dvaughanwilliams

Depends if the administrator arranges for some of their players loans to other clubs. If their squad gets even smaller to save on the wages, then they're in massive trouble. Also that thug Etuhu is on a month-by-month approval from the FA, so he'll be gone as soon as the month is up. They'll end up with the kit man's son on the bench.

Thought it would be a tight scrappy game and not at all surprised that they got a penalty at home. Would have taken a draw before the game, but could have been better given that they had 10 men for most of the game. As long as we get back to our early season home form, I think we've got a decent chance.

Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooover!

That seems to be their typical gate for a league game. But, imagine how poor the attendance would have been without pack the park....

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/appy_i_want_to_hear_from_football_league_1_3518067?commentssort=1&commentspage=0 The comments really do crack me up on this story. We have to have a squad of 20, it's mandatory (even if the club can't afford it). It's all the FA's fault for letting the owners take over. I think that they should take on more players, just to really prove to the judges on Friday and Monday that they're trading while in solvent.

So, same team as Saturday then. No keeper on the bench again, which I think is more of a risk, given the size and physicality of West Ham's strikers. I guess Nigel's going for the 'don't change a winning team' route, which has its advantages. Lets hope we can pass the ball through them or use Sharp to hit them on the counter.

You might be OK, they might be liquidated on Friday if Administration is refused.

I just can't see how the court will let them go into admin, what are they going to say? OK, so we're cash flow insolvent and balance sheet insolvent and we renegotiated our debts a couple of years ago and our outgoings are more than our income, but if you give us a bit more time we promise not to do it again next time? Insolvency courts regularly shut down businesses where there are unfinished orders which results in that stock having a much lower value. Also trading whilst insolvent under either definition is illegal. They appear to fulfill both definitions. The statement of affairs presented to the court on Friday will make amusing reading because they surely can't present one that shows their insolvency.

The owners and Directors test, formerly the Fit and Proper Persons Test is a double edged sword for the FA. The deluded phew seem to think that it is a test of financial capacity to pay debt, when in fact it is the equivalent of a CRB check. It is to make sure that the directors haven't been banned for a previous insolvency event and to make sure that they don't have criminal records. It isn't a test to see how good you are at running a business sustainably, or how much money you have. The FA can't risk turning potential owners away because of hearsay or rumours because they'd get sued for defamation. They can't turn someone away because they don't have deep pockets because the business plan might be to run a club sustainably and only within its means, even if that means the club is not particularly competitive. It needs to be dropped, or at least be explained properly that it is just a formality that means very little.

Would be happy with Hammond in the middle as well. I just think that it's a game for the players with the highest work rate as I think it will be a scrappy game. Schneiderlin has a great range of passing, but I worry about him getting closed down by a well organised West Ham defence and midfield. I'm undecided about Guly's suitability for the game. He did win quite a few headers in the Burnley game and does have a large physical presence, even if he doesn't always use it. I just think that there will be space behind West Ham's back 4 that we should exploit and Guly certainly isn't a player to do that, that's why I think Puncheon should play. The great thing about the squad at the moment is the flexibility in terms of personnel and formation that we have. Given that West ham often play 5 in midfield, it wouldn't surprise me if we played the diamond in midfield with Lallana at the point and 3 of Hammond, Cork, Chaplow and Schneiderlin as the other 3 midfielders, with the attacking players rotating positions to pull the defenders out of position.

I've always been impressed by his application and his attitude. It's possible that these qualities have made me consider him in a too favourable light, but I've always thought he was a decent player. He plays a position with discipline, tracks back and has a fairly decent cross. I was also surprised that he dropped down to League 2, surely he's better than that. I guess the only advantage to that is that he should play every game. League 2 does have a reputation for harsh tackling though. Wonder how long he'll stay fit?

I think that West Ham have been awarded quite a lot of penalties at home (saying that, we've had quite a few at St Mary's), which doesn't surprise me after seeing John Carew's tactics in the previous game. He pulls the defenders' shirts and pushes them around and at the first sign of them touching him, he goes straight to the ground. I think a lot depends on who the ref is and how they handle the occasion. It'll be a full house, or close to one, so there'll be a lot of pressure on him. If we start with Puncheon on the right, Chaplow and Cork in the centre and have Lee and De Ridder on the bench, I think we've got a chance. Beat them at their own game, have our paciest players on the shoulders of the defence and play balls over the top for them to run on to and keep them pinned back. Our defence need to have a good game, but I think we've got a chance. Don't expect it to be a high scoring game, one goal in it or a draw.

It's as legal as the transfer of the ownership of the player registrations and ownership of Fratton. If you can transfer assets to the new co., you can also transfer liabilities. Also, the charge applies to the assets, not the business.With Chinny's consent, anyone could be the owner of the assets, with responsibilities for debt repayments, as long as his charge remains intact. His charge could extend beyond the ground to season ticket sales, value of player registrations, parachute payments, anything. Also, the value of the security is not limited to the amount lent, it could be much more . It could also be written into the terms of the loan that it is joint and severally an obligation of the parent company and all of its subordinate companies. Since we haven't seen a copy of the terms, I don't which, if any of these terms actually applies in this case, but the range of legal options is pretty wide.

Insolvency is defined in 2 ways. Not being able to pay debts when due (cash flow insolvency) or when assets exceed liability (balance sheet insolvency). Imagine a business that has £10m of stock and £5m of loans, but no cash in the bank. It has balance sheet solvency, but has a cash flow issue. This business would go into admin to allow it enough time to sell sufficient stock to pay the creditors. That's the point of admin, to buy time for a solvent business, not to protect an insolvent business.

I think that a judge can only grant Admin if they can show that the club's assets are greater than their liabilities, otherwise they are trading whilst insolvent. £50m of debt. How can they invent £50m of assets? TBH worth £5m? Tesco have put in an offer for the ground of £40m? As I understand things, insolvency courts are normally pretty ruthless and the way they were treated last time was unusual. I have read about cases where firms have been liquidated, despite having full order books, which if completed would have allowed for all creditors to be repaid, but the court forced it to wind up, leaving the creditors with much less. A hardball, Immanuel Kant-style judge will not allow admin. The more I think about it, the more it looks like the end, unless Chinny has found some change down the back of the sofa.

I seem to remember reading some research [no link so treat with an appropriate amount of skepticism] that most of the enjoyment people got from their job had nothing to do with the actual job and everything to do with the working environment and the people that you work with. If you've got a transferable skill that you've worked hard to develop, you might find another job doing the same work for a different company. The specific problem that you raised was that you thought that the Finance Director wanted to bring in his own Credit Manager and you weren't getting on. It could be that this problem is souring the job for you. I don't know your full financial circumstances, so I don't know how much of a risk you'd be taking. The kind of trades you've mentioned would require on the job training to be most effective. If you could find someone to take you on as an apprentice or similar, you'd take a large cut in income until you were trained, but that could be a few years. You're not the first person to go through this kind of dilemma. I was reading a book written in 1912 that makes points on a similar line to Turkish, but in a different tone, more appropriate to the etiquette of the time. My only advice would be for you to write down your priorities and think about what is really important to you. Every career is a compromise to some extent. I know people who work on trading desks at Investment Banks in London; the hours are long, the job is incredibly stressful and they aren't happy, but accept it for the money. I also know people who are prepared to accept very low wage jobs and are prepared to forgo owning the latest 'stuff' to pursue a dream or because they don't want the stress of a highly paid job. I'd be inclined to talk to the head of finance to see if he's aware of how you feel. If you can't talk to him, then it's where you work that's the problem, not necessarily the job you do. I expect if you were to do the same job with colleagues you liked and found interesting, all of the petty boredom of the job would seem less important. Whatever the result, Good Luck!

To be fair to Limpett, they did have a big pile of (other people's) money. He didn't necessarily know that it was an inappropriate use of bank reserves that has been interpreted by Lithuanian prosecutors as asset stripping. And that they had run banks in Russia before where assets had allegedly gone missing and resulted in a requirement for bailing out by the Russian banking regulator. Oh, just a minute...

There's even less information available about companies who have taken on a CVA obligation for a liquidated firm that subsequently has an insolvency event.

Uurgh. Plucky fans guff.

Lumpitt on 5Live now. Dodged the question about the level of debt. Said that he has not been involved in negotiations for sale. Claridge: Have you been mislead? Lumpitt: Not mislead. CSI had a long term plan. Wanted to invest in the long term, including the facilities. They went about things in a way that gave assurance and credibility for their plans. Surprise to everyone about the situation in Lithuania (except rumafia.com). Claridge: What about Android. Is there a conflict of interest? Is he emplyed by Chinny? He sold to CSI. Lumpitt: Android not involved in previous sale. Chinny arranged the sale himself. UHY appointed by BC last time. Today, PFC directors have requested Android. He is an officer of the court and has to look after the interests of the creditors. Claridge: Will there be clarity after this admin. Will it be an end to Gaydamak and Chinny's shenanigans? Lumpitt: Hopefully. Not straightforward.Difficult to get rid of SG, because it's not Poopey asset he owns, it's adjacent land, but it *should* be owned by PFC. Lumpitt: Players do not have to pay to replace shirts given away to fans at Blackpool.

http://www.financialcrisis.co.uk/cva.html So, if they fail to make the CVA payment in April, the Supervisor, Baker Tilly, have the option of forcing liquidation. None of the insolvency sites I have looked at describe a situation where a company goes into administration with an existing CVA. A statement of affairs will have to be presented to the court on Friday, I can't wait. I'm a big fan of fiction.

Well, I'm sure they're not insolvent. Liabilities £50m Assets PP £16m, Playing squad,er, even http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/portsmouth-fc/startseite/verein_1020.html optimistically only values it at £16m, but Nottarf is worth £20m to Tesco, so totalling £52m! Solvent, definitely [\sarc]

http://footballmanagement.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/pompey-and-the-potential-for-points-deduction/ Almost certainly posted here before and I see Steve Grant's name in the comments, but this opinion is from Football finance expert and Poopey fan Dr John Beech.

Is this a genuine deluded Skate or another poster on here on a wind up, again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_%28British_football%29#Clubs_in_England_.26_Wales_that_have_entered_administration The -17 was for starting a second season in administration, not because it was their second.