saint si

Great read as ever. The Ipswich long throw that somehow ended up in the goal happened at 1-0 by the way.

Which is why Nugent won't agree to the permanent move. He's remaining on loan, and hoping that p****y go bust. He can then negotiate a permanent move with Burnley, taking a cut of what Burnley were going to pay as a transfer fee for himself.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/4867851.Pompey_pull_out_of_deal/ NEWCASTLE’S attempt to sign Mike Williamson was on the verge of collapse last night after Portsmouth’s financial problems forced them to pull the plug on the defender’s proposed move.

Shame they couldn't find anyone to proof-read it.

Surman got one against Barnsley too.

Certainly raises questions (again) about Azougy's true role... Is he now the de facto FD?

Ah yes, the relegation season of 2004-2005... I remember it well... WGS, Lowe and Andrew Cohen all up before the courts on charges of tax evasion. Michael Svensson suing Saints for unpaid image rights (I believe it was to do with the use of his likeness on "Killer" t-shirts). A transfer embargo resulting from unpaid transfer fees for Rory Delap, David Prutton and Darren Kenton. And the DVLA trying to wind the club up for non-payment of vehicle tax for the team coach...

This from 4th January and i'm sure it was on here earlier than that ... Amusing to see we were already aware of Sol Campbell suing them well before the sudden press interest today!

The way I see it, the firesale has to start pretty damn quick... If they appeal yesterday's decision not to throw out the winding up petition, and lose, then they'll only be delaying the winding up hearing, and then have no possible source of further income as the transfer window will be shut. Incidentally, I read somewhere that they can't just appeal through some kind of misguided hope, but that they actually have to appeal against a particular point of law, so they may yet not appeal at all. They are likely still owed money by other clubs in respect of installments for player sales, but suspect that will only be enough to cover the monthly wage bill. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A62111855 suggests a couple of million due in January. Indeed, it's highly likely that p****y themselves will have further installments due to other clubs and hence the EPL is still keeping hold of the money. (Incidentally, wasn't the transfer embargo to be "imminently" lifted about this time yesterday?) If the transfer window closes and they haven't brought in 5m+ in transfer fees, then that will mark the beginning of the end, as they will not have any further opportunity to bring in serious cash before they face the wrath of HMRC and the near-certain liquidation (and extinction) that will bring. Suddenly those £9m offers for Kaboul look like a pretty good deal... they'll be lucky to get half that now as other chairmen start to smell blood. Expect to see plenty of action on deadline day!

Straw clutching much!?

I'm probably getting ahead of myself, but have taken the liberty of updating the current Premier League table based on expunging results of all p****y games... PL GD PTS 1 Chelsea 20 33 45 2 Man Utd 21 27 44 3 Arsenal 20 26 39 4 Tottenham 20 19 35 5 Man City 20 11 35 6 Liverpool 20 14 34 7 Aston Villa 20 9 33 8 Birmingham 20 1 30 9 Fulham 20 1 24 10 Everton 20 -5 23 11 Stoke 20 -8 22 12 Sunderland 20 -8 22 13 Wigan 19 -17 22 14 Blackburn 21 -18 21 15 Burnley 20 -19 20 16 Wolves 20 -20 19 17 Hull 20 -22 18 18 West Ham 20 -11 16 19 Bolton 18 -13 15 Arsenal lose out big time as they have two 4-1 results over p****y... Villa and West Ham the other big losers...

No way will they get 2m+ for James. And what about the 9m due to Gaydamak this month...? By the way, more court action tomorrow. This time it's Mr Storrie up before the City of Westminster Magistrates' court...

It seems quite clear to me that the PL is with-holding the cash to ensure that Watford get their payment that is due at the end of the month, and maintaining the embargo on the basis that they don't want p****y to incur any more footballing debt, nor for yet-another-player to not be getting their January wages. In that sense, it seems pretty obvious that the PL is acting in the interests of the game by ensuring that Watford get their rightful money and that no further clubs and players are "harmed" by the fratton financial black hole. If the PL did not do this, the £2m would disappear faster than the blink of an eye, Watford would never see a dime of what they are owed, and signing on fees, loan fees etc will not get paid. Whether the PL is allowed to do this or not will be decided by arbitration, but it certainly seems like they're doing the right thing.

That is my understanding. In fact, it is not just about paying VAT, it also then becomes about whether the receiving club can reclaim VAT. Changing this for future transactions would have a negligible impact. If it is retrospectively changed, then the fallout would be huge. Consider the example: Club P sells a player to Club S Club S pays £1m to Club P for the player Club P pays £175k (VAT) to the taxman and keeps the remaining £825k for itself However that is not the end of it... Club S, as a business, has its own VAT bill. They can offset this VAT bill by the £175k of VAT that was part of the transfer fee (incidentally, this is why receipts always show the amount of VAT as part of the bill... if it is a business transaction, then the VAT can be reclaimed) So Club P ends up with £825k and Club S ends up having paid a net fee of £825k. The taxman ends up with net zero. Without VAT, the transfer would have just been £825k. However, if it is changed retrospectively, then club P end up getting the £175k back from the taxman and then either Club S or the taxman ends up £175k out of pocket! This is why I believe it is extremely unlikely to be changed retrospectively. If it is changed for future transfers, then there will be no benefit to Pompey anyway, as fees will just be lower in the first place as they won't have to take VAT in to account. There is a good case to be made for VAT on player transfers, as transfer fees are part of the fundamental costs of running a football club.

It seems Pompey are disputing the Premier League's application of rule C47 in respect of the TV money. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1243860/Weve-broken-rules-TV-money-say-cash-strapped-Portsmouth.html http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_5866519,00.html Storrie: "They have absolutely no right to withhold TV money in advance of future payments or payments to foreign clubs." http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11674_5863170,00.html Storrie: "we instructed the premier league 2 weeks ago to pay clubs in the UK and also to foreign clubs, which leaves a balance" Rule C47 (and C48 ) are below: It would appear Pompey might be right in regard to future payments, as these are not mentioned anywhere above. However payments to foreign clubs would very definitely be covered by 48.1 as "club" (lower case "c") is defined in the same rules document as follows: Irrespective of that, the above section does not give the EPL the right to place a transfer embargo on Pompey. That right sits in rule M37: These seem to back up rule C47 and gives the EPL the right to withhold TV money and use it to settle Pompey's transfer debts. The sticking point in regard to TV money therefore will likely prove to be what payments Pompey have actually missed (as opposed to what they may owe in future but have not yet missed) and what agreements they have made with the creditors in respect of these payments (e.g. if they've agreed to lower amounts, or to relax payment dates).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1243828/Do-men-control-Portsmouth-want-football-club-superstore.html

Storrie now claiming on SSN that Pompey instructed the EPL to with-hold the Sky money pay other clubs and not the other way round! Really? REALLY? Why bother?!

Was just about to link to that deloitte doc. The stupid part of this is that although the selling club pays VAT the buying club can reclaim the VAT as an offset to their own VAT bill (that is my understanding of VAT at least). Therefore this would only affect the size of the transfer fees between clubs as the net revenue to the taxman will be zero. Given that transfer fees were agreed between parties, both knowing who would pay what tax, I'd be astonished if this goes pompey's way. Some clubs would be net beneficiaries, and others would be net losers... And I can't imagine they'd be too happy about it!

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11743_5856716,00.html Different governing body but sets something a precedent for not excluding loan players from the transfer embargo.

And the "recouping £13m" bit is also rather suspicious. That wording implies Al-Faraj has taken that money OUT of the club. So what does that relate to? Is that the total figure for gate receipts, merchandise etc? In which case has he just taken out in £27m of loans (on behalf of the club) whilst taking the £13m of club income out? Can't wait for all this to unwravel!

Our head-to-head record is also favourable... http://www.soccerbase.com/head2.sd?team2id=2471&team1id=2049

Look on the bright side... extra time means more time for injuries, yellow cards and more tired players for the next league game...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/07/portsmouth-ali-al-faraj-players-wages Herman Heraiderson perhaps?

And of course by "next month" he means "this month" as January's wages are due in just over a couple of weeks!

Darius Vassell... he might just conceivably take a drop to an ambitious league one club to come back to England... http://www.football365.com/mediawatch/0,17033,8749_5836655,00.html