saint si

To be fair, part of his game (admittedly based on watching him for 60 minutes) appears to be based around being strong and holding the ball up well, and physique will help that. There were a couple of through balls he took on his chest whilst holding off defenders, that he had no right to get. Very very positive debut I thought (Birmingham doesn't count, given the conditions).

‘Given the tools, the right squad and a level playing field, I would back myself to get us out of this division – or at the absolute minimum, get in the play-offs Yeah, I think I'd back the skates to be out of the championship if the playing field were levelled too...

Guessing it's confused by the fact they didn't enter admin on Friday as was widely expected, and now have until next Friday to sort themselves out prior to the WUP hearing on the 20th...

Interesting point. Were the 100% payments to football creditors part of the CVA (i think yes)? If so, have they been paid already (and if so, with what) or are they dependent on the parachute payments too?

This is all a bit academic. Presumably it depends on the terms of the specific contract that the club+player have signed. It is likely however that, in some (maybe many) cases, a player is entitled to a payment of part of his outstanding contract in the event the club chooses to sell him (thus terminating his contract).

No i think the point is that that is what your maths implies. To get a real view of the amount Redknapp obtained in bonuses you need to filter down to only the net profitable players.

Wow. Just wow. That quote is from a councillor. The day that the PM can dictate to the civil service how to operate is the day we have a de facto dictator.

If PFC2010 is liquidated, the market value of the land increases significantly. Any protection or designated use the land has is much more likely to apply while the club exists than while it doesn't. Why not let the club die, sell whatever assets he can and pocket the cash, petition to get the right to build on the land, and then sell it as such?

Was making sense until about 1/3 the way down when it suggested UHY were acting in a way that was contrary to Chainrai's best interests. Seems to me that if UHY are doing their best to make the club go pop (and i'm not convinced they are), then perhaps that is also what Chainrai is aiming for. As the preferred creditor, he's first in line to get anything out of the assets, which presumably includes the 400k raised in the transfer window. Everyone assumes he needs to get £17m out of the club and so has to stick around. But there are two reasons this is unlikely: 1 - as a shrewd businessman (clearly very wealthy, and not by accident), he'll always be looking to maximise his return, irrespective of sunk costs. With old CVA looming and new debts mounting up, he may at this point be prepared to cut his losses. 2 - if he's been charging interest for the last 2 years (what loan shark wouldn't have?) then perhaps he's not actually 17m in a hole anyway. If the club is liquidated, then he has a more than reasonable chance of selling FP for development. Is it worth £20m? Not a chance. But £3-5m might be enough incentive for him to go down that route. Especially as it is arguably the lowest risk option of all at this point...

https://twitter.com/#!/pompeytrust/status/165518476012830720 Sadly we've had only 1 offer of help for the Trust and @Pompeys12thMan to hand out flyers/sign people up. That was from an AFC Wimbledon fan Bestest.

Not sure if they've been posted, but the creditors report on CSI has been posted by a tweeter... http://lockerz.com/s/180246269 http://lockerz.com/s/180245239

Isn't the 17.2 a secured creditor (to Portpin/Chainrai) and so does not get factored in to the CVA vote? In my view the Baker Tilly (old co, existing CVA) debt will have the greatest impact on any CVA. If they ever get that far...

Yes, and amusingly it relegated them. They could have turned up with a bunch of schoolkids, lost 25-0 and been better off!

Yes. There are numerous other reasons too. Including both the underlying cause of administration, as well as the actions taken prior and following. Absolute polar opposites. Makes you wonder what some of the other administration incidents are like beneath the surface. It's only as SFC fans that we've been able to witness and understand the detail of both SFC and PFC administrations that we've got that detailed knowledge and interest... I started writing a (long) post on the topic several hundred pages ago. Might dig it out...

Completely missing the point. And it's so frustrating. Of course there is a better way of HMRC getting their taxes! Pay them on time in the first place! Almost every other company in the country manages it, and nobody should get special treatment. Oh... and if you don't pay, that's when you go to court. HMRC should not be spending its time discussing and negotiating tax payments with private businesses, or trying to figure out resolutions to ownership issues. Open the door for one... even just a little... and then you open the door for them all. Furthermore, such a policy would require HMRC to itself carry an additional burden of staff, lawyers, accountants etc... itself to be funded by tax revenue. So it's very simple. Pay your taxes when they're due, or we'll try and get you shut down. What's more, it is unbelievable that an MP refuses to accept this. She should be hounded out of parliament. (and in case anyone brings up Vodafone, that's a totally different situation - that case revolves around a dispute about what tax is or isn't due, not an outright failure to pay undisputed tax as in this case)

I would presume that if they are liquidated, then liquidators will be appointed. They will then "own" PFC2010 in the same way that UHY (AA) owns them now. Their objective will be to realise best value from the asset. So much the same as it is now. But it'll get really interesting if the liquidators are not UHY... Article here too... http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/anyanswers/parent-company-liquidation-query

As does the FA... http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/feb/03/fa-warns-against-government-intervention

12:15 I have some Pompey latest for you. And it's a bit more positive... 12:15 We have been informed that Jason Pearce IS at Eastleigh but is having treatment, along with Rocha and Ben Haim, while Jamie Ashdown is in the gym How funny. Surely "positive" should be something like "we've managed to sell some players, and bring in the money we desperately need"... as opposed to "phew, we're not selling"... The News is just as complicit as the fans, the owners and everyone else involved...

So in that case has AA passed the FAPPT...?

Such a shame then that AA is not in charge of PFC, in his role as administrator of the parent company, with the affairs of PFC being solely the responsibility of its board of directors...

My link (Feb 2010!)

There is precedent for how the football authorities react to this sort of request... not too far away, funnily enough... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8522283.stm To paraphrase: "you had your chance in January you DFSCBs"

O/S has him as 42 now too.

That'd be fun - saddle the fans with the debt instead! What is it they owe? About £30m all in? About a grand a fan then for a 50% stake. I'm sure they'll all go for that?

What about setting up a P-T-S wiki? http://www.wikispaces.com/ Are we taking this too far?