dvaughanwilliams

That 750 figure came from someone texting in to Solent, so highly unreliable. Total attendance 5,318.

750 according to Solent

Response This is an interesting new development, ring the police!

...

Still, a 36 year old who has been a bit part player for League 2 and Conference teams for the last 3 or 4 seasons isn't exactly going to turn them into world beaters. I do understand the lack of justice in allowing him to play, though.

Just looked up his career on Wiki, it's not exactly dazzling. I don't have too much of a problem with him playing, as long as they're paying him a wage commensurate with his duties as a coach, rather than the higher salary associated with players.

What are 'non-contract terms'? Is this a genuine pay-as-you-play arrangement with no on-going contract or something else? Very funny that they wasted their time checking out trialists who are all out of their price range. When they finally sort out an owner, they will have hardly anytime to drag together a group of players not good enough to get contracts with any other club. The longer it goes on, the worse the players they end up with. I expect the administrators fees to get agreed and then at the last minute, in a move that is totally out of character, Chinny tells the Football league that he cannot purchase the club under their conditions and asks them to co-operate with him, otherwise he will liquidate the club.

Out of interest, who have they kicked out mid-season? Would like to see the circumstances.

I can see the authorities refusing to let them start the season. I can't envisage the FL booting them out mid-season.

That leads to the possibility of the Football League being in a difficult position. If they allow them to start the season and then Pompey exit administration with too much secured debt, what then? I can't imagine the FL chucking them out mid-season, there would be outrage. Alternatively, if they allowed them to continue in the league, albeit with a further points deduction possibly, it would also lead to outrage. The FL will want some degree of assurances before they allow them to start the season surely, especially since they imposed the conditions.

I'm wondering about the deadline for the Golden Share. The FL said that a number of conditions had to be met for the club to be granted it. When do the conditions have to be met? As things stand they don't meet any of the conditions, well, they are within the player budget constraint . Do they need the GS to be granted before the League Cup game, before the first game of the league? Will they be given provisional entry to the league? What if they start the league and then fail to meet the conditions set down once they finally exit administration? If Portpin pulls out and the trust need to re-negotiate the compromise agreements do they have to have completed this before the league starts? So many questions, so little time.

FA's conditions for the Golden Share: 1. Accept a deduction of 10 points in the 2012/13 season; 2. Agree that only a limited proportion of the secured debt from the previous club can be carried forward into the new company as secured debt. 3. Pay all football creditors in full, unless mutually acceptable compromise agreements are put in place. 4. Agree to a range of other restrictions on playing budgets, future borrowing and loan repayments for the next 5 seasons. Point 2 says that the secured debt must be reduced. Chinny could apply the CVA to current unsecured debt and then convert some of his secured debt to unsecured debt, but have the same amount owed to him. It would be a loss of status of his debt, but he would be owed the same amount.

1. The trust have suggested a budget of £2.6m. Given the recent comments by Liam Lawrence, Chinny will probably have a similar budget. 2. These figures are the gross cost to the club. Football salaries are often quoted by the net, after tax earnings. Even if you work on gross employee earnings, you have to take into account employer's NI and pension contribution costs. In reality, they'll have a small squad at the average wage.

The things that jump out to me from the report: only £11.7m of PPs, not the £14m that has been knocked about on here recently; £4m football debts (£7m if they make Premier League within 10 years ); wage bill of only £2.65m and despite all of this they are on very shaky ground. I think that a surprising number of clubs are run on similarly precarious finances by optimists. I wonder why there's no 'worst case' scenario of a further relegation?

From outgoings the only costs you missed: Employers Liability Insurance, Public Liability Insurance, Private medical, Rates, Electricity, Stewarding, Policing, Travel and Accommodation for away games, coaching staff, medical and rehabilitation staff, training facilities, Employers National Insurance, ground maintenance.

So, let's imagine that your figures are accurate (I don't think they are). You propose to spunk one-off payments such as pledges and Parachute payments in the first season. What happens in season 2? Admin again?

The Trust's opinion of the Taylor comments are that they were about the PPs being assigned to players directly with the club continuing and didn't affect the liquidation scenario. I don't think that the situation has been cleared up yet. The players may get paid in liquidation or they may get nothing. The other issue getting very little coverage is Chinny's attitude towards the limit on secured debt or whether he is still interested in a takeover. Also if his debt gets converted to unsecured debt, do they have to re-run the vote? Would his newly unsecured debt get reduced in the CVA or would he change its status after the reduction applied to everyone else?

Like this one? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/portsmouth/9427664/Portsmouth-defender-Tal-Ben-Haim-instructs-agent-to-stay-away-from-severance-talks.html

Also: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmcumeds/uc509-i/uc50901.htm This quote was in the context of the Conference not having a Football Creditors rule and transfer fees, but he only talks about payments to clubs, not clubs and players.

Try googling - witheld parachute payments paid to football creditors. You'll find 4 of the top 5 search results are football forums, 2 of which are this thread.

The answer to the first part is this: http://www.uhy-uk.com/assets/media/download/portsmouth%20reports/Final%20progress%20report.pdf Page 4 (Poor grammar is UHY's, not mine) In previous administrations, there hadn't been a comparable amount of money owed to players and a greater proportion of the outstanding football creditors were other clubs who were due stage payments in respect of transfer fees. However, there isn't a lot of transparency over how these payments were made and who the recipients were. The problems come with the interaction between Football rules and insolvency law. If the club had an absolute entitlement to receive the money, then they would be seized by the administrators/liquidators. They are instead discretionary payments that are normally paid under particular circumstances. The Football Creditors rule is only a 'club rule' of the Football League and only applies to clubs who wish to participate in the league, rather than an insolvency law. If the club wants to remain in the league, football creditors are front of the queue. If the club is liquidated and is not continuing, then the Football Creditors are treated the same as all other unsecured creditors. Under insolvency law, the players will probably receive nothing from the club - this is where the 'they get nothing' view comes from. The fact that the PPs are discretionary payments puts the ball in the Premier League's court. They make the payments, they have previously withheld them to pay Football Creditors, but the rules are deliberately vague.

As I am forced to write every day in my job - 'past performance is no guide to the future'. My prediction - flat or falling property prices for at least a decade. Current generations will not benefit in the way that you did.

In situations where there is a surplus of food, those same city traders who make a loss, subsidise the food. Also futures for soft commodities originated from farmers, who benefit most, by allowing them to get a fixed price for their crops when they plant them, irrespective of the supply at harvest time.

From: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Redundancy/DG_10029832 Trev's announcement of redundancy discussions suggests that they might only have enough cash for a couple of weeks.

We never got a definitive answer. The PP's may well be used to settle Football Creditor debts but no-one knows how the money would get prioritised or the order of payment, whether it would just cover deferrals or future contractual payments. I don't think that there are any official rules and the authorities will make up the rules on the hoof, should it be necessary. Brinkmanship is the order of the day and Trev keeps telling them that this time it really is the last chance saloon and the money really, really has run out. The players are, presumably, hunting for new clubs desperately. I still think that being a sole holdout is the best result (TBH excluded). Too many holdouts and the club fails, but how would you feel if you agreed a 'compromise' agreement and your former team mate holdout gets paid in full?