trousers

Not forgetting the tax the council will need to pay on the income...

Not much..... just enough to buy a few beers to drown my sorrows with....

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/politics/portsmouth-city-council-agree-to-loan-1-45m-to-pompey-supporters-trust-1-4832806

I hereby apologise for the glimmer of respect I started giving this Hall character last year. How DARE local council members argue against loaning money to a private enterprise when local services are having to absorb a necessary reduction in funding. Still, it gives paves the way for months more hilarity on here....

Southampton FC ‏@SouthamptonFC Our Under-21s take on their @LFC counterparts in the #BU21PLElite Group at St Mary's next Monday at 7pm – and admission is FREE! #saintsfc

Why, under "Reductions in Risk" do the council state "Parachute payments are expected to increase by £4m (from £7.0m to £11.0m)" How come? What's changed?

Appendix C (part 2)

Appendix C highlights the council's position on the previous loan conditions:

I see that they are having to bend the usual council rules to accommodate the Pompey loan "finalisation" in today's council meeting. Is anything ever dealt with in a 'straight' manner when it comes to that runt of a club? http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/Cab20130227a.pdf

For amusement purposes only, a quick reminder of the "Income Assumptions" the council were working to before approving the loan last August: http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/Cab20130227rAppB.pdf

Looks like a good find. What's that an appendix to? It at least lays rest to the urban myth that the land is protected by an 'un-moveable' sporting covenant.

Possibly a daft question coming up here but.....If he's in a position to "guarantee" repayment of the council loan, should the whole thing go t1ts up on 'day 1', why doesn't he loan the money to the PDT himself in the first place? In other words, if they've got an investor with the wealth to underwrite the deal why does the council need to loan them money at all?

I'm gonna cover this one off with a bet on the draw (5/2) and on a QPR win (3/1)

Can someone explain why the council even need to re-convene today to "finalise the agreement"? They "finalised the agreement" back in August: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19183904 Why do they need another meeting to "finalise" what has already been "finalised"? Surely a more accurate description of the objective of the meeting is: "to re-approve the loan due to a change in the conditions imposed when it was agreed last time"? A reminder of the original conditions: That the club owned and operated by the trust is the same club that was relegated and has membership of the relevant football league That the club and its assets are bought for £7.68m, which includes provision for the full and final settlement of the football creditors That the club owned and operated by the trust obtains all rights to the £11.7m of parachute payments That the trust obtains a legal charge over Fratton Park That no other legal charges are made against the income or assets of the club, beyond those set out in the trust's business plan, without the prior consent of the council That the council receives an assignment of parachute payments to repay the loan or that an investor guarantee is provided by the trust for the full £1.45m That a subscription agreement for the trust's Fan Share Scheme, High Net Worth Investors and Associate Director Scheme is in place, which has been approved by the city solicitor and does not allow money to be taken out of the club until the council has been repaid That proof of funds from the three schemes has been demonstrated That a suitably skilled and experienced chief executive is appointed by the trust Edit: Actually, I can see they have a 'get out' clause in there re: using the parachute payments to guarantee the loan - that can be replaced by an "investor guarantee"..... have they got one of those...?

Thought for the day: If a council borrowing money to loan to a private company is a 'risk free' win-win for both parrties, why isn't this practice widespread throughout the land?

At least this answers my question regarding the delay in confirming the next court case date...

Hmmm.....it would seem that the "loan to be underwritten by parachute payments" condition has been conveniently airbrushed....IIRC from the transcript of the original loan approval meeting, that was one of the key factors in the council agreeing the loan... Anyway, popcorn at the ready for 1:40pm...

So, it's almost a week ago since this... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21532233 Can anyone clarify the definition of the word "few" for me in this context? (Not the alternative definition of: "25,000 imaginary football club supporters packing Fratton Park") Surely there can't be yet another hold up given the Trust are "Ready to go with their robust business plan ™" can there?

A lot of bike riders don't do themselves any favours either - works both ways. (Perhaps a debate for another thread as don't wish to send this one off topic)

@solentsport: FT - #Pompey 1 - 1 MK Dons

@officialpompey: Chicken scuffs a shot well wide (70 mins) #Pompey

@bbcquestiontime: Don't forget - you can still be in the audience of this week's live edition of #bbcqt in Eastleigh. Apply here: http://t.co/21FlAf6YGX

@officialpompey: Mk Dons substitution: Otsemobor on for Williams (65 mins) #Pompey

@officialpompey: Attendance: 9,815 (267 away fans) #Pompey