trousers

Edit: actually, the bit I'm quoting Cortese re: "covering shortfall" is actually him criticising others for doing this....so, ignore my citation of that bit! I still think he's stating it as an aspiration once the club have had a good first season though.

Because that bit had already been quoted (and the rest left out). I just added the bits that had been left out previously.

Yes, but that's the bit I interpret as a longer term aspiration once the club has actually reached the point where it can put said aspiration into practice. In the same article Cortese acknowledges that it's not something you can achieve on "day 1".

Without wishing to descend into tiresome pedantry....Cortese said: "If we reach the Premier League, I would like to be in a position where we did not need parachute payments. In good years you should put money away for the bad years.” Which, to me, says that when we have our first "good year" in the Premier League we will put some of the profits from that year to one side rather than spend it all on the next season. As such, we haven't actually got to the point yet where Cortese can put aside the money reaped from a "good year" in the premier league. Indeed, in the same article Corteses says: "But we’ll have some success and bring in more cash to cover the shortfall" which, again my interpretation, is basically saying "until such time we establish ourselves as a successful side in the premier league we'll need to 'over spend' in the short term to get to that point" In other words, we can accuse Cortese of going against his word if he starts spending money we can't sustain after our first "successful" season in the premier league. IMHO of course.

No, quite the opposite. I know nothing about it, hence I've only ever expressed my gut feel.

A quick observation.... When the news broke about this loan malarkey on the 3rd October 2012 the companies house website showed the following: However, a week later (on the 10th October 2012) another "Statement of Capital" was posted: This latest 'SOC' shows £500,000, which is the same as the 'SOC' declared a year earlier. So, the loan didn't have any effect whatsoever on our capital position. Does this tell us anything we don't already know? Whilst I know next to nothing about company finances (does it show?), to me this tells us either (a) the loan was never drawn down into the company accounts or (b) the loan was drawn down but went out again within c.3 weeks of being granted. If (a) is correct then perhaps this is money that was earmarked for the alluded to central defender purchase that supposedly fell through at the last minute. If (b) is correct then does this confirm the cash was required for Ramirez because Bologna were insisting on payment upfront? Or perhaps it means sod all and we're none the wiser....

Quite surprised to see that the 1980s had far fewer million selling singles than the 1970s and 1990s. I guess the 80s was more a case of quantity over quality

Some good progress from agent Howard at the weekend I see.... http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-boss-backs-skipper-to-bounce-back-stronger-1-4442481

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/allan-faces-new-questions-over-injured-man-1-4442785

Cheers Steve

Indeed. The 'trouble' with a forum such as this is that its human nature to veer towards one pole or the other when it comes to any given debate. I'm happy to acknowledge that the loan could either be "a complete disaster because we've run out of money" (at one end of the polarised debate) or it could be "a simple business decision and nothing to worry about" at the other end of the scale. My gut feel is pulling me towards the latter. One thing I guess we can all agree on is that such pragmatism is a bit dull for a forum such as this

Yep, that's pretty much it. I'm just looking at my nett position. Assets - "debt" = +ve

Getting this alert when accessing the forum via Chrome this morning:

The bit you seemed to know more about than me is the term (length) of the loan.

@SOSPompey: The story of Barry Town have so many similarities with ourselves, so sad! Please read http://t.co/lfAaYP5X and you'll get an idea! Yep...almost identical...

You know more about this loan than I do

Indeed. I think we all share the same level of curiosity (more or less). The difference comes when some jump to one conclusion and others another. I'm in the "hmm, this is slightly curious, I wonder what all this is about, let's wait and see" camp. Less "head in sand" more "sit on the fence".

As CB Fry said, none of us know the reasons behind the loan. Either Cortese is going back on his 'promise' and being reckless with our finances or it's to ease cash flow for one season. We'll find out in about 18 months.

Yep, in a coma in Southampton hospital apparently. They kept that quiet before yesterday's game. http://m.portsmouth.co.uk/news/transport/travel-latest/shock-as-man-in-coma-after-scott-allan-crash-1-4442355

Heading into Groundhog Day territory here (for once) but it depends what people mean by 'debt'. For example, I owe my mortgage company c.£100k but I don't consider myself to be 'in debt'. However, if my assets were less than my loan, then I would consider myself to be 'in debt'.

Indeed.

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?t=40433

Straitjacket for Mr Allen... http://m.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/opinion/they-may-have-scared-the-living-daylights-out-of-pompey-but-bond-always-wins-1-4434743

I shouldn't laugh but... @solentsport: #pompey's Scott Allan received a straight red card not two yellows according to referee Darren Sheldrake. He will now face a 3 match ban.

Source?