Fowllyd

Hard to believe this hadn't been posted before, but apparently not. Saw his obit in the paper yesterday. Died of cancer at the age of 71. A very fine singer, whose hits included The "In" Crowd (covered by many including Bryan Ferry), Out On The Floor and Drift Away. RIP Dobie.

Are you familiar with the concept of irony?

What you conveniently choose to overlook is that the history is all that you've got. Other than that, all you have is shed-loads of debt, a recent history of dodgy owners, pending court cases, and a club that would cost a very large fortune to buy and turn around. I don't see anyone rushing to try to buy Preston or Huddersfield, either of which clubs has more major honours and less debt that Pompey. Your only chance is a massively rich Pompey fanatic - are there any out there? I'd accept that Pompey's support was passionate and even downright impressive about 25-30 years ago. I remember when they were relegated to the old Fourth Division (the first former League champions to go that low - another unenviable first for you there); the levels of support they got both home and away were astonishingly good back then, given the circumstances. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the whole "fantastic fans who turn up through thick and thin" schtick dates back to that time - let's face it, it's scarcely the case now, is it?

Is this a tacit admission that you were trading insolvently from October 2008 onwards then? While it's true that Pompey's name is highly unlikely to be removed from the 2008 FA Cup, there remains that fact that your Cup-winning captain never received the bonuses due to him following that great victory - surely a solvent concern, who'd won the trophy fair and square, would have been easily able to afford it? And how come Pompey had so much outstanding debt with HMRC, come to that? An honestly-run, solvent business would never have let that happen.

All of which goes to show that your contention that Antonov couldn't possibly be using PFC to launder money, given the intense scrutiny of the Football League, was plain wrong. If what you've posted here is correct, then Antonov put in £10.8M with the full approval of the League - but did they show any interest in where that money came from? Apparently not; once they'd decided that Volodya was fit and proper that was pretty much that. Now, I'm sure it would be wrong to pre-judge Antonov's trial, but do you really think the money that went into Pompey from his pocket was come by honestly? If not, then it's a clear example of dirty money going in and nice clean money coming out - less of it, of course, but that's how these things work. And, while we're on the subject of contentions you've made, how about the one regarding ownership of PFC and Fratton Park? What of the legal eagles' considered opinion that Portpin and Chainrai were now surgically removed from all things Pompey? I'd be most grateful if you could let me know which law firms these particular solicitors work for - I'll need to engage a solicitor if I move house, and it's always useful to know which firms to avoid.

Nice theory, though it falls down a little when you take into account the fact that there is no such thing as a secret drug ban. Something else that the club and player don't want to publicise, maybe, but a drug ban? That would be public knowledge and not something that could be hushed up. Is this a 'spot Kenny Dalglish amongst a collection of blurred and unrecognisable people' competition? Which one is he? I assume one of the blurred figures who gets ringed in a couple of those clips is Gerrard, but if that film, in that state, was all they had against him in court then I'm not surprised he got off. Wealthy footballer, top-notch lawyers, sympathetic jury (OK, that bit's an assumption) - do you really need conspiracy theories about why he was acquitted? A few posts up we're mocking Scousers for believing stories about a supposed dead baby; now we're coming up with secret drug bans and more.

I hate to ruin your idée fixe, but Hammond hasn't started every league game this season. He's started at least three on the bench and in one of those didn't even get on the pitch. Naturally enough, we were absolutely brilliant in that game at Cardiff, as you'd expect without the dead weight of Hammond in midfield.

Well, you can take the boy out of Liverpool...

No problem - I've found him already.

You have fallen from grace I'm afraid. Not as serious as it may sound though, and nothing that a fiver slipped in the right direction won't resolve. Put another way, it's because you're a registered user now and not a full member.

Taken from the Wikipedia page: "An unfair preference (or "voidable preference") is a legal term arising in bankruptcy law where a person or company transfers assets or pays a debt to a creditor shortly before going into bankruptcy, that payment or transfer can be set aside on the application of the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy as an unfair preference or simply a preference.[1] The law on unfair preferences varies from country to country, but characteristically, to set a transaction or payment aside as an unfair preference, the liquidator will need to show that: the person or company was insolvent at the time the payment was made (either on the cash-flow test, or on the balance sheet test - it varies from country to country) the person or company then went into bankruptcy within a specified time thereafter, usually referred to as the vulnerability period[2] the payment had the effect of putting the creditor in a better position than other unsecured creditors in some jurisdictions, it is also necessary to show that the bankrupt intended to grant a preference.[3] In most countries an application to have a transaction set aside as a preference can only be made by the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy (as the person making the payment must be in bankruptcy, and thus they are not normally liable to suits from other creditors). The effect of a successful application to have a transaction declared as an unfair preference varies. Inevitably the creditor which received the payment or assets has to return it to the liquidator. In some countries the assets are treated in the normal way, and may be taken by any secured creditors who have a security interest which catches the assets (characteristically, a floating charge).[4] However, some countries have "ring-fenced" recoveries of unfair preferences so that they are made available to the pool of assets for unsecured creditors. An unfair preference has some of the same characteristics as a fraudulent conveyance,[5] but legally they are separate concepts.[6] There is not normally any requirement to prove an intention to defraud to recover assets under an unfair preference application. However, similar to fraudulent conveyance applications, unfair preferences are often seen in connection with asset protection schemes that are entered into too late by the putative bankrupt. Many jurisdictions provide for an exception in the case of transactions entered into in the ordinary course of business with a view to keeping the company trading, and such transactions are usually either validated or presumed to be validated." At the very least, Portpin's charge against CSI looks like collusion between the two, especially in light of its timing. It's a charge rather than a transaction, but I would imagine the effect to be pretty much the same. The question is - who, if anyone, will apply to have the charge set aside as a preference? According to the Wiki entry I've quoted, this can only be made by the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy (for which I'd read the administrator). Does anybody think that Andronikou is going to challenge Portpin's charge as an unfair preference? No, thought not. If, however, other creditors are able to challenge it, things will look a bit different.

Phew. Tense at the end there, but it always is when a desperate side is going all-out. Excellent result.

A document which had been subjected to the rigours of the finest legal minds on Pompey Online, too - and it was their conclusion which Ho trumpeted so loudly on here. But then, given that the main legal specialisation down on Portsea Island must surely be criminal law, it does seem a little harsh to expect them to be able to read and interpret Land Registry documents. On another note altogether, we seem to have lost track of our casting for Pompey Takeover - The Movie. In my view, it's hard to look past the great Lon Chaney Snr for the role of Uncle Avram: And, to continue the silent movie theme, here's the man to play Peter Storrie:

Indeed. I particularly liked this little morsel: "The Football League is monitoring the situation. Which is nice to know seeing as the FL passed Antonov through the Fit and Proper Owners and Directors test. No doubt they will do something next January. It took the Premier League from November 09 to January 10 to realise they had to do something for us under the serially absent Ali Al Faraj and his dysfunctional consortium." As I posted a little way back, young Volodya passed the test because he had, at the time, no criminal convictions or charges against him. He may have had a dodgy reputation, but the F&P test isn't about reputation. As to the comments on the Premier League and Al Faraj, that's just priceless. Why did the Premier League have to 'do something' for Pompey exactly? It was Pompey who welcomed in the mythical Al Faraj with open arms - the Premier League's F&P test was hardly going to uncover wrongdoing by a non-existent owner. And, had either of these owners actually had money and ploughed plenty into the club, would this writer be bellyaching about whether said owner was fit and proper, or where their money came from? That quote in particular gives the overwhelming impression that the writer's belief is that Pompey, having dug themselves into a hole, should be rescued and tended to - and not just the once but every time they do it. Isn't there some old saying about making one's bed and having to sleep in it?

While I can appreciate your thinking, you're both wrong on a few points. First, the FA has nothing to do with governance of clubs - that responsibility lies with the Premier League and the Football League. It's a relatively minor point, though it does mean that hints of collusion because of Lampitt's presence are well wide of the mark. The main thing is what is needed to pass the F&PPT; and the answer is really very little, be it the Prem's version or the FL's. If a prospective owner has no criminal convictions or arrest warrants against him, then he's pretty much in the clear. Doubts about that person are irrelevant; only facts are counted. So the FSA thought that Antonov's bank was badly run? Hardly a criminal conviction, and anyway the FSA were judging a bank, not an individual. So while it's easy to say that the FL should have acted differently in this instance, the fact is that they had no basis within their own rules on which to do so. As for Micky Fialka, he'd have passed the FL's test at the time, no bother (unless of course he has a criminal record that we don't know about!). Yes, he'd have been a disaster, but that wasn't the FL's concern. The current test has more to it, in particular that prospective owners should be able to give proof of sufficient funds; hard to see Fialka getting past that one! All of which goes to show that the all-new F&PPT is hardly any improvement on its predecessor. If the authorities really want to get things cleaner, they need to be a hell of a lot tougher - not easy when you've spent so long being so lax. But, given that they hold the ultimate say in whether or not a club is allowed to compete in their competition, it's scarcely something that couldn't be done if they really wanted to.

Got to hand it to these Russians - they sure know how to do that 'unperson' thing!

http://www.wfblondon.co.uk/contacts/ Nice postal address they have too - Chase Side in Enfield. Which has a familiar ring about it somehow.

You're such a wag. Why not have a go yourself and let us all know how you get on.

36,500. There were a good few words there that I feel I should know, but couldn't actually put a definition to. Familiar but not familiar enough. It's an interesting test and site, particularly the page explaining how it's worked out, and also contains this great quote from Mark Twain: “Ours is a mongrel language which started with a child's vocabulary of three hundred words, and now consists of two hundred and twenty-five thousand; the whole lot, with the exception of the original and legitimate three hundred, borrowed, stolen, smouched from every unwatched language under the sun, the spelling of each individual word of the lot locating the source of the theft and preserving the memory of the revered crime.”

Heaven forbid that we should find amusement in such misfortune. Hard to feel sympathy for an unscrupulous loan shark, but there it is; just when he thought he'd got the pile of ordure off his hands, back it comes like a boomerang of shíte. As Oscar Wilde observed on the death of Little Nell in The Old Curiosity Shop (there's even a Pompey link there), you'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.

Dead right Alps - and right now our thang is a mighty fine thang indeed...

Jason Donovan was cool? To mullet-sporting Aussies maybe.

Yes, you should. You should laugh. You should laugh loudly. You should laugh a lot. In quieter moments you should chortle gently to yourself. Why take the harder path?

Generally, money laundering involves getting a relatively small proportion of the dirty money back, not most of it - for the simple reason that clean money is so much better to have. So, if you put dirty money in towards wages and other running costs, and take out maybe 20% of that from income (parachute payments etc) you have clean money in exchange for dirty money. Straightforward enough; the club runs at a loss, but you don't care because your dirty money comes out clean. I have no idea whether this is the intention of your owners, but it's far from the idiotic idea you make it out to be. The rest of your post reads like a desperate attempt to convince yourself that all is well down at Fratton. For example, do you really believe that the parachute payments will cover most of the CVA? Have they been ringfenced so they can't be used for other purposes then? If the club is running at a loss, won't they just get swallowed up by that? And, as others have pointed out, getting high earners off the wage bill is nowhere near as easy as you make out - Tal Ben Haim for one would be long gone if that were the case. Now then. Given that you are so unforgiving of those who fail to answer to your satisfaction questions which you have asked, how about you give some thought (and maybe even a part of one of your three daily posts) to answering mine about the ownership of Fratton Park? To remind you and save you the bother of schlepping back through the thread: I stated that the Land Registry entry which you posted shows a charge in favour of Portpin to be still in force, rather negating your claim that Chainrai has no further hold over the ground. Added to that, Katalinic found evidence of a debenture over the ground held by - yes, you guessed it! - Portpin. Care to comment?

If a business wants to employ a black female, then another black female, then another and then another, should that also be for them to decide?