Ken Tone

I think pretty much everyone gets it and fully understands the significance of the song. However, in the Chapel and most of the Itchen and Kingsland stands there are many families etc who are not happy singing the f word.

Sory to repeat ,but never mind what the second hand sources say, the FL site gives no indication that they are currently considering anything more than the 10 points. http://www.football-league.co.uk/footballleaguenews/20120217/pompey-given-10-point-deduction_2293334_2614922

http://www.football-league.co.uk/footballleaguenews/20120217/pompey-given-10-point-deduction_2293334_2614922 Nothing on the FL web site to suggest they are even considering more than a 10 point deduction for now. As others have pointed out pretty much all the precedents for greater penalties show those happening at the start of the following season if admin hasn't finished 'tidily'

Insurance becomes invalid if you don't pay the premiums. Come to think of it , are the players properly insured against serious injury? Is that handled by the PFA or the club? What if one had a career-ending injury against Barnsley?

Well they are creditors. The only way in which they are a special case is via the football creditors rule, which is a football rule, not a law. So if the club is liquidated and thus there is no need to persuade the FL to give them their golden share to play, the players join the rest of the queue with no preferential treatment. As do the other clubs waiting for their transfer fees etc --even the small aussie clubs waiting for their share of the money from the only transfer out on deadline day. (Notice how this fee is magically part of PFC's cash flow and assets, but the fact that most of it is actually someone else's money is ,typically, ignored.

The BBC has an excellent, and remarkably even-handed explanation of both sides' claims over this. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17045169 I can't imagine any Argentinian media publishing anything that objective. The BBC's page is of course very brief, and therefore misses out some details. One important claim in the Islanders' interpetation of history, is that it was actually the USA's Navy that ejected the handful of settlers from the islands in the 1800's , (leaving them empty for full , continuous, British settlement some years later, from 1833) because they were pirates, who had been attacking the American whaling ships. It is very debatable what nartionality these 20 or so pirates were, or by what right they were there. Bear in mind by the way that this ejection was not long after the US and Britian were enemies in the often forgotten war of 1812. Thet were certainly not acting as our allies at the time. I have visited the Falkands personally, and they are, uncannnily and surreally, totally British in every way -- apart from the alien wildlife. It's like going to the Yorkshire moors and finding penguins and sea lions.

My advice is that if any of you need some publicity for your business, you contact The News now and say you're interested in buying PFC. A day's free advertising for anyone is on offer apparently, judging by recent events. (of course that does assume you want to do business in portsmouth)

Since the only real basis for Argentina's claim to the Islands , in spite of the wishes of those whose ancestors have lived there since 1833, is that they are approximately 300 miles from the nearest bit of their coast, I'd like them to support us in taking to the UN our claim for large chunks of France , Belgium and the Netherlands

The pattern in the FL seems to have been -10 for admin, then a further deduction if not out of admin by the start of the next season. That's what happened to Bournemouth, Leeds(?) etc,and indeed to Luton. Luton lost even more ponts because of financial irregularities , which I think were to do with payments to agents. So best case scenario for PFC now is probably -10, scrape through the rest of this season avoiding relegation, and hope to god that some idiot or crook buys them out of admin for peanuts, and with mostly written off debts, by the summer, thereby again screwing their creditors. I reckon this is what Lampitt is trying to achieve. Of course , also possible is just about anything from almost immediate liquidation, to painful hanging on and another -10 to -20 next season.

Too hard to prove. "Oh dear, did some of the straw on the North corner blow off in the night? We didn't realise till the morning." Since they are not paying their stewards , programme sellers, players, car park attendants ..etc, at the moment, any ticket income isn't far off being pure profit. I knew they apparently had the programme printed, which for most clubs would represent a waste of money, but not for PFC, as they're not paying that bill either are they?

Lol (just thought I'd accompany you ) More seriously , in answer to V.Warrior's "The Fa should have a least consulted with him over the terry situation ." ..I thought they had. I heard they told Capello they thought Terry shouldn't be captain. Capello refused to remove him, so then the FA over-ruled him.

I think the club allowed the pitch to be badly covered so that it became hard in places so that it could not be played on, but that is my interpretation of what I was told. (There was even a picture in the News that day of the players training on 'the parts of the pitch that were playable', so overall it can't have been too bad.) He simply said to me after answering ny question and confirming that the academy players had been sent home, " ..and the game could have gone ahead." I said to him ,"you mean but they were better off financially with taking the ticket money but not paying out for the cost of putting the game on", and he said "yes". That's as far as our conversation went before we were interrrupted.

Not exactly news to those who reads this thread, but I've spoken to a mate (whom I see socially every 2 or 3 weeks ) who has good contacts at the club and he confirms a) that the academy players were indeed sent home, b) that their last home game could have been played had they wanted it to be. The weather was used as an excuse. and btw he feels Lampitt is really doing his best for the club, even if others aren't.

If the player doesn't ask for a move , he doesn't have to go. He has a conrtact. No player has to move to another club for less (or more) money. Some may choose to. If the club want him to go, and he's not keen, he can negotiate as much pay-out as he can get away with to agree to move. It makes no difference which bits of his contract those payments may or may not refer to If the club just want to get rid of him, as the default position they are liable to pay up his contract; they can't just say go. If a player's contract is cancelled one-sidely he gets everything, which is why it rarely happens. More often it is cancelled by mutual agreement, eg player may take 50% of the remaining contract money , gambling on finding a new club when he is a free agent.

Quite. Besides which if/when it gets as far as the court hearing the WU petition, and PFC start bleatin on as susla about how they are some sort of special cae, it would make HMRC's position look worse if PFC could say "and they wouldn't even talk to us" But what I thikn is happening now is that Lampitt inb hsown sweet way is tryng to save the club, and for once Chainrai isn't just gettingwhat he wants via AA. That for me is theonly explnation for the lack of a firesale on transfer deadline day. Lampitt will now put the club nto admoinostraion,or try to (points about how this might be funded noted). He hung on to players in the hope of riding out a 10 poiont deduction without relegation ,in the hope that someone --anyone --will come and buy them out of admin yet again, yet again shafting their creditors in the process. BC will also miss out if so. He'd have been better off selling players , then going for liquidation to get what he could.

Look. I've really got little against many portsmouth fans. Much of the stuff on here really is relatively friendly rivalry for me. But expecting us to actually believe any of Corp's nonsense is asking too much! I know the traditional internet thread rule is to compare someone with Hitler, but our Corp is effectively the Goebbels of the internet. Tell a lie , tell it big and tell it often, and you'll get some people to believe you. Just becasue he keeps talking drivel does not make it true. There is no way you generated enough income in the premier league to pay wages like £100k a week for Campbell. Just work out how many of the players and Redknapp etc were on ridiculous money, and do the sums. In fact I seem to recall seeing some figures (anyone got them to hand?) that showed PFC's wages alone as over 100% of income, even without other expenditure and costs.

Surprisingly good analogy on the News site , commenting on the PFA's call to use another advance on the parachute payments to pay the wages, in spite of them already being earmarked to pay the CVA Read the article again, I think some people may have got it wrong. -- Gordon Taylor is in one respect like the creditor who knocks on your door and says, "where's our money?" -- And you say, "I haven't got any money, I can't pay you". -- And he says, "what about your life insurance that pays out next year?" -- And you say, "But that was to pay for the kids' education". And he says, "give me the address of the firm, I'll get it cashed in early and take the money for my clients". And you say "but what about the kids?" And he says "...." And by the way, they seem very quick to forget that they already had a big advance on the parachute money whilst they were still in the premier league. (you know Corp ..when you apparenly could afford those wages?) The football establishment has already bent its rules for them. Why should it do so yet again?

No of course not, but you should not give in a percentage of profits either! That's just as absurd unless you look at theannual net profit /loss of the business as whole.

Quite ,but that is just another illustration of why/how Redknapp's contraxct was perverse. It encouraged him to work against the interests of the club. It's nt less silly to ignore the same issues when looking at profit. And you can't ignore wages in this. Heis an admittedly exaggerrated example for you, to make the point in simple terms Redknapp signs 10 players for £1 million each, persuading Storrie (who is on same daft incentive deal so is very easily persuaded) to give them all generous 5 year contracts at wages of £2 million per year --which is why so many players are prepared to sign for a small club (eg Tel Ben Haim .. £40 k a week? Sol Campbell .. £100k a week?) One year later one of the 10 has had a fairly successful season and is sold for £2 million. Redknapp and Storrie each get £200,000 (to be fair I'm not sure what percentage Storrie got). The other 9 stay on the books costing the club £18 million a year, not even playing for the first team in some cases, but the club does get the tiny compensation of about £500,000 or less left from the profit on the one successful sale by the time the agents etc had also had their cut. Redknapp then signs some more players, with a similar pattern year after year. Result he gets rich ..club goes broke. Oh and 'Appy 'Arry gets reputation for beig shrewd wheeler dealer. Look at that bloke he signed for only £1million and sold for 2 only a year later. This may seem a familar story to Bournemouth , West Ham , Portsmouth , and presumably one day, Spurs.

Surely the really signifcant point here is that he was (is?) on a percentage of all profitable transfers, but does not lose on any deficit transfers? It is an absurd perverse incentive for a club to put in a manager's contract. All he needs to do is sign up loads of players , not caring what silly wages they are on btw, then sell as many as he can. Some are bound to make a profit. He doesn't care if others are left on big wages, millstones around the club's neck, or sold at a huge loss ...not his problem. This is totally different from the sort of incentive scheme that exists in some industries, that might pay a percentage of net, total profit. And the further gobsmacking fact that came out recently is that Storrie was also on a similar deal. You have to wonder how someone like Mandaric ever gotto be rich in the first place when he is that daft!

Is a slightly backhanded compliment some sort of gay street slang?

Sorry mate .. normally happy to help genuine research, but I'm not giving my name at the bottom of page 1 and giving consent unless I can see what questions are coming up on page 2 first. You need to enable wary gits like me to see the later questions before I'll start.

Quite. If the PL are prepared to forward another early payment of the parachute money, then I'm sure that could/would be used to pay wages (surely all wages?) and the current tax bill, and so avoid the winding up. However it will just prolong the agony , because that money was indeed earmarked to pay the cva. Nonetheless it is a sensible thing for Lampitt to try, given how desperate they are with the only alternative being liquidation. His strategy would in effect be no more sophisticated than "something will turn up" before the cva money is needed BUT , the PL may not be so willing to advance payments this time. They did it before, because they did not want a club to go to the wall during the PL season. Now that Portsmouth are in the FL, will the PL care? -- especially since if they go bust, my reading of the rules is that the parachute money stays with the PL clubs instead.

That has always been my theory. Lowe may have been a stuck-up git but he would have had a pretty close control over finance and transfers.