Gingeletiss

Fantastic food, but you need to book.

At last, someone who agrees with me. Two of us now;)

They're discussing this on their own forums, take this for example! mr_bishiuk Posted on 06/05/2010 14:07 Debt now 138million Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message HMRC's claim went up because they refused to accept any further payments from us deliberately pushing up their share of the total debt so they had a bigger shout in the CVA it's a game being played and the administrator IS ON THE CLUB'S SIDE :smt043:smt043

IMO yes, it is a matter of court record now, it was a document requested by the court, and signed off by the clubs directors as a true statement of the clubs affairs.

A date for the diary folks 15:15–15:45 BBC One (Oxfordshire, South only) Fit and Proper Persons? BBC South Today investigates the incredible problems at Portsmouth Football Club.

Eyes down, look in. The day of voting has arrived! http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8655397.stm HMRC's debts make up only 18% of the unsecured total (everything apart from Chainrai's loan and smaller amounts owed to banks) so it cannot block a CVA proposal on its own. It can, however, ask for a place on a creditors' committee that will oversee Andronikou's likely supervision of the CVA and voting for that body will also take place on Thursday. Gaydamak's investment vehicle Ocadia, the PFA and French clubs Lens and Rennes are among the other candidates for a seat on the three-to-five-strong committee.

Has this one been mentioned, looks like the saviour of Poopey;) Do you have any real evidence that Kraft could be a bidder? I live in the Boston area, am a huge Pats fan, and have been saying all along that the Kraft family would be the best possible solution for Pompey. Portsmouth today looks very much like the Patriots looked back when Kraft bought the team: down and out, broke, losing record, ancient facility. Patriots went on to become a powerhouse in the league, 3 Superbowl victories, a state-of-the-art stadium, etc. If Kraft buys the team I will be over the moon. http://www.fansonline.net/portsmouth/mb/view.php?id=261916

FFS, how much more sh1te will come out from that place. Bonuses will surely be 'new' debt, and must be held accountable by the Administrator.

You have to laugh, well I am anyway:DUtaka:D http://www.teamtalk.com/portsmouth/6131036/Pompey-pair-prepared-to-stay?

Just the chat on a few of their forums, mind you, they've had everyman and his dog as the buyer, so just one name amongst many.

So the name being bandied around as the money behind the Rob Lloyd bid is.... Peter De Sisto Is this the guy who ruined Petersfield FC?

Why, not deemed good enough for B & HA, but you think he's good enough for us, not only next season, but potentially the season after in the CCC.

No, but Richard Wright is, and he's being released by Ipswich! Thought he was very good for us on loan, I have always rated him.

I think it's clear from that link, we should stop the Scots and Welsh from voting, as they have theitr own assemblys, then the picture would be very blue;) Come on Dave C!

Agreed, strange don't you think, that Scottish football now wants to increase the size of it's top division again, as the football has got boring playing each other four times. Whereas, the PL in this country, would like to have that self same format, and have a PL 2 for the also rans. Let them go says I. Let us have our league football as it was meant to be, they will implode soon enough, the signs are all there. Tell them to stick it, but don't come crawling back in future years. The FA, will have to make a choice, keep tickling the tummy of the PL, or saying bog off, we are the footballing authority in this country, affiliated with the Football Associations all over the world, so you cannot play in our competitions.

Oh dear oh dear, what are they doing to the game I love? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1270208/Charles-Sale-Football-League-breakaway-threat-parachute-row.html Private talks have taken place among Championship clubs about a breakaway from the Football League following the decision of the lower divisions to reject the Premier League package of parachute and solidarity payments worth £400million over three years. Feelings are running so high that there is talk of taking up the offer, worth £48m in phased payments to relegated clubs and £4.6m a year to the rest of the division, and splitting from the Football League in what would bring about a Premier League Two in all but name.

Matey in todays paper, has lost his job. He was a councilor, and refused to council a gay couple over their sexual problems. It comes to something when this sh1t happens in trhis country. Everyone has rights, except 'Mr Average'.

It appears, that the cheating referees are to blame for Poor smouth not getting into Europe via the 'fairplay', and that Burnley might;) scumslayer Posted on 29/04/2010 19:12 Even Burnley have a chance to play in Europe Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message If The Sun get their finger out their arse and keep an eye on this one, they could blow a lid on the "refereeing" that we are put through every week. What do they have to lose? Liverpool hate them anyway.

The court asked for this, it was submitted to the court, it therefore, is now a legal document.

You've gotta laugh.....haven't you? GazaLaad #1 27 Apr 2010 20:14 Complain | Prev | Next | Signed: April 2010 Portsmouth in europe.. ... Posts: 1 Trialist How can Man City sign a keeper but Portsmouth cant play in the Euopa League?? What happened to rules are rules ?? If your a big team it appears rules donat always apply.

The man who withheld the charity money, was.................. http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Azougy-criticised-as-Pompey-fail.6258547.jp

This is a posted response by the group of Poor smouth fans, who are holding meetings with AA. As you will be aware, a number of supporters groups have been meeting with the Administration team of UHY Hacker Young to discuss the clubs current insolvenct. Following internal misgivings about the progress of the information we sent the following message to the Administration team. We have received an initial response but are waiting for a more complete statement about whether the team wish to consider the process. Fans representatives would like to place on record their disappointment at the manner in which meetings with the administration team of UHY Hacker Young have been conducted to date. Whilst we appreciate that the administrators are under no obligation to meet with supporters, the administration team stand to benefit as much as supporters from a full, frank and open dialogue. The general feeling among the group following the first two meetings was that the messages we were hearing from one member of the team were very different to the messages being relayed to the media by another. It has also to be said that it was felt very little had been achieved by the administration team. Following the third meeting with two of the three co-administrators, even more questions have arisen over the transparency with which these meetings are being conducted. Among our chief concerns are; 1.Supporter's representatives were told at the first two meetings with Mr Kiely that the overall debt was £78m. Three days after the second meeting Mr Andronikou published a debt figure £22m higher. 2.At the third meeting we were given a “definitive” break down of the debt, amounting to a total of £99.8m. Shortly afterwards again Mr Andronikou revealed a figure £22m higher to the media. 3.Following the initial meeting, a comment from Mr Kiely was excised from the minutes under the guise of making purely grammatical corrections. Although an apology was received, this change was transacted in a far from open and transparent manner. 4.At the third meeting the validity of Sasha Gaydamaks £32m loans to the club was raised. Mr Andronikou stated that all these loans were visible in the “last published independently audited accounts” and therefore beyond question. However, the recently issued Report to Creditors shows that £22.6m of these loans were not loans to Mr Gaydamak until August 2009, at least six months after the last independently audited accounts were issued. There is a further £2.5m tranche which is the subject of a subrogated right of security claim by Mr Gaydamak which did not arise until at least October 2009. Therefore, over £25m of the Gaydamak debt is NOT in the last independently audited accounts. This discrepancy is very difficult to accept. 5.Mr Andronikou claimed at the Thursday 8th April meeting that his team had seen the bank transactions and demonstrated that Portpins loans had come into the business and not left the business to any associates. However, he also subsequently revealed that he did not yet have access to the Fuglers accounts. As the club was operating from the Fuglers account at this time this raises the question of how the administration team could make this assertion? 6.Mr Andronikou said that significant copy fees were being paid to Fuglers for the bank records. As the club was paying Fuglers for banking services; Why is the club paying again for copies of records it is surely entitled to? What happened to the clubs copies of these records? 7.At the first meeting we asked Mr Kiely what the date was by which we had to exit administration to avoid a further points deduction. At the second meeting we asked this again and clearly Kiely had made no effort to ascertain this information. At the third meeting we asked again and were told “Must agree CVA by the time the fixtures for next season are published on 17th June” by Mr Andronikou. This is clearly incorrect and no such deadline exists for agreeing a CVA with regard to points deductions for season 2010/2011. We feel this speaks to a serious want of rigour as this information is freely available. 8.We asked at the first two meetings whether Mr Chainrais status as a secured creditor had been accepted by HMRC in line with HMRC barristers comments that this remained a matter likely to require adjudication at a later time. At the first two meetings Mr Kiely denied any knowledge of such a question mark over Mr Chainrais status. At the third meeting Mr Andronikou accepted that this query had been made but claimed it was simply a face-saving exercise by HMRC. We feel this demonstrates a clear lack of communication within the team and also fails to alleviate concerns over whether Chainrai really is a secured creditor. 9.At the first meeting we asked whether a meeting of creditors would be convened before the March 26th deadline we understood to have been imposed by the judge at our winding up hearing in March. We were told by Mr Kiely that no such deadline was specified in the consent order and promised a copy of the consent order would be sent immediately following the meeting. This has taken two months to produce, and at time of writing has still not arrived. At the second meeting we were given to understand the administrators could wait 10 weeks and again we asked for the consent order. At the third meeting Mr Andronikou specified a period of 12 weeks although he mentioned an informal meeting had been held sometime previously. In the Report to Creditors it transpires that the administrators are now claiming a meeting of creditors was held on March 25th. Please explain this discrepancy. 10.At the April 8th meeting we were given no intimation of the pending appointment of Mr Lampitt as CEO which was announced the following morning. We would not expect to be given the name of any candidate before one was appointed but it would certainly have been possible for the team to share with us that an appointment was imminent. As it was, we were not informed an appointment was even being sought. Again, this reflects poorly on the commitment to openness and transparency we were given by the administration team. 11.We were told that no-one would be given access to the data room without the members of their party being named and proof of funds shown to the administration teams satisfaction. The Lloyd group were given this access despite Andronikou claiming that he retained concerns over identities and proof of funds. Notwithstanding the weak proviso that “they were not allowed to take any information out”, this is completely inconsistent. 12.Mr Andronikou claimed that two groups initially provided proof of funds and these have now merged to form one and this gave him concern. He was absolutely unable to explain this discrepancy, as logic would suggest that two groups with proof of funds merging to form one group was a positive development. There is also great concern that Andronikou appears to be adopting a publicly negative attitude towards the Lloyd group, whilst asking them to observe a complete media silence. 13.Mr Andronikou explained that one part of the raison d'etre for Peter Storries continued employment by Portsmouth Football Club was his ability to advise on player sales. Again we were not informed that Icon Sports Management had been retained to perform this role, and this invites questions over openness and transparency. 14.Redundancy payments had not been made to the employees who left the club which is most regrettable. 15.We were told at the second meeting by Mr Kiely that no further redundancies were planned. At the third meeting Mr Andronikou more or less stated that further redundancies were inevitable. Again, this speaks to either a lack of communication between the team or a lack of candour to supporters representatives. 16.It took over two weeks to agree the minutes for this third meeting. We have received a request for the taking of minutes to be dispensed with as it is claimed that reading and agreeing them is too time consuming. This is unacceptable. The taking of minutes is a basic discipline for any business meeting, and it is felt by supporters representatives that the minutes have been critical in highlighting the many discrepancies outlined here. The output from these meetings so far has been very disappointing in terms of both information gleaned and the administration teams ability to live up to the standards of openness and transparency they promised. Whilst we have every desire to work with the team to help ensure supporters are on board with the club and working with them during this difficult time it is imperative that the administration team raise their game substantially in these areas if the process is to continue.

Phil, Phil, Phil, I think you're being very unfair to the players, They may be greedy gits, they may condone the fleecing of various charities, they may be at Poor smouth through nefarious means they even support their moaning whinging manager. But Phil, they have dug into their pockets, to pay the wages of their kit man. Christ sakes, who else have they got to hang clean towels on their pegs, and pick up their dirty clothes!

Ah yes, but they will more than likely still be in administration, what say you?

Not the impression I had got, what with a 'special BVI' account being set up!. According to a few of their 'BFITW', they can buy at a discount now!