Fowllyd

Much the same thing being reported in Da Noos as elsewhere: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Pompey-hope-to-settle-tax.6053989.jp It seems to me that the £1.8M figure has come from some source or other (most likely Storrie) and then been repeated by various media. Personally, I can see no reason whatsoever why HMRC would accept a fraction of what they're owed from a business which has already failed abjectly to meet a staged payment schedule. Note too that there's been no further mention of any appeal against the VAT component of what the tax man is owed. Various news sources reported that the club had appealed against the high court ruling; but it's Tuesday now, the winding up hearing is tomorrow and there's been no sign of any actual appeal. So I think we can safely assume that there wasn't one in the first place. Smoke and mirrors...

Well, if Chainrai really does cough up a significant sum to HMRC (and I'd guess they'll be looking for pretty much all they're owed, or more likely the whole sum), then the winding up hearing will indeed be cancelled. But then there's been so much bullshít coming out of FP over the past few months that this could simply be more of the same. It'll be confirmed soon enough one way or the other though.

Why does this píss you off so much? The PL's statement only says that they would exercise discretion - in other words, they would not necessarily dock points automatically in the circumstances described. It doesn't say that they definitely wouldn't apply sanctions, just that the decision would not be automatic. That, as I remember it, was exactly how we were treated by the Football League (not the FA). Nobody liked getting a 10-point deduction, but do you honestly think we shouldn't have?

That's how I read the bit in the Guardian article, which is what was cited in the Pompey bulletin board. In other words, it's Chainrai's money and not Gaydamak senior's (the latter had been suggested elsewhere in this thread).

Actually, I thought PES meant Le Tissier!

Interesting to see how in this article, as in many others, administration is put forward as Pompey's likely fate if funds aren't forthcoming pdq. Seems to me that liquidation would be the far more likely outcome - that will most certainly be the case if the winding up petition succeeds in court. And there's a massive difference between administration and liquidation. In fact, as things stand, administration looks like pretty much the best Pompey could hope for!

Actually, it's possible to see why Chainrai might have considered Pompey as a decent punt for a short-term loan. He would have known (because you can be sure that Storrie or whoever would have told him) about the Sky TV money due to come into the club, and would therefore have expected reimbursement from that. He wouldn't have known that the PL would withhold the money from Sky because of Pompey's other debts; hence his clear disgruntlement when he didn't get his slice of the £7M.

Sure does - and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the statements in that article regarding Chainrai's involvement are much closer to the truth than all the bizarre conspiracy stuff. After all, if it's all been a scam cooked up by Gaydamak and Chainrai, why make it all so public - or, for that matter, do it all in such a seat-of-the-pants, headless-chicken manner? All of the flapping around at Fratton Park over the past few months reeks far more of incompetence and desperation than of any cleverly executed subterfuge. The last paragraph in the Guardian's article has it just about nailed down I reckon:

Then again, at least he's being open and honest about his interests - and, let's face it, Pompey fans have had very little of that over the past few months (or longer). Whether or not they'll appreciate this particular brand of honesty remains a moot point for now though.

Plenty will be now you've mentioned it. They'll all be quarrelling though, and miss the moment...

And it's on the front page of the sport section of the printed version too. I'd guess that Chainrai is only interested in getting his money back, preferably with some return on it. How he'll do that is, to put it mildly, uncertain. Still, it seems all those Pompey fans on here who said they'd have a new owner soon were right!

That's pretty amazing stuff - not least in that it was presumably up on their site for a while then removed. Does this mean that they were too quick in putting it up, and will seek legal advice before putting it back (if, that is, they do put it back)? Or have they had - ahem - polite requests to remove it? Given the revelations in David Conn's article on Pompey, the story itself is highly plausible. It does beg the question of just what Chainrai will do if he does force Al-Faraj out though. I assume he lent the money thinking he'd get a nice, easy, quick return - and was then píssed off as hell when the TV money was nabbed by the PL. I very much doubt, in spite of the last part of the article you've quoted, that he has any interest in owning or running a football club - though I could be wrong about that. Just for the record, I've removed the original article from Hypo's post because it made this one so long, not for any other reason.

Ah - just realised that the page I linked to was last updated early this morning, so it related to yesterday's failure to pay. Easy to get confused with so many failures to pay happening at once though...

Not according to this: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Pompey-staff-anger-as-club.6037231.jp Admittedly there's no time on it, just today's date, but I should think they'd wait until wages should have been paid before reporting that they hadn't been.

I can see where you're coming from, but I can't see how a functioning football club remains in place at the end of that process. Pompey can't simply carry on if they can't pay the wages - and without money coming in they can't do that. If they're liquidated and a new club is formed (owned by Gaydamak?) it will still be in the position of having outgoings which are much higher than its income. I think an asset-stripping exercise is also a highly plausible explanation. Like the avatar, btw!

It certainly does - a very good article indeed, from a journalist with an excellent reputation for digging into the murkier side of sport. Here's another from today's Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/feb/02/alexandre-gaydamak-portsmouth-administration Interesting, as Clapham Saint has said before, that Gaydamak hasn't pushed Pompey into administration. Then again, given the mortgages held by Chainrai over FP and the whole of Pompey's assets, maybe it would do him no good anyway. As Phil says, young Sacha can probably kiss goodbye to any money he's owed by Pompey - but, as he still owns all the land around FP, maybe he'll be happy with that.

OK, thanks - it does make sense then! Still seems odd, but there you go.

Is it just me, or does this bit: "Birmingham’s proposed €3 million, accepted by Dindane’s current club Portsmouth, was rejected by his parent club FC Lens, who demanded €4m." make no sense at all. After all, he's an FC Lens player, on loan to Pompey. What Birmingham pay for him has nothing to do with Pompey, as he's not their player.

And, from that same article, this final paragraph: Loans are one thing, as their wages are paid by the parent club (though they could still leave Pompey increasing their debts to other clubs). But actual signings? How can they be bringing in new players when they've failed to pay the ones they already have on four separate occasions now?

I read numerous Pompey message boards and spend much more time on them than this board (I know it's hard to believe), and i've NEVER come across that statement, and even if I did, would ignore it because as a statement it's got zero credibility. Many Saints fans (And again this IS where I perhaps miss the point!) keep dragging up this mentality as though it's the standard Pompey fans responce to the situation, when it simply is not. :confused: Well, maybe you should look at the thread linked to earlier about the protest meeting with the PL - there was certainly just such a comment made on that one. I've seen similar ones elsewhere as well. Come to that, what's a meeting with the PL all about in the first place if not an attempt to put the blame for everything onto them? After all, if Pompey's management have been the architects of their own downfall, why seek a meeting with the PL, or expect them to be 'doing something about it'? http://www.fansonline.net/portsmouth/mb/view.php?id=229492 Here you go, have a read through that thread and see what you think. Maybe you're right and it's not the standard Pompey fan's response to the current state of affairs, but it does seem more widespread than you reckon it is. I'm not having a go at you here, PES, as you're clearly both a decent bloke and intelligent enough to see how things are and how they got to that state.

I think maybe you're missing the point here. The thing that really gets me (and others on here, I think) when reading through some of the rants and moans on the Pompey forums is that so many of them are hurling their anger and abuse at entirely the wrong people. Every now and then somebody points the finger at Storrie, Gaydamak and/or 'Arry, but for the most part it's the current owners (and often then, it seems, as much because of their ethnicity as anything else) or the Premier League and the FA. Comments such as "How could the PL allow us to sign players on such huge wages?", the like of which I've read many times recently, indicate a stubborn refusal to accept that the only ones to blame for Pompey's current parlous state are those who've been running things there for the past few years. How would these same posters have reacted if the PL or FA had prevented Pompey from signing Campbell, Crouch, Defoe or other high-earning players? Those same posters complained loud and long about the transfer embargo (and even the current status of loans and frees only), apparently with not a thought to the fact that the club is unable to pay even the current wage bill. Regarding your points about Saints' spending a few seasons ago: yes, we did spend out in an attempt to get back to the Premier League, and came close to getting there. Our problems stemmed from a failure to deal with the consequences of that failure. And the sheer level of overspending here was as nothing compared to that at Fratton Park. Quantitative rather than qualitative, I grant you, but a big difference nonetheless.

Breaking news: Avram Grant has been arrested while attempting to break into a tobacconist's shop. By way of explanation, he told police that he was simply trying to get hold of some Players...

Well, the clue's in the final letter of your acrostic I guess. It's not a U, so the question isn't whether or not HCDAJFU as far as I can see. So who's the 'A' here? Avram perhaps? If so, then you could well be right; the reservation I'd have would be that he may not cost them enough in wages to be more than just a single extra nail in a coffin that's already bursting with them. But he's quite certainly not good enough for the Premier League, so he's a winner on that basis.

It sure as hell is. All the more so when you consider the options from the bench - Antonio, Barnard, Connolly (once he's fit again). And, if Hammond or Morgan gets injured, there's James and Gillett (assuming the latter is staying with us for the rest of the season). Looks pretty damn fine to me.

Yes, it's been reported in various outlets - press, TV etc. Here's a link... http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Kaboul-seals-Spurs-return.6029429.jp