahars

They were singing about kicking a puppet's head in:rolleyes: Not all songs associated with football should be taken literally, e.g.: We are not the greatest team the world has ever seen (we're about 50th in this country alone), We won't get our father's gun (because I doubt he has one) I very much doubt that we only drink whiskey or Brown/Rum (I'm betting lager would be drunk by many instead) We won't shoot the Pompey scum (as that would be murder) I very much doubt that Brett has got within 2 miles of Posh, let alone fcked her. etc etc etc

Normally it would help if you had a semblence of an idea/experience of the subject at hand before you go in with both feet (i.e. slightly more knowledge than two sentences from a passive obserer). I'm afraid you've somewhat shown yourself up on this thread, diving in without any knowledge of what went on and struggling hard to justify your initial noddy retort.

LMFAO. So now we're comparing sectarian songs with some anti Pompey songs. Yee hah, the sanctimonious possee have just rolled up:rolleyes: Feel free to report me and thousands of others to the local nick for incitement to murder after singing "Go get your father's gun". And since you failed to answer it first time around, just what were the actions that you personally witnessed yesterday that got you so wound up????

So what part of the days events that you personally witnessed upset you the most? I don't know how to break this to you, but I don't think any of their grandad's actually bought them a Pompey fan on a string, nor did they really tell them to kick their head in (it's all make believe!!!!)

With all your multiple identities, you'd guarantee a good turn out;)

Remember that match at their old ground very well, something like 200 a side at half time with a couple of balls and a tennis ball being used. It was August 1986. I can't imagine what the do-gooders and wakners would say about such disgraceful behaviour:rolleyes: This was the game that Townsend broke his leg in!!!!!! May have been linked to the Townsend transfer, but not sure as Townsend came to us in January 1985.

I smelt a Man or a Bear or a Beast

Actually, I would hazard a guess that some people have multiple identities;)

We do have our fair share of kn0bs, but they weren't down in Weymouth yesterday, instead they were posting on here.

I just happen to think they're both rather depressed markets, and throw in a sale under firesale conditions and I don't think either will be realising much. The crunch point will be the figure Fry and the major creditors have put on the break up value and whether anyone can match it. I just think the break up value will be fairly low, but then worry that even this low figure will not be matched by someone willing to take us over as going concern.

If someone walked away, citing this site (or even The Echo blog) as their reason for doing so, then I have to question their conviction in the first place. Given the sh1t we have put up with in recent years then I would have hoped that any future owner could have had some empathy with us. On top of that, football always has been a hotbed of opinion, disagreement and passion, so ife they get cold feet over some posts on here then you have to wonder what they would be like when the sh1t really hits the fan. Of course I would never advocate nor condone personal attacks on individuals (particularly those going out of their way to try and help us), but let's not get too over dramatic here.

Looks like the troll has found someone new to wind up:rolleyes: Just what did Derry reveal about you to get you on his case:D

We did this a while back, but didn't have any consensus at all. My view was that a piecemeal firesale would not achieve much, whilst others (and I think Guided Missile was more bullish) thought we could raise a decent sum. My stance was that nothing would clear its true value in a desperate firesale. And then with regards assets: Staplewood and Jackson's Farm won't get much in the current market with no planning permission and with some restrictions. Players etc, minimal given our failure to pay them means they can start to walk away if they so choose. St Mary's, land not worth that much (a few million, maybe less in current climes) and there definitly is not a market for an intact second hand football ground. I have no idea what the cut off point is, although I'm sure Fry, Aviva & Barclay's have got their numbers, but I don't think emotion will come into making such a decision if the offers are too low.

I too don't think it's a hoax, instead a combination of wishful thinking, people not wanting to lose face and most of all people shtting themselves when confronted with the real task at hand with regards ££££'s and melting away to be replaced by the reserves (or even the youth team)!!! From day one I have been really concerned that our financial position combined with such a dire recession will mean we will be really up against it with regards finding a buyer. The current impasse with wages going unpaid and the Club about to unravel may be the start of something very bad!!!!!!

You would have been better off sending a PM, rather than cluttering this board up with a post about 2 or 3 people. Additionally, I don't remember any "Questions for washsaint" threads when your lauded return of Lowe and the Poortvliet went t1ts up and put us where we are now. And lastly, this was what you were trumpeting out last August when you were championing Lowe and Poortvliet: So Mr Hypocritical, is it only "what's done is done" when it suits you:rolleyes:

I tend to agree. My only concern is that the League's position might be they'll only compromise at -10+ to -30 (throwing the CVA hit in as well)!!!!!! I also wonder what the member club's views would be if they were asked tgo vote on us only taking a -10 hit??? But the best we can hope from the League is for them to agree at -10, so if they're offering us that then we should be signing on the dotted line. On a couple of other points, the League are not doing anything illegal here, so some postings on this subject are irrelevant. Additionally, the idea that we could sign and then claim duress at a later stage has already been shown with the Leeds precedent to be a non starter.

Spot on. They've given us another month at the very least and considering I don't see many other White Knights riding oer the horizon, then I'm more than happy for them to be doing their best.

I agree. As with a number of clubs coming out of administration (or not) there has always been dialogue, negotiation and hopefully compromise. Pinnacle have every right to try and get the best deal possible for us and for them, and whilst I also doubt they'll get it overturned I have no problem with them giving it a go and also trying to ensure our position is clear going forward. My faith is also kept going not least because they've spent a sizeable sum so far!!!!

I think technically you're probably right, in that there will be no NewCo just a transfer of ownership, but Ithink the League will look behind that. I also don't think the League are being vindictive here as they will want us in the League. They just have to be seen to be fair to the other clubs in the League (particularly those that have had points deducted previously).

Loads of differences, but also loads of similarities but it also shows the intent of the League to pursue what they believe is in the best interest of the Leauge as a whole. It also shows the League can use their discretion and authority to rule on these matters and that their conduct was supported by an Independent Arbitration Panel. Of course each case is different, but my money would be on a similar outcome as per Leeds (and others) where the League's view won the day. I'm certainly no expert on this, but if you step back and look at it rationally and objectively, along wiith reading stuf from these links, then you start to get a feel for where I'm coming from. http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/dc/ed/0,,10794~126428,00.pdf http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/4c/ec/0,,10794~126028,00.pdf http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/4b/ec/0,,10794~126027,00.pdf http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/78/3/0,,10794~888,00.pdf

Nope, judicial reviews are for public bodies.

I agree that that part of the comparison looks different in that Fry and Pinnacle will try and say no NewCo is being established, it is merely a transfer of ownership. But as the League ruled with regards applying their Insolvency Policy to SFC Ltd (when it was not in administration), they are prepared to use their authority and discretion and look at substance over form. And if you look at the whole of the League ruling with regards Leeds, the Arbitration Panel at the time were supportive of the League using its discretion and authority to pursue their (and their members) stated aims.

We have got a right of appeal and at the same time the League have a right to start us in Div 4. They will compromise and allow us to start in Div 3 if we compromise and forego an appeal.

So what they are doing to us is exactly what they have done to Leeds and others. We're not being unfairly picked on and the League are being consistent. I presume their motive is not to have appeals hanging over the football season.

They certainly said it to Leeds, so maybe it is a line they say to all of these clubs and maybe they have all just taken it on the chin. If you look at the Leeds case, then the League certainly showed some discretion in allowing Leeds to stay in Division 1 (how much of a compromise that is is a matter of judgement).