trousers

Tease

Aye. Thought he was fit again?

@officialsaints: Saints substitutes: K. Davis (GK), Hooiveld, Ward-Prowse, Guly, Shaw, Mayuka, Puncheon. #saintsfc

@officialsaints: Saints substitutes: K. Davis (GK), Hooiveld, Ward-Prowse, Guly, Mayuka, Puncheon. #saintsfc

@officialsaints: Saints team: Gazzaniga, Clyne, Fonte, Yoshida, Fox, Schneiderlin, S. Davis, Lallana ©, Ram?rez, Lambert, Rodriguez. #saintsfc

Good Lord. Well, at least that's another £1.2m they can add to the CVA fund, now that Pompey have a new moral foundation and all that...

@TonyHusbandBBC: #pompey Appleton now linked with Blackpool job- will be the 5th job which I can think of that he's been in the frame for this season!

Echo that. Without wishing to point score or dwell on the negative side, if people want to read about the lack of sensitivity toward the victim then this is probably a better place to start: http://m.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-boss-admits-forward-was-not-ready-for-cup-clash-1-4442478

Tucked away in the Sun (apologies if already posted): http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4627008/Dan-Kings-Sport-Uncovered-Man-City-fans-pay-the-price.html First time I've read that the Trust are disputing Birch's fees. What is there to argue about? I thought the Trust wanted to start in an honourable fashion...? From where i'm sitting they appear to want to start off by not paying new debt, let alone writing off the old debt. Same old....

Head: WBA 3 Saints 1 Heart: WBA 1 Saints 2 COME ON HEART!

It's been mentioned in passing but I can't see anyone trying to make a "big thing" out of it.

That would be a tad harsh...

Indeed

This year's money (when it arrives later in the season)

Perhaps not. I agree that he does seem to be covering a scenario that he hopes will never happen (i.e. putting money aside from the "good" premier league years in case we ever get relegated). There again, I've got all sorts of personal and household insurances despite taking measures to try and make sure I'll never need to call upon them. But if all we're doing here is accusing Cortese of covering a scenario he hopes will never happen then I'm sure there are worse things that he could be accused of.

Ah...someone who can articulate my interpretation much better than I can! Thank you kind sir. Time for me to return to the comfort zone of the PTS thread me thinks

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