Chin Strain

But why would Chanrai pump more money in now? Last time I could understand an interest as there were parachute payments etc. Even last season there was a punt at getting back to the PL. Now there's nothing. There's no hope. Maybe he's just happy to see the club sell all the players worth anything in January, then pull the plug, take the ground (building land) and burn the club and the rest of CSI.

Stupid question. If a holding company goes into administration, can one of the underlying companies also go into administration afterwards, or is it covered by the holding company administration? As CSI is in administration, and Pompey's money will run out probably on pay day in December (31st), surely the point about points deduction now is moot. As soon as they can't pay anyone, and have no access to funds to pay anyone, they will get a points deduction. That should prove that they are totally reliant on CSI funding (but Akers has already fessed up to that). I guess their only life blood will / could be selling players on January 1. However, wouldn't those funds be going towards CSIs administration? Assuming the £10.5m that Antonov has pumped into the club since August is a loan, wouldn't AA now be looking to bring in as much money as possible for CSI, starting with calling in loans....after all he's said they need to sell Pompey, presumably to stick cash into CSI? CSI being protected by Administration would surely mean that Portsmouth aren't Mr Big any more in AAs eyes.....they're Mr Bigs B1tch.

They can claim independence, but I simply can't see that they can survive without the financial input of CSI. Presumably CSI have taken the season ticket money, tv money etc. If the owners were syphoning off from Snoras (allegedly), would they baulk at doing it at Pompey? Pompey, IMHO, will have next to no revenue coming in at the moment. They'll almost certainly have to find at least £1m (conservatively) to pay the players this week. Akers has said in the Guardian interview that Pompey are reliant on Antonov for funding...seems to be the ace card in the pack.

AA...now who does he work for again? Hacker Chanrai Young?

I think the key question is whether Pompey reverts back to Chanrai as a secured lender (the club purchase was in instalments IIRC).If they are, it depends on what Chanrai does. Having tried his arse off to sell the club last time and only turned up with these clowns, will he want to prop the club up again, or will he realise there's no value in doing that so he may as well take the ground and wind them up? Will he be prepared to stick the cash in? As Andronikou is back in as the Administrator, it seems likely to me that it's Chanrai who has pulled the plug. If the club isn't supported by Chanrai, how does it survive? They can argue all they like about the Parent Club going into administration, but surely if Pompey are reliant on CSI to stay afloat, they are inextricably linked to the downfall of CSI and will, by default, go into admin too. So....Chanrai.......what next?

Who is this reporter on SSN....'loyal fans, great following, turn up week in week out blah, blah, blah'. FFS has he not seen the average gates? Bob Beech, SOS Pompey..... 'we don't want Chanrai'....but without him propping up the club you will go under. Bob says 'we want the club, we'll show you how to run it, let the fans take over'. Have the bestest fans got the means to finance the CVA and pay the wage bill then?

I wonder how the wage bill will be paid this week....

This. Not odd at all. The interviewer ended at an appropriate point.

Lol at the doom mongers on this thread. I mean, seriously????? FFS.

Pahars at SMS v Sunderland. We won 2 nil and he 'scored' the 3rd (would have been his hatrick) at the Chapel End. The bal; went over the line by a yard and, despite the linesman having a clear view, it wasn't given. The worst non penalty decision I've seen at SMS was the one in the 2nd half against Rickie on Saturday. You see where the ref is standing and he has a clear view and is looking straight at it......WTF was he thinking?

He definitely whistled. He even half apologised for cocking it up.

I think you'd be better off losing one so you can concentrate on winning....let me explain. I can't help but think that the unbeaten run is, potentially, causing you to drop points. The players may be keener on protecting their run rather than risking it a bit to try and convert draws into wins. Just a view - nothing to really base it on.

I'm still interested in why you think they decided to buy Pompey. It stacks up on no fronts whatsoever. Massive wage bill, very poor recent image, ongoing CVA, no training ground facilities, a ground that's falling down, low fan base, poor gates etc etc. Blinkers off for a moment Ho.....why, honestly, do you think they wanted to get involved with Pompey? Not a leading question.....I have no idea. There seems to be no logic.

I think he's trying to suggest that he's 'she-ite'......

Surely you can see the difference though. You made claims that the car would fly through the MOT. This can only have been stated in an advert in order to enhance the chances of you obtaining the best possible price. You actually listed what needed to be done. These 'facts' seem to be based on absolutely zero knowledge or evidence. If you hadn't made any outlandish claims in the advert, there wouldn't be a poster on here who would take you to task. Therefore, Bearsy's question about whether the seller told you the gearbox was sound (or indeed actually specified it in the advert) is a very valid one. It sounds like he didn't make any such claims, so 'buyer beware'. He didn't mention the gearbox at all. You chose, stupidly, to mention the MOT amongst other things. Can you see the difference??

Mate, it's not about what you knew / didn't know. It's about what you said. You claimed that with the 3 minor things fixed it would fly through the MOT. You claimed that with a small amount of work it would be on the road. Don't claim something unless you can back it up with facts, such as an MOT failure list. It seems as though neither of those claims were correct so, at best, you've been naive....but, in my view, so has he. You asked for advice, you got advice. If you were asking for us to agree with your opinion, some of us wouldn't have bothered posting.

The trouble is you have made 2 claims in your advert that suggest otherwise, and that you can't substantiate: - Car is in good condition and only needs a small amount of work to get it on the road. - With the above things sorted the car should fly through an MOT. He's an idiot for trusting you. You're an idiot for putting that in there. I wouldn't say, however, that he definitely hasn't got a case against you. You'd probably have been ok if you'd have listed what you did know was wrong with it, and said 'there may well be a raft of other issues, and I recommend that you get the car looked out before buying'. If you'd have said that, the car would almost certainly have gone for less money. Alternatively you could have put it through an MOT and given the documentation with faults and estimate for repair to any prospective buyer. I still maintain that you've been economical with the truth saying that you knew it would fail on some pretty serious stuff.....what you've listed is not serious.

Eh? You said 'the matey wants his money back and is refusing to sign the V5C'.....isn't that a complaint? No offence SJ, but you need to make your mind up what the issue is here.....if he's not complaining why does he want his money back and why are we discussing the advert? If he wants his money back because he misled him, that's a complaint in anyones book.

But your advert said: Front wishbone bushes need replacing - At the moment there is a lot of steering wheel wobble at 50+ Mph, I have been quoted £90 to get this done (the bushes are nice and cheap.) That reads as though it's £90 to do the job and the bushes are nice and cheap. If it's now £90 for the bushes plus fitting (you've alluded that's expensive) then you've contradicted your advert.....which is a lie.......sorry.

One other thing, the bits in bold above aren't reflected in your advert. £90 for brushes, a tyre and battery is hardly reflective of 'pretty major stuff'. If you had someone look over it before you sold it, then that person either hasn't got a clue about cars or you with held some of the information. I wouldn't buy a second hand car from you but, as I said, I wouldn't have listened to what you were telling me anyway!

Not a legal opinion, but my view is that you've been a bit daft putting on the advert that it 'should fly through an MOT' and that a 'small amount of work is need to get it on the road'. That's a pretty major claim based on, presumably, little mechanical knowledge. Having said that 'Buyer Beware' seems to also spring to mind, and your purchaser has bought the car on a 'sold as seen' basis.....although he could argue that you've not described the car correctly, and have described it as you have to get the maximum amount of cash from him. On balance, when I used to buy second hand cars I used to ignore the ****e people used to spout and make my own decisions. I certainly wouldn't take someones word for it that it should 'fly through an MOT'. I think you've been a bit underhand / stupid / naive with your advert, but he saw the goods, inspected them, signed a 'sold as seen' receipt and took it away happy. If he had a doubt he could have insisted on an MOT pre purchase...it would have been worth his £35 to find out.

He absolutely does have something to prove. He has proven that he can get a side out of L1, but the NPC is a different story. He has to prove he can cut it at a higher level. If he can, he'll have to prove he can cut it at a higher level again.

Agreed, but desperate times call for desperate measures. They must be in a poor state to go down this route, and Saunders is going to have to be some sort of miracle worker to constantly be rebuilding a team. Personally I'd hate this approach.

I think that's the result of the massive impact rather than it not being done up properly. Apparently he did wear a helmet one size bigger to allow for his hair...so I read on on eof the reports yesterday (Skysports or BBC)

Yep. I thought we were bottom of the table and going down reading the post match threads yesterday. Good teams lose games....and sometimes they even draw them with 10 men when not bang on form.