Fowllyd

My guess would be not, as it would be in the papers (or at least the News) if they had. Presumably if they get all the cash for Kaboul and now Begovic up front they'll be able to pay, but if not...

Many congratulations, Alps!

I think a modicum of realism is required here. First, it's simply not possible to be certain that any manager will be the right person for the job. As with any appointment, you trust your judgement and make the best one you can; after that the person's performance is down to any number of things, but your initial judgement may prove less good than you hoped it would be. That's just one of those things - it happens all the time, in all walks of life. Second, a mega-long contract is in nobody's best interest, as I think the case of Benítez at Liverpool indicates. It's a useful carrot for anyone to have their employment status subject to results; making them difficult (or nigh-impossible) to sack would make no sense at all. If we'd taken any manager on a five-year contract I'd have considered it somewhat foolhardy. To me, three years to start with looks about right.

I thought he was easily their best player in the match at SMS earlier in the season - he looked very good in that game. He's our player now - got to be pleased with that.

I believe the phrase 'your honour' is heard very frequently in Portsmouth, though...

Sorry, but I don't follow you at all. Could you be a little clearer perhaps?

Aficionados of the blues (music, that is!) will know the excellent song by Sleepy John Estes - "Broken Hearted, Ragged and Dirty Too". Very fitting indeed for TCWTB I'd say.

Rhyming slang he may well be, but I think he's right on both counts. It clearly won't happen, but if it did the impact would be immense. Four thousand or so empty seats, at that game of all games, would be one hell of a picture. Admittedly, TCWTB (thanks to ESB for that acrostic) would turn up anyway, but then you could always argue that the symbolism would actually be enhanced by his presence.

They could do worse...

Er, no he didn't. Solent mentioned it, quite independently of Cortese. Beyond that, the Echo piece which prompted another thread on here (the one titled "Nicola who?") was not simply reporting an interesting story. It was a clear, deliberate effore to belittle Cortese.

Is it? Seems to me a takeover is only likely in the minds of Storrie and other delusional types. A cursory look at the numbers should be enough to put anyone off.

That article doesn't say anything of any value, though. It claims that there's growing optimism at PFC, but as far as I can see everything in it is based on a single source - a "Fratton Park insider" who reveals the startling news that: Er, no sh1t, Sherlock - I'd never have guessed at those two options. I can guess at a couple of totally different ones though...

Very feeble stuff from the Echo. If they're genuinely trying to achieve some kind of rapprochement with Cortese then they've got a very strange way of doing it!

Judging by other comments, I think you're right!

How many Saints in that I wonder.

Well, he is on a bit of a roll tonight!

No, he's just winding you up. It's his stock in trade, after all.

They'll now be linked with pretty much any possible loanee or free transfer, so I wouldn't read too much into that. The bad news is that they'll almost certainly get O'Hara back. Plus they'll have some others in mind, though whether they get them or not is a different matter. The better news is that they'll even more certainly lose some of their better players.

Yes, it was On Digital, which became ITV Digital, then went belly up. Caused financial havoc for a fair number of League clubs.

That's an excellent analogy!

I'd say Storrie's version is just what you'd expect - an attempt to put a nice gloss on things. The PL have said frees and loans only (and this is specifically mentioned in various reports); Storrie tries to make it sound like it's Pompey's decision to do this. Reminiscent of the "We asked the PL to give lots of the Sky money to clubs we owed fees to" nonsense, and about as credible.

I know what you mean - they do seem to have led a charmed life over the past few seasons. But they're still very deep in the poo, and the only way out that I can see would be a buyer with masses of money to fritter away. I'm sure that the PL know that full well and, if they were able, would keep the embargo in place. Or, as Pancake suggests above, the PL may simply be giving them time to get relegated before going into administration. And there's still that pesky winding-up petition for them to defend as well. On which subject, I haven't heard anything about an appeal from PFC on last week's high court ruling...

I wouldn't be so sure about that, Nick. The transfer embargo represents no more than the tip of the cliché. They still have huge debts, a sh!thole of a ground (with a loan secured against it) and no training facilities of their own. They must surely be operating at a substantial loss and they don't own any of the land around their ground. They'll get theirs.

Does this mean that Balram Chainrai or Sacha Gaydamak could put them into administration then? I know there's an unresolved dispute as to whether the latter is owed money by PFC or Al Fahim, but the former is most certainly owed by PFC.

Probably not all that skint? They've paid the wages late three times already this season; when they have finally been paid the money's come in from short-term loans. If you have to borrow simply to meet day-to-day expenses, then I'd say 'skint' is as good a term as any. Another one is 'insolvent', but then they can't possibly be insolvent because they're still trading...