Ken Tone

Could have used a spell-checker though! Doesn't help credibility to have that many errors. And why no mention of the fact that we used to call them Scummers? I still don't know why that changed.

Is anybody on there actually a real pompey fan?

Only about 1 in 5 of mine are getting through. Am trying different user names. "Goebbels" wasn't a success, so now trying other variations of Corp Ho

It means he CAN play ,but if he did the FL would count him as a first team player , giving the lie to PFC's "smallest squad in the league " nonsense, and stopping any hope of them getting in more loan players

Yes, as said before, all a developer need do is make a token gesture of giving a scrap of land elsewhere in the city for 'leisure' and all will go quiet. Companies like Tesco's fight these sorts of planning restrictons every day--and they usually win.

Nice comparison on the News site comments....... 35 [h=3]cd74[/h]Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 12:01 PM Thought it would be interesting to compare Coventry's squad as they have been mentioned a bit. They have a squad of 28, seems good to me, but look in a bit more detail and that squad includes 4 keepers, 2 of which are former academy keepers age 23 and 19 who have 2 appearances on the bench between them. There's then Her man who played 2 games and is out for the season, Eastwood who has apparently been unfit all season and is only now on the bench as they have no other options and McDonald who has played 5 times and been injured for most of the season. They have recently signed 2 loanees who are both 20. A further 9 players are under 21 with 5 being academy players. They have an 18 year old who has played 19 games and another who has played 22. Of course that's before you consider all the players they've had to let go as they can't afford the wages and the fact that they have a scout as a manager! When you look at it that squad of 28 looks pretty similar to ours if Appy would put the kids in. I'm sure he wants to protect them but equally I'm sure the other teams do as well! We need to be careful, if we keep on like this I can imagine other clubs asking questions and it could do more harm than good esp when the league still have the option to take more points off. Report Unsuitable

Or even ,is it only that small part of February's pay since the administrators took over that will be paid, with the bulk of that also going into the debt bucket?

Well yes ,but there is a maximum to the statutory weekly wage used in that calculation. ie employers do not have to pay to more than £430 a week Many do pay actual weekly wage, but they do not have to do so legally. In theory you could have a player on £30k a week, whose been at the club for say a year, getting only £430 redundancy pay! However a) it would probably be considered to be reneging on a football debt by the FL, in not honouring the whole contract, and b) it would be very difficult to argue that any post of footballer at PFC was really redundant, when they are saying they do not have enough players. The 'poor bloody infantry' staff in the back office etc, though, I'm afraid should be feeling very nervous both about losing their jobs and about how much redundancy pay they'll get if they do go.

Errm ......not to mention that it does not say 'Gibson' on the neck head, even thugh thew shape is that of a Gibson Les Paul. Presumaby it was his Christmas present and by now he's realised that he can't actually play it like a video game.

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.