Ken Tone

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.

It's really only a part-time semi- retirement job though really isnt it? He couild earn more fees on top by 'advising' clubs on transfers etc from the position of England manager. In fact when you bear in mind that aplayer will command a greater fee if they are picked for an England squad, and it is the England manager who therefore controls that possible increase in transfer fee ........

Yep. Had my fingers crossed as well though!

Mr Redknapp is clearly innocent of all crimes and charges, and I would not want to suggest otherwise, or that might be construed as libellous. However I have a faint suspicion that HMRC may have felt that this charge was the tip of an iceberg, and that other moneys might have been involved, using these 2 particular instances as specimen charges. Clearly they were wrong. I'm using the 'Private Eye pocket guide to libel' here !

No -- the income tax for saghig rate payer on £180 k is around £90k not £20k.

Back to Portsmouth's future then... Someone mentioned Scarborough FC's recent demise as a comparison. They too had planning constraints on their ground, but that did not save them or the ground. (According to the impeccable source that is wikipedia) .... "The gates of the McCain Stadium were padlocked, and the football ground site was bought by the local Council and earmarked for housing." So the council there waited till the club was dead, then bought the gound and presumably made a profit when houses were built ... a much better use of council tax-payers money than bailing out a moribund club like PFC. Btw 2 successor clubs were formed, Scarborough Town and Scarborough Athletic. Neither seems to be very successful in lowly non-league, and of course neither has a ground of its own. Since they're claiming credit for Dickens in Portsmouth, even though he only lived there till he was about 18 months old, perhaps they'd like to meet the ghost of Christmas Future. All they need do is look at Scarborough

Yes I think it has been linked before in fact, though its always hard to keep up woth thois thread! The possible point it overlooks is that the fratton Park site, especially if added to his enemy Gaydamak's land, is worth quite a bit for non football purposes. The planning guidelines would be relatively easy to overcome ..there are many instances of this .... So maybe Chainrai is actually looking for liquidation now as the best way to recoup most of his money.

Ah, so right-wingers are thick, but that's ok, because left-wingers are ugly. That explains the obsession with looks in the Sun and the Mail, I suppose. (If only I'd been good-looking enough to be more right wing ...just think how much better the world would be!)

Good grief! Really! (is there an emoticon for sarcastic gasp shock/horror?)

I expect it will take about 48 more hours. (Cue nostalgia about saints' takeover Fridays on here)

Do we know that they are actually trying?

I notice that some of their players gave 2 weeks notice follwong breach of contract by the club in not paying their wages, and have now left as free agents. Maybe that's what Ward and Pearce are waiting for ...to get a bigger contract on a free than Ipswich would have given them on deadline day. Of course Portsmouth tried to force this on Ben Haim last year, but he hung on grimly and got paid in the end. No one else would pay him £40 k a week even on a free, so there's no way he'd give notice!

I see that Portsmouth is making a big fuss abou tbeing the birthplace of Charles Dickens, even though he had the good sense to move away almost immediately after he was born. So on this anniversary of his birth , may I be the first to remind them of the wise words of Mr Micawber? Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result Portsmouth in liquidation. (well 'misery' really but much the same thing for them)