Frank's cousin

Whilst e are desperate to try and find a way in which Portsmouth are punished appropriately, given the scale of their misdemeanors and blatently obvious advnatages that the 'system' has afforded them, the fact remains that acccording to the competition rules its seems something likes this: 1. First admin under prem league rules - max penalty 9point deduction - Confirmed 2. On exiting first admin with a CVA IN PLACE no further points deduction 3. Second admin under FL rules, Max penalty -10 applied - Confirmed 4. The orginal CVA is now classified as a creditor, rather than a CVA - NO possible FL rule to introduce a further points deductuion (which is what Birch is banging on about) 5. the only way an additional points deduction will occur under FL rules is if they exist admin WITHOUT CVA2 in place (possibly betwen -10 and -15 applied next season) - the big questionmark for them is whether given the make up and voting of the creditors now, whether they will agree to a CVA at a level that could be realistcally paid, given whatever new ownership structure thay have in place, and the somewhat difficult issue of CVA1 creditors agreeing to a further dilution to around 4p in the pound of the original debt... so BIrch is misleading tehm a little if he saying no further points deductions - this only refers to the issue with the existing CVA, not the new probs if they cant agree a second... So whilst I think we all agree that morally, its completely wrong that they can do this, the rules is the rules and they have exploited that. How their fans can be 'at peace' with knowing whats they have in effect been able to do and who they have been able to rip off to such an extent is a mystery to me...

Already stated the right to self determination is fundemental - and as we have seen in the past it counts for feck all when someone is willing and able to go down the military intevention route. Thing about the last Military intervention route is that its did not solve the problem - Argentina is still making a claim on the territory - ignoring this and sending ships is one method favoured by the gungho 'patriots' - the other is seeking a long term solution that ends it once and for all - only possible with dialogue...

And as such if Argentina invaded again - it would be considered an act of war and we would have the full weight of the UN and interntaional law behind us. We also know that this is unlikely - neither country wants this, but it also means that instead of the posturing and political ****ing contest that only satisfies the ignorant who believe it makes us 'powerful' in the eyes of the world, the onus should be on all to discuss this and ensure it never came to that again.

Tell that to the families of those who died in '82. FWIW as its sort of irrlevent to the debate, my dad saw 'action' in the Falklands - I remember how I felt about it as a 12 year old boy... but hey the SUN managed to hook in the nation with 'GOTCHA' to kick the whole thing off and a nice bit of 'ACTION' as you say won Thatch a second term which is obviously why it pleases you so much.

Depends on your outlook - sure we have players whose technical skill, and performance is less consistent than others, and even some that we know wont make the grade in the prem, or even give the impression of not 'caring' about things as much - some will find a reason here to publically criticise...... Others (maybe more enlightened IMHO) will say simply they are OUR players, they are wearing OUR colours, As a unit, as a squad they have us sat top of the championship with 6 games to go, depsite some below par performances both from individuals and the squad as a whole... so TBH they have achieved great things these last two seasons - as justified as some may feel to 'have an indepth analysis of the pros and cons, good versus ****e about individuals, I am not convinced its particlualry helpful when we KNOW that our success to date has in part alos been based on squad UNITY FFS - its been based on a simple fact that the team is greater than the sum of its parts. We stand together and fall togther, and given the added pressures and challenges of the run, I am not sure teh timing is great to be slagging players - surely leave that for the closed season, transfer threads and focus now on getting behind every last one of them, whoever is slected and whoever plays a part - the platform they have created means they deserve that at the very least - TOGETHER we get over the line, the moment we get nervous, it spills over. The moment we criticise individuals it plants teh seeds of doubt in that unity of spirit.... so IMHO Lets all STFU with teh criticisms till we get to the end of April and then deal those issues if you really must, whilst teh rest of us will be celebrating promotion.

Some would argue that this is because their is a blank refusal to even bring up the issue dipomatically - does not make agreesion right, but if we know its likely because we wont talk, thne surely the wise would 'talk' -= the only reason not to in those circumstances is to gain the 'moral' high ground if we need to provide a military response... when teh fact we are 30 years from a conflict that solved nothing...

Protecting folk when they need it is fair enough - and yes in 1982 as I said it was right given the actions of the Government of Argentina at the time. BUt the point is, this was about MORE than that. in 2012, Given Argentina is a democracy, as we have done with other former colonies and territories - it surely amkes sense to remove all the rhetorical jingositic shiet and open dialogue - Argentina aint goint to invade again, they dont have the resources or political will, nor do we now, and its all just political posturing - nothing like a bit of nationionlistic bull to try and paper over a few of the recent cracks... There seem to be some political taboos, sovereignty of some sheep farms, and PROPER review and reform of the NHS that no one wants to address for FEAR that its considered political suicide - as the masses are ignorant of the value in a mature debate. PS. We are 'inter-twined' we every people on the planet if we go back far enough - is our moral responsibilty to the protection of people limited to those with a BRitish passprort or those who live in our territories? Our legal responsibility maybe is, but you cant use a moral argument on this otherwise why did we not alos deal with Galtieri, or even Pinochet, afterall their people also needed protecting... just our 'inter-twinned' with goes back several 10000 years rather than a few 100.

But given the level of anti Scoittish feeling raised as soon as the dickhead Salmond talks about 'Scotish Oil' - how would those same feel if the oil production in those islands was huge and the islanders wanted to go it alone?... after years of us paying for the defence? In 1982, Argentina was ruled by a dictator who was quite happy in dissapearing 20,000 of his own people - so naturally, despite Mrs T being very friendly with another of these dictators in Chile who also enjoyed dissapearing 1000's of his own folk - it seems the way to deal with this is to ignore evil dictatorships when 'sorting out' dissenters in their own countries, but when threatening the islanders we run to the rescue - now dont get me wrong - Ensuring that we protected those people, given the possibilties if any had show dissent within an Argentinian dictatorship regime was the right thing to do... but it sticks in the throat when the Tories of that time use the protection of civilians and from evil dictators as PART of the justification, given Thatch was happy to suck on Pinochet's cock and do nothing about that evil bastard... But because its 'British citizens' the morality seems to become 'shifted up the scale' - Would Thatch have sent a task force had the islands been uninhabited, but were Brituish terriotory? I suspect she may have done as this was more about the need to conjure up some sort of patriotic passion whilst she was was struggling politically - The fact that the islanders were there, and wished to reamin goiverned by Britain - (and who would vote for a SA Dictator over a democratic government?) was a convenient supporting rationale IMHO. On the note re borders: they are AL artificial anyway and most less than 100years old - They only exist because of invasion and colonization, usually at the expense of the indigenous peoples so I dont believe its a great argument - the right to self determination is a good one and cant be argued with, but that is a completely seperate to the facts that we seem desperate to demonstrate our status in the world by holding on to the last vestages of colonialism - I believe Britain would be demonstrating its success as a world leading mature civilization more by moving on from this 'glorious past'

As always with these things, it really comes down to what you believe is more of a priority: 1. The economic potential of the region - why give up on potential ££££ 2. The strategic Value of the islands - well I guess times have chnaged since having a port in the storm around the cape was really necessary 3. Imperialism/what the locals want - assuming the 2 above were not relevant, if the majority of the locals were indigenous Argentinians and wanted independence, then its a no brainer as with all the other former colonies, surely Problem seems to be that the locals, want to be British... not exactly sure why given they would rather live 20,000 miles away than come home to the mothership, but hey, maybe there is something in sheep and penguines? What would we say about the locals if instead of wanting to be British or Argentinian, they wanted independence? What is it with the preoccupation with imperialism? I dont think we need to apologise for it, afterall times have changed and it was an era where the advanced nations were all at it dividing the globe to grab every conceiveable mineral and resource - and we have matured as they have matured... yet we have these last few footholds be it the falklands or Gibraltar that we seem unable to let go of... are we realy suggesting it would bruise our national ego too much to let them be independant? -BUT they want to be part of Britain! - of course they do - our tax revenue subs em, without us, they would be financially screwed... surely if they like Britain so much they would live here - no different from that pillock Sean Connery going on about Scotish independence from his home in spain for the last 40 years! If we need to hold on to 2 or 3 tiny islands to symbolyse out global power status then we are in big trouble...

Quick question... for the financial types: If the exit admin without a CVA in place, what happens to their debt? (assuming a purchaser does not come in an pay it all off...ha ha) - how can a club avoid liquidtaion underthose circumstances? Or, do they in effect do what they did before liquidate newco2010 thus removing all debt nd start again as new co 2012 with the golden share, but -17 or whatever the Fl decides to punish them with? Re failing to pay a penny of the current CVA - I believ Admin protects them, but also feel that even if it did not, the Fl would be hesitant of any additianl points deduction since that CVA was agreed in the previous admin, when Pompey were not in the FL?... or did their admin exist occur after they were members of teh FL rather than teh PL? Cant recall the timing?

Just back through door -what can I say that's not been said? Not much but maybe .... I took my Geordie father in law down big Magpies fan so came as a neutral and sang OWTs with the lads. ... Started lively ... Gully misses a chip ... Sharp misses a pen.... From where we were looked like their pen was wrong? Not seen any replays so can't tell... Generally a poor display, but not our day really. May turn out to be an important lesson- we ain't there yet and the lads need to work twice as hard again for the rest of season if they want this as badly as we do Ddraw a line etc.... Support was great especially the marathon OWTS Father in law the game as 'draw' - I know we were pants but it was not a 3-0 - just shows that our expectations of this side are very high given the standards they have set themselves - today they did not meet them, but we have a nice game next week to show a good 'reaction' in

True, cant argue with that - but I was thinking more about the money issue - are we now more likely to be satisfied with self sustaining slower progress that limited investment provides, or will we be calling for the board to be ousted and spend some feckin money themoment we struggle?

not sure - could give em a ring?

1pm dumbarton - your'll be fine 4 hours from fife max so you should have no probs - tickets left apparently - 1500 or so sold, allocation is about 2000 I think

That was Pancake - someone else did one fo pompey recently as well which was just as funny if you can find it amongst the 20 squillion pages of the Takeover thread!)

Was not really meant to be a debate about all the releagtion and the turmoil that followed really... maybe I was naive, but I was just interested whether with the benefit of hindsight and seeing how well we are run now, but with the potential for promotion and teh need to self sustaining in the future (as indicated by NC) the attitude to a financial model of 'prudence' had changed at all. It was just ONE of the areas Lowe was heavily disliked for... does anyone look back on teh 10 years before relagation and admit taht maybe form a financial perspective he got that bit more or less right or not? Goes without saying that we could have spent the money we did alot better had we had the consistency of management eveyone knew was vital - but again that shows another aspect of football fan culture that is always a paradox - we expect 2 things: a) that the board show some balls and ensure mangerial stability and 2) back the manager with cash appropriately.... yet at the same time, call for sackings regularly when results dont go our way, and frequently expect spending without considering wher the money is coming from...

Agreed we dont know - but twhat really matters is that whether sold or in it for the long term, the work that has been one and teh investment that has been made have made us possibly one of the most attractive options - quality leadership, sound finances, good infrastructure

New keyboard needed

Only Greenock? Leaving from Est Fife around 11 - whats the weather like?

Totally agree with that - UI guess the point , sadly missed by some, is that a steady breakeven policy is not going to yield the sort of rapid progress we have made these last two seasons - it will be interseting to see how the fans react to this, given that last time we followed such a policy we turned on the board (fair enough there wa splenty of other junk to jsutify that, but thi was any area that came up frequently)

I do understand that concept - and how it fits with football depends on who the shareholders are - if genuine fans, they can vote that any dividends are reinvested in the club... in our case it was divided up even if only a few 100k or so. Not saying the PLC model was ideal, but it did give fans a chance to won a bit of the club to... ? Privately owened by a good owner - perfect, but privately owned by a bad owner and no way of getting rid of them... swings and roundabouts

That would be perfectly correct if the clu is already a prem club - there is no value to be made from teh equity investment as any money injected is simply ****ed out teh door in wages and transfers = result ney pit.... but completely diffrent story if you find a club with potential in the lower leagues and it only costs you a totla of say 40mil to get you to a point its worth 60mil - - sure after that any further cash injection wont increase the value unless you can qualify for Champions league and your rveenues become regularly in excess of 120-150 mil - even investing a in anew satdium is now never going to pay for itself in your lifetime, so it has to be based on more than simple buisness?

Fair point

Nah - a luvvie of the fiscal policy yes undoubtedly - not necessarily of all the other baggage he came with - more a luvvie of the policy than of Lowe himself. That was always a concept that some fans struggled with....

Agree with that - but ti wa snot a question about making profits and share dividends etc - Although ironically it wa steh PLC status that created an opening for gettig Lowe out - no this was about a break even model?