Fowllyd

That's certainly possible - and in Andronikou he certainly has an administrator with some previous in this area, as we all know. It does beg the question, though, of why Chainrai would want to retain control of a foul-smelling money pit. The other possibility, I would say, is that AA is simply trying to find a way to exit administration, knowing that there is no buyer on the horizon. To do this he'll need to get the unsecured creditors to agree to a level of payment which can be covered by the remains of the parachute payments once football and secured creditors have been paid off. If he can do this, he'll be hoping that a real buyer will then come along, able to pick up the club cheaply (or even free) as all payments will have been pre-agreed. The resultant club will have no money beyond its very limited revenue to spend on anything, but that's hardly AA's problem. The difficulty with this is what will happen if (as I think is likely) no buyer emerges. I'm sure Chainrai doesn't want to own the wreckage of a football club, and will want to simply take his money and get the hell out. So here's a thought - given the way in which Chainrai assumed control of his 90% stake in PFC, could he simply hand it back to Al-Faraj once his debt has been paid off? It will take somebody with far greater knowledge of such matters than I have to answer that question...

Looks to me like you've got a standard-issue response that they send out to Skates who write in moaning about the unfairness of it all! In other words, nobody's actually bothered to read what you sent in - they've just seen that it's about Pompey's situation and sent that reply. Pretty laughable really.

The comment about the game passing him by chimes with what I saw on the one occasion I watched Pulis in a reserve match last season. It wasn't so much that he did anything wrong, more that he might as well not have been there at all. He never seemed to be in a position to receive the ball, tackle an opponent, or any other thing he might have been expected to do. A make-weight in the Andrew Davies deal, presumably paid peanuts (or I'd certainly hope so) and out of contract this summer (I can't see the optional third year happening somehow!).

Can we claim copyright on that?

It doesn't actually have anything to do with being a secured creditor - HMRC are not and have never been a secured creditor, and the same applies to football creditors. A secured creditor is a creditor whose loan is secured against assets, that's all. So, if you have a mortgage and an overdraft, the mortgagor is a secured creditor as their loan to you is secured against your house. The bank isn't, as the overdraft is not secured against anything which you own. The PL and FL both insist on football debts being paid off 100%, and don't give a stuff about any other creditors - that's the bit that písses off HMRC. However, the FL also insist that a club exit administration with a CVA agreed; this won't happen if HMRC hold a sufficient proportion of unsecured debt, meaning an additional points penalty next season.

Croutons. Floating in píss soup.

The bit I've highlighted is wrong. If we'd gone into administration before the deadline last March, the penalty would have been applied last season, regardless of our final league position. The penalty only gets carried over if a club goes into administration after the deadline, and would have been relegated without the penalty. If this weren't the case, what exactly would the deadline be for?

Yes, you'll need some nets to keep the birds off. My dad used to grow loads of soft fruit, and nets were obligatory for raspberries and strawberries.

Where did you study Russian? I did 'O' and 'A' level at Barton Peveril.

Ah, the Cadena... We always used to go in there when we went into Southampton during the summer holidays. Going into Southampton always seemed like a big thing for a Bishopstoke boy, and going to the Cadena was very much a part of it, along with Tyrell and Green, Marks and Spencer (we used to get one of their large chicken and mushroom pies to take home for our tea), Gilberts the book shop, various record shops and the like. They used to sell records in Boots in those days as I recall, which seems rather odd looking back at it. The Cadena got renamed the Jolyon (or something like that) at some point. There was another little café by the Bargate, which had one of those TV tennis games which we used to play. Very cool they were, back in the 70s!

Here's a serious question for you, Corp. As you'll recall, once the winding-up petition was served by HMRC the business could only be put into administration by a secured creditor - and Chainrai duly obliged. If, as you suggest, Chainrai is owed nothing (or very little) by PFC, then I can't see how he can be a secured creditor. So, following this logic, he shouldn't have been able to put the business into administration, and PCFC would have been liquidated. Is that your reading of it? Another thing. Your claims of the majority of Pompey fans being wise to what's going on don't hold much water if you look at the meek acceptance of Andronikou's guff at a meeting with fans shortly before the cup semi-final, which I'm sure you'll have seen. They just lapped it all up, sans question or comment. And these were supposedly well-informed, intelligent supporters. For what it's worth, I reckon you're spot on about Andronikou and the reason he's there (as opposed to any other potential administrator). And I'm deeply sorry that I took the liberty of editing your post while quoting it - shockingly bad form.

You're thinking of the wrong goal. Lallana's goal came from Lambert's flick-on of Antonio's long throw; the handball for the penalty was from an Antonio cross.

Those minutes really are a pile of old guff, aren't they? It's hard to believe the skate fans just sat there and took it all in - scarcely a single tricky question asked, and all Andronikou's replies meekly accepted without demur. Forensic investigation is a difficult and lengthy process, don't you know...

I remember that one - you copied it onto here for our entertainment I think. And there was another one from a skate about Markus having simply taken on all the debt, not actually owning the club or St Mary's - it really was priceless stuff.

Having watched the highlights this morning, I spotted that too. My initial thought was that it was a good advantage played by the ref, as Puncheon took the ball on pretty quickly after Antonio was fouled (and with the linesman flagging like crazy). The ref could have stopped it if Puncheon had then lost the ball. As you can't see the ref in the picture it's impossible to tell whether he missed the fouls or allowed Saints the advantage. Given the nature of the fouls on Antonio I'm inclined to go for the latter. Either way, I can't see a sending-off in there, though I'd have thought the Rovers player should have been booked - and that could have been done anyway, advantage played or not.

Or you can get the BBC bit of just us here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_div_2/8620991.stm Much the same as the Sky one, but the commentator doesn't have a lisp and there's no annoying adverts!

Very true, but there's just so many generations' worth of inbreeding to take into account down there!

Very well put. I don't think I've ever felt as dispirited after a game as I did following that one against Charlton. We'd gone into admin, but there was an excellent crowd there; our team then proceeded to feebly roll over against the only team lower in the league than us. No fight, no spirit, nothing. The defeat to Burnley confirmed that we'd be down and get the 10-point penalty this season, but after Charlton I really couldn't see any other outcome. What a difference a year makes, eh.

Well, that's the Echo all over - if it's not a massive gaff it's a mass of guff...

Assuming (as seems likely) that we're still in League One next season, then I'd say Pardew should be expected to get us promoted - and not via the play-offs. If he were to fall short of this then I certainly hope that he himself would regard it as a failure, quite regardless of what anybody else might think.

You keep on trotting this out, presumably based on Burley's points-per-game score of about 1.5. Fair enough up to a point, but would you cavill at somebody claiming that under Burley we lost every other game? After all, 1.5 points per game would mean exactly that if we had indeed won every second game. So - would you be happy with a manager who lost every other game?

Well, I'd guess that the chap in question either (a) thought that Cortese was Carlisle's chairman, as the focus on him followed immediately from a close-up of Marcus; or (b) has something against Cortese for some reason. To be honest, it sounds more like the former to me - cheer your own owner, abuse the other team's...

Good piece in the Guardian too: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/28/carlisle-southampton-johnstones-paint-trophy - it's so pleasing to see us getting positive mentions in the sports pages of the nationals!

No, but Ken Bates was for a considerable time!

Likewise from block 131 - heard no booing at all. I did see the odd attempt at a Mexican wave, but it just seemed to peter out.