dvaughanwilliams

Friday the 13th series was made on the cheap, but the first few films aren't bad. The first two Hellraiser films are good, but the special effects are very 80's looking. I Spit on Your Grave. I enjoyed both the 70s original and the recent remake. The remake is much gorier, the original more cinematically interesting. If you don't mind subtitles: Koma, Audition, Spider Forest (not really a horror as such), Ichi the Killer, The Happiness of the Katakuris (Japanese gory horror musical), Ichi the Killer (very, very gory), Hiruku the Goblin (very weird) Cabin Fever is good generally, but has a few naff elements. Hostel is gory but shallow, the sequel was awful. The Candyman series is good, with the first film being the best. The Omen 1-3 (not the remake of the first film)

No. They don't have sufficient cash flow to make payroll. If the players don't leave, the club won't start the season.

Precedent is for clubs to be paid stage payments due for player transfers, but it has never been reported that PPs have been withheld to pay players.

What you say is definitely true for a club that is a going concern. They have had PP's diverted to their football creditors during their administrations already. What is not known is what happens in a liquidation because it is a rare event, especially when the club involved is owed PPs. Also, the total amount owed is more than the PPs due. Would the shortfall get made up, if so by whom? As I remember things, previously the diverted money only went to clubs that were owed money, rather than players who were owed. Would clubs be prioritised in this instance? Players who have had wage payments missed have been offered loans from the PFA in the past, with the PFA then being Football Creditors of the club, I don't know what the PFA have offered to players of other clubs that have been liquidated.

I think that Bompey fans are going to be fuming if Pompey get treated more leniently than they were when they were in a similar position. The Football League were incredibly harsh about not letting them sign players and their goal keeping coach had to come out of retirement to sit on the bench. They frequently couldn't fill their bench and had to use youth team players to fill up the first 11. Their first friendly is in 3 weeks. There is a 4 week period for the high earners to leave, starting on Monday. I can't see the Football League allowing them to sign any players until the ownership problem is resolved and a substantial number of the leeches out of the door. That friendly could be a fiasco and I'm betting on a Hawks win against a makeshift youth team. The tour to Gibraltar is before the end of the 4 weeks as well. Fun, fun, fun.

I wonder when their first friendly is? What would they do if they haven't offloaded the parasites before the game and haven't been able to sign any players? Would they have a 'trialist' in goal or would it be they be drawing straws in the dressing room to see who has to don the gloves? I'm secretly hoping they adopt the proposal I saw on here a few pages back and go for the 'rush goalie' option. Edit: the internet informs me of the 'Monkey Rush' option http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=monkey%20rush which is new to me. Has anyone heard of this before?

Apologies for pedantry, but they're actually higher up than that. Administrators and court fees are protected by insolvency law and are the first to be paid out in the event of liquidation. Football Creditors are only protected by internal 'club rules' of the Football League.

I seem to remember Birch making comments along the line of 'Football creditors will be excluded from the CVA'. Whether that is just a reflection of the fact that the debt owed to them will not get reduced or an indication that they are not involved in the process at all, I don't know. When AA gave the Football Creditors a vote, it was considered controversial. I still don't understand why the trust think that the administrator of CSI will vote in favour of their CVA. If Chinny takes over, he said he would eliminate that debt as the prinicple creditor of CSI. If the trust takes over, would Chinny be due to get paid back £28m?

My understanding is that the current offer is that the unwanted players get paid a proportion of their outstanding contractual dues over 5 years or more. Probably starting on the 5th of Never.

What I meant was that players are told that they don't have a future at the club and are unlikely to play for the first team again. They then come to an agreement to pay up the contract and let the player leave, irrespective of the clubs finances. This kind of agreement doesn't make a mockery of the Football Creditors rule, despite the fact that a contract isn't paid in full. The current situation of pressurising the players through the press is unique and unpleasant, but I don't see what other options TB has. It's a Prisoners Dilemma. With brinkmanship on all sides and each party trying to maximise their own interests. However, if a player does agree to take a compromise it is, technically, his choice. They can just sit there and refuse any agreement and get the club liquidated. The point I was trying to make is that if the FCR didn't exist then the players would have been sacked, as they were with Rangers. The league wants to stop a club arranging big transfer deals and big wages with money the club doesn't have, gambling everything on the belief that they will be successful. The theory (which didn't work in practice) is that clubs, knowing that they will be held accountable to their Football debts, wouldn't arrange unsustainable contracts. The problem now is that given that a club run by 'optimists' HAVE got a load of unsustainable football debts, what is the correct resolution.

I disagree. The Football Creditors rule means that the players cannot be disadvantaged without their agreement. Without the FCR in a CVA all of the Football Creditors might vote against a reduction with the other 75.1% of creditors voting for, which would then be forced on the players or other clubs. Players agree to walk away from contracts all the time and clubs do deals to change staged payments all the time and none of those arrangements make a mockery of the Football Creditors rule.

I find your post interesting. The points you raise about the Federal Reserve are points normally raised by US conservatives. I am also unconvinced that they are true. Money is just 'keeping score'. The example given by Cullen Roche is that money is like points in a basketball game. The scorekeepers have an infinite number of points available to distribute, but someone has to score to gain the points. The other problem is that there is a debate, with no consensus about how banks work. We have set the rules, but do not understand everything about the game. The article that started this thread is a good case. The theory underlying the views of central banks are that banks need deposits or to borrow money first[\b] to lend it on to borrowers in society. Therefore, the Central Banks think that by supplying more money to banks, it will increase lending and stimulate the economy. The other possibility is that loans create money and after the loan is made the banks fund the reserves they require under our Fractional Reserve Banking system. If people can't agree on how banks, credit and the money supply actually operate, what hope is there of them agreeing on a solution. I have no affinity with the current system or its main proponents and ultimately the cost of monetary printing would hit surprisingly few people and would not create inflation. I also agree that Greek people should not be going without medicine because the Germans do not want to allow the possibility of 'moral hazard'. The views of Monetary Realism and MMT might be closer to your politics than you think.

For countries that have their own currency, this doesn't apply, they can merely increase the money supply to pay down the debt. In the Eurozone, or for countries that issue debt in other currencies, then what you say is true. The difference between a currency user and a currency issuer is all important. Look up Modern Monetary Theory or Cullen Roche's similar idea Monetary Realism.

Why does option 2 lead to a conclusion of money being broken? Debt isn't a problem for nations whose debt is issued in a currency over which they have sovereignty. In fact none of this is a problem if you look at things slightly differently. If you view the total amount of spending power in the economy as the total of money and credit (a view from 'Austrian' economics commentator Mike 'Mish' Shedlock http://www.globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com ) then this is actually falling. The amount of credit in the global economy is reducing through defaults, write offs and through governments, companies and individuals paying down debt. The total amount of credit in the economy dwarfs the money supply massively. The amount of new money being printed is vastly lower than the amount of credit being destroyed. This leads to the very real danger of deflation. Japan has been stuck in this situation of a collapse in the total amount of money and credit, despite massive government printing and deficit spending. They have hardly had any positive inflation numbers (as measured by prices) for 15-20 years. All this alarmist talk about the dangers of inflation that you read in the economically illiterate press or alarmist websites like http://www.zerohedge.com or http://www.market-ticker.org from money printing is looking at the wrong problem. My prediction: ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) for an extended period and inflation (as measured by the RPI or CPI) at very low or negative levels for the foreseeable future. The Eurozone is in a lot of trouble. There are possible solutions, but none that all the parties can agree on. [Caution: do not go anywhere near the comments sections of the websites I have mentioned. They are full of Goldbug, Right-Wing, Redneck gun nuts.]

I don't think that the Football League or PFA have a legal obligation to make good on the contracts, however, it wouldn't surprise me if they made a gesture to the Football Creditors. If another club faced insolvency as a result of Pompey failing to make a stage payment (what the Football Creditors rule was supposed to avoid) it would be rather embarrassing for the Football Authorities. The PFA offers loans to players in the event of non-payment and I suspect that they will offer 'support' to players that falls short of paying up the full value of the contracts on a means tested basis.

I know that to qualify for retaining a Golden Share requires that Football Creditors to be paid in full, but does it matter over the timescale? Could they commit the unreceived PPs to be paid direct to all outstanding Football Creditors (the FL would do this anyway), with none of the money received directly by the club. 4 weeks to ditch the 'quality' players through the constant deriding in the press and increasing the pressure on them to hand in their 14 days notice.

Objects don't have a single value. Think about antiques, buying a pair of items may cost more than double the cost of one of the items on its own. Or, imagine you own a big book, that you use to prop up a wobbly table. You value this book at a couple of quid, which is the replacement cost of buying something else to prop up the table. To a collector of rare books that signed, first edition copy of Ulysses, is worth a bit more - http://tinyurl.com/7qy45qy

It's the 2 conditions in the CVA that make the whole thing so tantalising. Chinny will only buy the club if the wages are reduced. This all hangs on what the players and other Football Creditors would get in liquidation. I know that it has been suggested that the Football Creditors would get paid off, but there isn't a precedent for this kind of situation, especially given that the total of Football debts, deferred wages and future wages probably total about £10m or more. If they are protected, I can't see why they would give up their contractual obligations. The suggestion that after Chinny takes control, CSI's administrators 'may' waive the debt. This kills the Trust stone dead. CSI's debts are being administered by AA who is Chinny's preferred administrator. CSI can vote down any rival CVA, especially with the assistance of HMRC. I can't think why the trust think that they could get any proposal through. However, their proposals about Chinny's secured debt will be interesting. It will be interesting to see if Football Creditors get to vote on the CVA. If they don't then CSI definitely have more than 25%.

Fixed it for you.

All Football creditors or just the players? What about the other deserving causes like Lumpitt? He's (somehow) a Football Creditor, but not a player does he get his filthy lucre? There are so few clubs that have actually gone into liquidation, there isn't much precedence for this situation and I don't think that there are any rules that spell out the consequences.

This quote is the key to their whole plight. It also confirms the conditionality of Chinny's bid. It's a game of chicken. If the club is to continue to participate in the league, it must make good on its commitment to wages and football debts. However, in liquidation, there is no Football Creditors Rule and the players must queue up with all the other creditors to get their deferred wages and the balance of their contracts paid. I'm not sure whether the PFA or FA or FL would step in and make good on the deferred wages in the event of liquidation, using parachute payments or transfer fee installments owed. Who blinks first?

Err, I'd hope that they're sending someone. An empty seat wouldn't look very good. Or it's a sign that all hope is lost...

My prediction for the outcome of the Football League AGM: Birch makes a caveat laden statement along the lines of "As long as the takeover of the club proceeds satisfactorily and an appropriate CVA is agreed, then PFC can complete their fixtures" The Football League makes a similar statement, granting the club conditional access, with none of the conditions being enforced. None of this improves the financial position of the club, but I'm fairly sure that the FL don't want to be the one to pull the plug. It's not in their interests.

The V of CVA is particularly important here. You wouldn't get away with it repeatedly. The creditors would vote it down. Given the experience of the first CVA, can you imagine the creditors accepting a ridiculous deal like the first one? It will be interesting to see if Trevor Birch gives the football creditors a vote in the upcoming CVA, considering that they don't stand to lose any of the money that they are owed. The last CVA only just got passed as a result of their votes and AA was criticised for allowing them to vote.