saint si

Goes a long way to explain our recent success. Too many managers look only at the individuals they have, think the only way to improve the squad is to spend money, and have no ability to coach the best out of a TEAM. A team should always be greater than the sum of its parts. Otherwise, what's the point in a manager? May as well invest in scouting instead...

1. He wants them to limp on to the parachute payments in order to get his debt paid back 2. They are trying to determine whether any of pompey's debt has passed to CSI, and whether they are gaining an advantage as a result.

Found this last night too but had hit my posting limit... http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/11012012/58/wrc-crisis-unavoidable.html So apparently North One Television sold North One Sport to CSI. North One TV seems to have some credibility (produces a number of programmes we've all heard of such as The Gadget Show, Fifth Gear). The interesting fact right at the bottom of the article? North One Television is at the top of the list of creditors, with £3m owed. That's £3m that AA can't "pump in to Pompey" or whatever it was he said.

A few years old, part 2 here http://www.stockpatrol.com/article/key/cala2

Cala Corp's SEC filings are an absolute treasure trove! http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/794107/000127351511000055/cala2010q3v2.htm The Company has not established revenues sufficient to cover its operating costs. This uncertainty raises substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The ability of the Company to continue as a going concern is dependent on additional sources of capital and the success of the Company's plan Sounds like another failed business you might have heard of? If and when the Company locates a business opportunity, management of the Company will give consideration to the dollar amount of that entity's profitable operations and the adequacy of its working capital in determining the terms and conditions under which the Company would consummate such an acquisition We'll invest in anything we can get our hands on! Some other random googling... http://www.pinkinvesting.com/article/view/A-Subpenny-Stock-Cala-Corporation-Inc.-CCAA.PK-Stock-Capitalizing-On-News-Of-a-Far-fetched-Project-_868 This is not the first time Cala Corporation has been involved in large-scale, multi-million projects. Back in 2008, the company introduced its idea of creating undersea resort ships. Three years later, this project seems to have made no progress at all. And the FAQ from the website is pure comedy gold - probably not going to be convincing anyone that they're tooled up and ready to go on the half billion dollar floating death traps! http://www.undersearesort.com/showPage.php?page=usea500 Q. Who will build the UnderSea Resort Ships? A. Our company. Oh that's ok then... I was worried they didn't have any capability. That would be the company with no value, no assets or any kind of income. Q. What is a Letter of Credit? A. A Guarantee by the buyers bank in order to guarantee the construction. Will Bank of Snoras do, do you think? ;-) And from the home page you can click the pictures through to popup pages: http://www.undersearesort.com/showPage.php?page=usea002 Miami Undersea Resort is schedule to open in the fall of 2011 So... is that before or after the harbour-dome? Looks like an utter chancer to me! A large part of me really hopes this goes through to keep the thread alive...

Looks like they'd be a perfect fit for our fishy chums! http://www.undersearesort.com/showPage.php?page=usea000

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/great-matches/defiant_lampitt_encouraged_by_interest_in_club_1_3341350 "He confirmed the club will receive the Premier League’s parachute payments over the next two seasons."

According to the articles it was around March/April 2010 that they were advanced parachute money. So this should be shown in the CVA report of 28th May 2010. Can anyone find it? What is clear is that the amount being diverted to football creditors is £22.4m, leaving at most £25.6m for "other".

Suspect the lack of appeal is down to there being no conclusive footage of the event either way.

Brad Friedel springs to mind

And if I didn't get paid my salary, I wouldn't be able to pay my debts as they fall due either. Even you can work this one out. The company that owns you has actually gone in to administration and is no longer providing funding. I.e. an actual "insolvency event". Your solvency is inextricable from CSI's solvency. Ergo you are also insolvent.

That link shows UK should outsource its military to China, India or Russia to get best value for taxpayers!

Google Grantley Lowe and check out their website. It's true. There's even a picture of him. Having said that, he's obviously had a LOT of work done...

Perhaps it should apply a test of a prospective owner's business sense. I imagine it could work something like this... Anyone looking to buy the loss-making, debt-riddled and tainted brand that is PFC can't be in their right mind and in possession of any sort of business acumen. If they were, they'd see there are much better investments. Ergo, they are not capable of being a fit and proper owner of a football club and should immediately fail the FAPPT. Works for me.

4 or 5 weeks takes us in to february? So doesn't that imply a delay to january wages? What day if the month are they usually paid on? And surely this article is evidence enough that the solvency of PFC is directly linked to the solvency of CSI? it states right there in black and white that they are struggling for cash and need to sell to continue to be a going concern. Not sure what more evidence the FL needs to act? And speaking of the FL, should we do the skates a favour and demand that the new owners are refused to be declared fit and proper? After all, that's what all the skates have been grumbling about for the last 3 years and 4+ owners. It's all the FL's fault and the test isn't strong enough. Would love to see their reaction if the FL said no...

Think Bompey might have something to say about that...

Yes, it's hard to take, but the home run has been amazing, and if we only lose once every 20-25 home games, then we really have very little to complain about. City got their game plan spot on. They crowded us out in numbers when we got anywhere near their goal, and apart from De Ridder down the flank and the occasional moment from Guly, we couldn't work anything. They hit us on the break 3 or 4 times, and only Kelvin stopped them from scoring earlier ... and he pulled off a double save before the goal too! Lambert got repeatedly hassled and harried by their centre half, and the ref gave them far too much leeway to be honest. Only when he got physically assaulted did we get anything. But apart from a couple of poor moments, can't really blame the officials too much. Despite the negatives, De Ridder had the absolute beating of their fullback and with a little more luck, or a better cut back, we could have easily scored a couple. Once again I felt we were guilty of dwelling on the ball and not pulling the trigger... always trying to work it ever closer. First half, SDR went down the wing, cut it back to Lallana (I think) and the crowd were begging for him to just hit it. But instead it's a couple of touches, then looking for a pass, and it all just breaks down. All credit to City. They came for a point, and hoped to catch us on the break... and it worked. All that said and done... James is still a fishy c**t, obviously.

I think the point is that the priorities are all wrong. People want to see footage of actual football, not a bunch of ex-Liverpool defenders trotting out the same old tired cliches. Hundreds of thousands of fans of dozens of clubs up and down the country will be short-changed by this. Losing 2 hours of the football league show and getting what in return? More "analysis" of the premier league. It's crap. I don't care if we're affected by this or not (if we get promotion), it's just yet another way for the premier league and its media entourage to distance itself from proper football.

Agreed. CSI is a parent undertaking and therefore falls within the definition of a "Group Undertaking of a club". CSI have clearly suffered an insolvency event. FL rules state, as linked: "the Board shall have the power to impose upon the Club a deduction of 10 points". So they can do it. They don't have to do it, but they can do it. This is really now just a test of their mettle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-16226301 Both were bailed by magistrates in Westminster with a preliminary hearing in March and a longer case in May. Good news! Who would buy the club while this shadow looms over them? The longer they're in limbo, the harder it will be to keep going...

Come on, this isn't that difficult... Imagine looking at Saints' home fixture list and picking a game at random. What's the chances it's the game against the skates? 1 in 23. Ok, now put all the possible opponents that City (or alternatively United) could have had in a list and pick one at random. 1 in 63.

I think they mean "No verdict on points loss"

At the risk of repeating myself, the club and CSI do not need to be "intrinsically linked" for the FL to impose penalties. Under their current roles, an "insolvency event" has occurred if a parent company (CSI in this case) experiences administration or similar. The case for arguing "it's not the club, it's the parent company, so you can't impose a penalty" is no longer possible. I would imagine the football league tightened up these rules (i.e. expanded the definition of "insolvency event" to include parents, subsidiaries and sister companies) after our own admin. So the FL would be completely within their rights to impose a penalty if they elect to do so. They may choose not to, but that's up to them. In any case, it'll be very interesting to see what they do...

Agree it's unlikely, but according to the FL's own rules, they have suffered an "insolvency event", so they can still act if they wish. And burning through what little cash they have left isn't a great indication of long term solvency...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/1161 In the Companies Acts “group undertaking”, in relation to an undertaking, means an undertaking which is— a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of that undertaking, or Oh dear oh dear...