saint si

I wonder if they tightened up the rules after our dispute about parent company versus club... http://www.football-league.co.uk/regulations/20110629/section-3-the-league_2293633_2125717 12.3 Sporting Sanctions Introduction The following rule provides for how sporting sanctions will be applied to Clubs when the Club, or any Group Undertaking, becomes subject to or suffers an Insolvency Event, and also makes provision for an appeals mechanism, but only on the grounds of 'Force Majeure' 12.3.2 If a Group Undertaking of a Club becomes subject to or suffers an Insolvency Event, then the Board shall have the power to impose upon the Club a deduction of 10 points scored or to be scored in the League Competition. In exercising this power the Board shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and to:....(etc) http://www.football-league.co.uk/regulations/20110629/section-1-general_2293633_2125698 'Group Undertaking' has the meaning set out in section 1161(5) of the 2006 Act. So, can anyone find that definition of "Group Undertaking". Whilst it is not the same as our situation (accepted), if the parent company is bust, then does that count under the league's rules...?

Oh bless them. Admin doesn't mean a points deduction lads, do don't worry about that. It means expulsion from the football league... look it up, that's twice in 3 years...

Speaking as someone who has done his knee ligaments (twice), "just a little sore" is a pretty good sign. If he'd done it badly, then he'd know about it... especially as he has previous. Agree though that the full prognosis will have to wait for a full scan etc. Obviously if the PR machine is in action and he's been asked to not share how bad it is, then that would change everything...

RIP. Had a great playing career. Way too young.

December 16? Oh what a weekend that could be...

Well written, but you can hear the revisionism and the blame being placed at the FL already... "The point is this: how on earth could anyone think that a man with so many question marks over him was a suitable owner for Portsmouth Football Club?" Yes, skates, how on earth could anyone think that?

It'll be company policy just to handover the cash. It won't be left down to the judgement of the individual security guard (who is really just a courier)... that would be a fast track to a lawsuit.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110722043749/http://www.converssport.com/news/convers-sports-initiatives-complete-takeover-portsmouth-fc

What if it turned up that Antonov were operating in the UK, under the nose of the FSA after all? How would that play out? Step forward Convers Money! https://www.conversmoney.com/aboutus Note the registered office, and compare it with the address listed for CSI: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/07375628 A little bit of googling of Convers Money brings up... oh look at that, it's the WFB site! http://www.wfblondon.co.uk/convers-money/ What's that you say? It's another one of those dead links that have suddenly started sprouting up? Google cache time it is then (dated from last Thursday)... http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bnnSssBe7a8J:www.wfblondon.co.uk/convers-money/+convers+money+companies+house&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk WFB London together with Convers Group which has control over major Lithuanian Bank SNORAS and oldest Latvian bank “Latvijas Krajbanka” – successfully launched payday loans under new brand “Convers Money “ (http://www.conversmoney.com) Mr Antonov added: ”We will continue to develop and not going to stop now, actually we have already started working on other financial projects which will expand our distribution outside UK So, Convers Goup has control over Snoras? And Convers Group has (with WFB) launched Convers Money in the UK? And it's the work of "Mr Antonov"? But Snoras and Antonov are barred from UK aren't they? http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/22305/ Anyone on here got the FSA's number? Oh, and as an aside... for those worried about preserving pages associating Antonov with CSI, have no fear. Whenever anything is published on the internet, it is likely there for all eternity. No matter how much you might try to suppress it, you cannot take it back, for the world wide web will carry its indelible mark long after you're gone. Ladies and gentlemen, all hail the almighty Wayback Machine ... http://web.archive.org/web/20110722043401/http://www.converssport.com/structure

"Tax Consulting UK" with a (broken) URL of "taxcons.com"... you just couldn't make this stuff up...

Knowing and working with some of the "partners" identified on that page, I am pretty confident that they would not approve their brand being associated with this bunch of chancers. Am I petty and spiteful enough to tip them off? Yes, I think I might be.

Perusing the skate forums, I've noticed some pretty reprehensible attitudes coming to the surface. They couldn't care less about what their owner gets up to or how he funds the club, as long as plucky little pompey is ok. Some prize quotes from: http://fansonline.net/portsmouth/mb/view.php?id=388408 "Really couldnt give a f* about his other business as long as he runs the club properly." "they are all at it" "And Antonov comes out of that sounding a pretty shrewd,if very dodgy, operator. I've yet to see anything in these stories that makes me think he is about to become penniless." It'd be laughable if it wasn't so shamelessly absent of any morality. Of course, they'll be the first to bleat to the Football League about the failings of the FAPPT should any of this latest turn of events cause the club any real bother. We already knew it, of course, but now we get quotes directly from their fishy mouths. What a horrible little club.

She said: ‘If the shareholders of Bank Snoras don’t respond to these requests, an international search warrant will be issued.’ International search warrant? Fit and proper!

Apologies if already posted - great preview on the beeb http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15704862.stm

And CSI would be owned by ...?

What kind of investigation would that be? A forensic one do ya think? ;-)

Certainly appears so (no idea what Category 1 is but they're lumped in with France, Germany etc). Source: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/extradition-intro11/extrad-part-1/ Now, just a quick exercise to see how much Antonov has lost (as my last effort was far too fag packet). First up, what is Snoras worth. Share price: 23cents per share on Tuesday, before they were nationalised Source: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/charts/charts.asp?ticker=SRS1L:LH How many shares: 494,217,000 Source: http://www.snoras.com/en/about/reports/dynamic So current total value: 114m Euros, of which Antonov has 68% = 77m Euros At current exchange rates, that's $104m. But wait, Antonov's apparently worth $300m. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Antonov Dig a little deeper, the wiki article is quoting an article (on Bompey) from June 2010 (stated as £200m), and was actually itself a quote from a 2007 Russian rich-list (and wikipedia itself acknowledges the figure is from 2007). Source: http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/3268/league-one/2010/06/29/2000997/russian-multi-millionaire-duo-aim-to-buy-afc-bournemouth-and Another source stating the figure is from 2007: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-03/lifestyle/29989325_1_saab-vladimir-antonov-russian-tycoons So, back to the share price graph (businessweek link)... Snoras's share price has absolutely tanked since 2007, from around 80cents per share that year. Acknowledging that he may have bought/sold shares in that time, and new share capital released, that exchange rates have fluctuated etc, it still seems fair to draw a couple of conclusions: - the $300m figure banded about is well out of date, and is likely to have diminished considerably since 2007 as a result of his Snoras shares alone (and any other banking interests will have faired pretty badly over the same period) - the $104m write off from this week's events is a fair chunk of his personal wealth. And that's all without considering any criminal proceedings...! I have no idea of Lithuanian corporate law, but as chairman of the supervisory board, if there have been wrongdoings, could he also have a personal liability...? Source: http://www.snoras.com/en/about/management/council Re: Fit and Proper Persons, it's the Football League's rules on owners and directors that apply. Source: http://www.football-league.co.uk/regulations/20110629/appendix-4_2293633_2128219 Think part (ix) under Disqualifying Condition is relevant: (ix) any conviction for a like offence to any of the above offences by a competent court having jurisdiction outside England and Wales, whether such conviction occurred prior to or after 10th March 2005 (being the date of implementation of this Test). So assuming Lithuania is judged competent (it would be), then the offences in this section would apply. "an offence involving a Dishonest Act" would seem to fit the bill. So assuming he were found guilty (an assumption only), and assuming therefore he is found to no longer meet the conditions of the test, what would happen? As far as I can tell from skimming it, he would have to stop being a director at the club, or else the Football League can issue sanctions. The definition of Director used includes: (h) a person who exercises or is able, legally or beneficially, to exercise Control over the affairs of the Club, Somebody with a 75% stake would clearly be able to do this, so therefore it is fair to say that this would apply to Antonov. So, if all of the above happens, i can't see any way other than for the FL to insist that he is no longer fit. It is not a single one off test that is no longer relevant, as this paragraph makes clear: 2.1 Any person who is at any time subject to a Disqualifying Condition shall be disqualified from holding office or acting as a Club Director at a Club for such a period as they shall remain subject to a Disqualifying Condition. In any case, the FL is a law unto themselves, so I imagine they will simply do whatever they want. Plenty of mileage in this thread yet!

Some more links. http://verslas.delfi.lt/business/valstybe-nacionalizavo-snora.d?id=51825919 (Once translated from Lithuanian) this confirms that the bank has been nationalised because its assets appear to have been overvalued, and includes the following: "It aims to examine the Bank of Lithuania to the information about possible criminal offenses" http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/16/lithuania-snoras-problems-idUSS3E7KT00220111116 Apparently the bank is insolvent - its debts exceed its assets. Overvalued assets? Trading insolvently? Possible criminal offences? Sounds familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on it... Over on the skate forum they seem to think it'll be like the UK bank bail out, and the bankers (Antonov) will be ok. Nope. This is a nationalisation and Antonov's stake (as a shareholder) is now worthless. How much has he lost (on paper)? Based on the info below at the following link... http://www.snorasgroup.com/index.php/investor-relations/information-on-shares/106 ... about £125m (as at Oct 2010). There goes the new stadium! Will there be an impact on the skates? Maybe. Clearly Antonov is not worth as much as he thought. Not to mention accusations of criminal acts. And what are the chances his other bank is heavily exposed to Snoras? Where things would really get interesting is if there are any ties between Snoras and CSI. Do we actually know who owns CSI?

Don't agree that it's slave labour. They can choose to not do it if they want. Such comparisons belittle true slavery. And I have no problem with people being required to work for their benefits. There is both a benefit to society and a benefit to the individual of getting people back to proper productive work. However, sounds like this is all wrong if it is turning in to a cheap alternative for the employers, rather than being paid minimum wage. That just serves to undermine the job market as a whole.

Wow, people who bought full season tickets are going to be mightily p****d off! Assuming they can do the maths...

Just came on against England

15.7k... what a badge of honour. Shout it from the rooftops. Hell, I'm feeling generous ... why don't you just round it up to 16k and be done with it. Nobody will mind.

Which sort of reinforces the idea of retaining separate state identities within a single union. FWIW, my own view is that the current idea of European (economic) union is fundamentally broken, where states can act independently to such a degree (i.e. unchecked fiscal policy independence) that they can bring down the economy/currency of the entire union. Unifying/centralising the risk should mean unifying/centralising the responsibility too. Also, the US is an interesting example - take the historic (and prevailing) resistance to the federal government (as compared to the state government) and parallels can be drawn with current resistance to political union in Europe and "those bureaucrats in Brussels". Right, gonna save one of my 3 posts a day for football. Or possibly P****y Takeover Saga.

The irony in the air is making it hard to breathe... presume you all know the history of the United Kingdom? Clue's in the name.

Steve Cotterill continuing where he left off at fratton park... heavy defeat followed by "we were the better team"... tool.