trousers

The conspiracy theory being that Crouch 'negotaited' with Barclays to 'engineer' us into administration for the longer term good of the club?

Why does a Council end up cutting grants to the disabled or closing a loved local facility? By johnredwood | Published: February 14, 2012 The public sector, as we have seen, likes to assume that all last year’s current public spending is a given and should be repeated next year. If you want something extra, as the public sector always does, when budgets are tight, you therefore have to cut something. Council officials live in hope that their Councillors will raise taxes or car park charges or successfully lobby for higher government grants. So they pile on the nice to haves and the unavoidables extras in their budget papers. Councillors are often forced to say in return that they cannot find all the extra money “required”, and ask for some cuts instead. The game playing officers will then often choose the most politically damaging or the least popular cuts to try to persuade the Councillors that they should look again at getting more money in from some source or other. The same thing happens in some government departments. Officials reluctantly put forward cuts when they just want their Minister to go off and have a battle royal with the Treasury for more money. Why not, they reason, put forward a clumsy cut. The Minister may spot it and come to see he needs more money to avoid it. If he doesn’t, he may lose the cut in the execution. This may force the government to spend more money after a bruising encounter with Parliament and the media. Either way the department “wins”. It requires a strong and confident Minister to reject the budget paper, and say it is based on false choices. I never recall as a Councillor or as a Minister receiving a budget paper which recommended cutting the administrative overhead unless I had insisted on it. I was never voluntarily offered big savings on paper, pens, administrative staff, pensions, early retirements, absentee rates, volume of reports, postage, staff travel , conferences and all the rest. On the contrary. I remember letters sent out in government urging Ministers to do more overseas trips and conferences. Some of those were good, but they were always popular with the officials. They wanted to make sure their department kept up its totals and spent a full budget. In a competitive private sector company there is constant review of overheads. Management is always challenging itself to do more for less, or to do it better as well as cheaper. There is a common interest in buying better, in simplifying systems, in using talent better. In government there is often a common interest in maximising spend for no good reason other than that is what government does. Some politicians even send out claims that service X is better than service Y because more is spent on it, with no attempt to question how well the money is spent or what the users of the service think of its delivery. http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2012/02/14/why-does-a-council-end-up-cutting-grants-to-the-disabled-or-closing-a-loved-local-facility/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17025729

The creditors report for CSI shows a £17m loan to 'Portsmouth Football Club 2010' in the list of CSI assets and that CSI sourced that money (to loan to Pompey) from Portpin. Well, I think that's what its saying.... So, what does that all mean? Does that squeeze HMRC out of the picture as far as PFC2010 administration is concerned? Or have I misread the CSI creditor's report?

BBC Solent Sport @solentsport For those that missed it here's Pompey Chief Exec. David Lampitt live on Solent earlier (Pt 1 of 6) boo.fm/b667329 (pt 2 of 6) http://boo.fm/b667342 (Pt 3) http://boo.fm/b667344 (pt 4) http://boo.fm/b667346 (pt 5) http://boo.fm/b667350 (pt 6 of 6) http://boo.fm/b667353

As much as they were gunning for Harry Redknapp?

You know that. I know that. But.....

You're forgetting one simple difference between those 'normal' businesses and PFC...... the latter is a football club and they get special treatment from the UK legal system....

As many people on here have hightlighted, the press and media seem to be glossing over the £100m + debt that Pompey racked up 2 years ago. I recall listening to TalkSport on the day the mega list of creditors was published last time and they spent a whole hour reading through the list of small businesses one by one on air with disgust and incredularity. Maybe the way to highlight to those in the wider footballing community, who are of the impression that Pompey have settled up with all those creditors, is to resurrect that original creditor list and remind the ladies and gentlemen of the media and press that NONE of it has been paid back yet! (or did they pay back the charities as a token PR exercise a while back?)

To be fair to Pompey (*cough* *splutter*) they're only doing what a system riddled with loopholes allows them to do. The fact that a system exists whereby a company, in various incarnations, can dilute debt at the press of the administration panic button is the root cause of the problem. Pompey are just playing the game within the boundaries of the law (just)

Nope. I've got the same interview recorded from 2 years ago so will play that at my leisure. It will be almost identical to this morning's interview.

What, fill the pockets of a large greedy corporation rather than support a small local locksmith business? No wonder this country is going down the pan.... ;-)

This is the reality that a lot of people don't pick up on with all this administration malarkey, in that the PRIMARY objective for any adminstrator is to make a profit for HIS employer. That's why anyone is in business - to make a profit. Ergo, AA will do what's best for UHY Hacker. That's his job.

No. Needs reporting. My son was bitten by a dog a few years ago. Reported it (I got the registration number of the owners' car) and the police phoned back a couple of days later to say they had paid them a visit and issued a formal warning.

@pn_neil_allen: #Pompey have applied for 'small' validation order to get funds for period before admin granted. Needed to fund players' travel to Barnsley.

I think your hair looks fine as it is

You know that. I know that. My mum's pet s h i t z u knows that.....but....as we all know, any apparent wrong doing in the make believe world of PompeyLand gets glossed over by the powers that be....allegedly....

Chris Gibbs@ChrisGibbs81 @pn_neil_allen if the court delays the granting of Administration beyond next Monday, could the club be liquidated still next week? Neil Allen@pn_neil_allen @ChrisGibbs81 Possible. Admin would halt winding up process. Race against time again I'm afraid.

Page 1066.....hmmm.....gotta be some historic battle play-on-words opportunity to be had here....

Aaron Young@aaz_ @pn_neil_allen Will BC be only secured creditor going into admin? I.e. if BC has FP, & SG land: what can CSI 'secure' to muddy things?(!) Neil Allen@pn_neil_allen @aaz_ BC only secured creditor.

Rob Williams@boggenstrovia @pn_neil_allen Would be in the club's interests to take the 10 points and restart in League 1 next season? Clean slate and all that? Neil Allen@pn_neil_allen @boggenstrovia There can never be a clean slate while Chainrai and his debenture is around.

PST Spokesperson@pompeytrust @pn_neil_allen Is Lampitt expecting to lose his job Friday? Neil Allen@pn_neil_allen @pompeytrust Once admin granted CEO usually first to lose their job. Realistically he will go.

Josh Boothroyd@JoshBoothroyd @pn_neil_allen Can you see us getting out of this mess fairly unscathed? Neil Allen@pn_neil_allen @JoshBoothroyd Nobody gets out if it unscathed. Staff owed wages and small creditors lose out big time.

Shane Lawrence@lawro77 @pn_neil_allen how will administration be funded? Who by? Neil Allen@pn_neil_allen @lawro77 Needs to be discussed on Friday in hearing. BC promised to fund it last time - but never did.