Corporate Ho

Never confident - it's Pompey isn't it. According to the rumours there are two groups interested, one more advanced than the other but both taking the FAPPT. One's an Italian group and th other's English. Duffen's name has been mentioned and he's been linked before but it's allegedly the Italians who are further down the road. No inside info girls, it's all on POL My God your spelling and grammar are bad, aren't they? Why do you smell bull****? If I'd wantd to "gloat" about potential new owners I'd have come on here last week when they started talking about it on POL. Which is where all the rumours are coming from. Anyway, enough of that, time for you to read your Janet and John 3c book and try and improve your English I only post on your funny website when I'm at work. It helps pass the time laughing at your conspiracy theories. Can anyone tell me what it is the football authorities who are "protecting" us are scared will come out? No-one wants to answer apparently and I'm intruiged

PMSL. First day back at work and it's conspiracy time again. Just what is it that the FA/ PL/ FL/ UEFA/ FIFA/ Bilderberg group are scared will come out? You're a bunch of ****ing mentalists. Get a life you bunch of freaks

Hello again campers (oops). Went to the pub for our Xmas break drink and it went on a little longer than we expected. Another hour and we'll be back there so hardly worth coming back to read what blinkered ****e you lot have posted in my absence but here we go. Nope, but I do think many of you on here accuse me of saying something that was posted by someone else. Otherwise how do you explain the accusations that I said maradona would be our manager when I've posted a link several times to a quote of me saying exactly the opposite? Maybe it's the menopause or something with you love, I don't know how else to explain it Maybe they didn't have the budget for a better one Dubya????? Here's something else I forgot to post for you. Remember your famous post that CSI were in talks with Bournemouth again and had pulled out of buying Pompey? Remember how your "source" knew this to be true because they'd seen Antonov's F1 outside a cafe in Sandbanks? We all remember that, don't we posters. I was told last week that Antonov doesn't have an F1, but guess who does? Max Demin, the guy who bought 50% of Bournemouth from Eddie Mitchell. Whoops Dubya. They all look the same to you, don't they? ROTFPMSL. Come on Dubya, what are you going to get wrong next? LOL If he wanted to launder money he had banks (not one bank, BANKS) to do it through. Why buy a football club to do it? Or even if he didn't want to use the banks, why not do it through any one of the other companies he owns. You seem to suggest I'm defending Antonov on this foum, which I'm not. I just can't see any reason why he'd buy Pompey as a money laundering operation when he had so many opportunities to do it elsewhere, especially when the amount we were allowed to spend was restricted by the FL. Yes he allegedly spent £10m+ (hello Dubya) in the summer but that was with express approval of the FL. Why buy a money laundering operation where the amount you can launder is so restricted? It gnuinely doesn't make any sense PMSL. Your lot's concern for others is touching. It's always pensioners and poor hospital wards being closed because of Pompey isn't it. I didn't realise it was only pensioners that invested in Snoras. Surely there must have been thousands of terminally ill children who'd opened accounts there too for you to post your hand wringing hypocritical posts about? I'll tell you why I think you're a bunch of hypocrites on this subject. You bang on about charities and HMRC and how terrible it is that they've lost money (which it is) and then you want Pompey wound up which means these people you purport to care about would get nothing just because it would please you as football supporters. What a bunch of gutless hypocrites (and bot band wannabees) you truly are Err, I think if you look it up I responded to his post directly just one or two pages after he posted it. Sorry to **** on your Xmas Pudding Whereas with yours every one of them has a ( unt inside it Jesus Christ in his manger surrounded by donkeys and shepherds. Do you not actually read anything I write? For the last couple of years I've said PFC has been the victim of criminal activity. Money has gone missing (£40m according to an article Dubya posted recently which he felt was "very good") we've had all sorts of crooks and charlatans associated with the club. If you think I've been defending these people I have no idea where your head's at. The difference is you dancing queens blame PFC when all I try and point out is that these shysters have used the club and lined their own pockets and driven us to the brink. And you think I'm defending them and saying everything in the garden's rosey? What ****ing planet are you on you 'tard That's it from me. Three posts and out for the rest of the year. What will Santa bring you? A new, even younger Polish girlfriend for Dubya? Anti hot flush tablets for VFTT? A big boy to guard Holepuncture from those nasty Pompey bullies? (is the Chinese burn going down now mummy's kissed it better?) Anyway, here's another video clip for you all to dance along to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7ErrZ-ipoE

I don't know if the problem is you lot are to thick to differentiate between what different posters write or you're too thick to understand written English but I get accused of saying so much that I never actually said. Maradona as manager (posted links several times to my post saying it would never happen but I'm still told I said it) the harbour stadium was definitely going to happen (my stance all along was that I had no idea what would happen with it) and the fact is that ref the WC bid, it was widely reported at the time that the FA may have been willing to contribute some funding to stadium redevelopment (not that they'd pay for a new stadium, but would contribute some money). Maybe other Pompey posters on here said those things, I certainly didn't. Still, won't stop ou posting it again, will it? Funny, every time I puncture another myth on here (this time about not being able to afford Sol's cup bonus) I get a response like this. You clearly din't/ can't read the article properly. The money he sued for was due for the season 2008/9. We won the cup in 2008 (end of the 2007/8 season). I've included the pertinent bit below. Portsmouth allegedly agreed to pay Campbell's fees in twice-yearly lump sums direct to the trust fund. In 2006-07 the payments were said to have totalled £1.04 million and in the following two years (that's seasons 2007/8, the season we won the cup and season 2008/9 the year after the cup win), after Campbell had renegotiated the contract to £30,000 a week, they reached £1.56 million a year. Portsmouth also allegedly agreed to give Campbell a £500,000 bonus if he made more than 25 appearances in Premier League and FA Cup games in 2008-09, also into the trust fund. Campbell was also said to be due a month's wages, estimated at £130,000, if he had not been signed by another club within a month of his contract ending in June 2009. This money allegedly became due when Campbell remained out of contract until late August 2009, when he began his ill-starred one-match spell at Notts County. Campbell received his money for the first two seasons of the deal as agreed (including our cup winning season), but he alleges that the first instalment on his 2008-09 contract (the season after we won the cup), agreed at £520,000 and due on Dec 31 2008, was paid late. The payment was eventually made on Jan 28, with Portsmouth also paying Campbell interest of more than £3,000. The centre-half was said to have been due to receive the balance of payments, totalling £1.67 million, at the end of June 2009, but he alleges he is yet to be paid and is claiming the outstanding money plus interest of more than £60,000. So, the money he sued us for was from the season after we won the cup, not his cup bonuses. That must be clear even to a 'tard like you now surely? Also, in the article, it staes that PFC's problems stemmed from Standard calling in the loan in late 2008 - after we won the cup if I'm not mistaken. Which means that despite your pathetic whining on here we weren't in trouble before that and didn't cheat to win the cup as our finances were in line with the majority of other PL teams at our level. Never mind girls, it's panto season now. You can do your little song together on stage. Meet the gang cos the boys are here . . . . . .

I'm not "concerned" about your Lalanna chant and someone being gay isn't a problem for me (I'm of the opinion that there's too much misery and suffering in the world to be worried about who someone is ****ging). I (and most other Pompey fans) just thought you looked like the campest group of football fans ever doing your little co-ordinated "routine". And the fact you didn't do it again after we took the **** out of you suggests it dawned on you how silly it looked too. You do all seem very sensitive about it. Altogether now "meet the gang cos the boys are here, the boys to entertain you". . . . . So, has he laundered any money through Pompey then? If he owned banks here he was allegedly laundering cash on a massive scale I ask again, why bother buying a championship football club to do it through, especially one that had to run everything it did financially past the football authorities. 'tards on here keep telling me that Pompey were the only club they'd buy because it was "dodgy" and would let them run a money laundering operation. But we all know they were interested in other clubs as well which scotches that theory. If they wanted launder big sums of cash why not buy a PL club? I've posted time and time again that you geeks are wrong about this so let's settle it once and for all. Sol Campbell wasn't owed oney until July 2009 - a year after we won the cup. It wasn't his cup bonus that he was sueing us for. We didn't have problems until after we won the cup. Read this article in full and see if anyone's big enough to admit you've been wrong about this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/portsmouth/7028987/Sol-Campbell-sues-Portsmouth-for-1.7m-as-club-loses-tax-appeal.html According to Campbell's writ, Portsmouth agreed to pay the centre-half £20,000 a week, rising to £30,000 in the last two years of his contract, in exchange for allowing the club to use his image in commercial, sponsorship and endorsement deals. Campbell received the payments on top of his wages, which the writ maintains had reached £30,000 a week in the 2008-09 season. Portsmouth allegedly agreed to pay Campbell's fees in twice-yearly lump sums direct to the trust fund. In 2006-07 the payments were said to have totalled £1.04 million and in the following two years, after Campbell had renegotiated the contract to £30,000 a week, they reached £1.56 million a year. Portsmouth also allegedly agreed to give Campbell a £500,000 bonus if he made more than 25 appearances in Premier League and FA Cup games in 2008-09, also into the trust fund. Campbell was also said to be due a month's wages, estimated at £130,000, if he had not been signed by another club within a month of his contract ending in June 2009. This money allegedly became due when Campbell remained out of contract until late August 2009, when he began his ill-starred one-match spell at Notts County. Campbell received his money for the first two seasons of the deal as agreed, but he alleges that the first instalment on his 2008-09 contract, agreed at £520,000 and due on Dec 31 2008, was paid late. The payment was eventually made on Jan 28, with Portsmouth also paying Campbell interest of more than £3,000. The centre-half was said to have been due to receive the balance of payments, totalling £1.67 million, at the end of June 2009, but he alleges he is yet to be paid and is claiming the outstanding money plus interest of more than £60,000. Intriguingly, the alleged late payments to Campbell coincide with the start of Portsmouth's slide into difficulties. In late 2008, the club's main creditor, Standard Bank, demanded that outstanding loans of £30 million be made in full, triggering Sacha Gaydamak's withdrawal from the club and the current crisis.

We're not laughing at the words you divs. We're laughing at the co-ordinated, boy band style arm waving that made you look like like a camp bunch of queens at a gay disco. WTF do your team run out to at St Mary's, YMCA? PMSL What's up? I think you're a muppet who must misunderstand practically everything I post. I've not said we're fine once since Antonov was arrested. I think we've got big problems. What I've been trying to point out to a lot of the mongs on here who keep banging on about us being "inextricably linked" (or "inexorably linked as one complete tool wrote) is that of course we're linked to CSI, that's not in question. But that's not why the FL docked you ten points. It's because the club and SLH were "inextricably linked as one economic entity" - you were just one business. As CSI paid £30m (whether it was worth that or not) for the WRC rights it's clear that some of their other businesses stand on their own - hence we're not linked "as one economic entity". Of course we have financial problems now Antonov's not putting cash in but you'd have problems if the Liebherr's weren't subsidising you. Does that mean you and the other Liebherr businesses are "inextricably linked as one economic entity"? **** me you dins are hard work

Whatever happens to Pompey, at least you gave us the biggest laugh we've ever had at Fratton park with your Lallana chant. The campest football chant ever. Most of us are still laughing at it now. Someone recorded it so I've linked it below so you can see how embarrassing it was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImTosJYngJE

No, ****tard, read what I actually wrote. I said he couldn't expect PFC to pay stolen money back to HIM. What is it with your obsession with Moneyfields as well? Was it some rough boys from Copnor who gave you a wedgie and scarred you for life? If you didn't keep on insisting that your hatred for us is because of the poor charities and hospitals I might believe you more. Just be honest about it instead of all the hand wringing hypocrisy Inextricably linked "as one economic entity". There's no doubt CSI and Pompey are linked is there you idiot. The point is whether, like you and SLH, the club is the only asset. Seeing as Antonov apparently paid £30m for the WRC rights we're clearly not. Try and keep up "Sources close to Chainrai claim he is still owed £12million from the CSI sale" http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Portsmouth-will-not-be-docked-points-after-parent-company-enters-administration-says-Football-League-article836217.html Never seen you ask it before. the simple answer is because the money wasn't due to him until later (July 2009 if I remember correctly) by which time we WERE in financial touble. I've edited FC's post as I've never liked Tolstoy, especially on football forums. Ref what it would cost, I'd expect any potential buyer to suggest paying the £10.8m "loan" Antonov made to PFC straight to Chainrai as the purchase price. CSI owe him the money after all and that would kill two birds with one stone. CVA is lrgely covered by parachute payments and the land around the stadium is only an issue if the owner (whoever it might be) wants to enlarge/ develop the ground. As for the losses, I'm told the accounts Lampitt's going to publish in Feb show we made a loss of £1m

Might not be that simple though. It was said that Antonov had invested £10.8m into PFC and had done it in the form of a loan. The question is, how was the use of that money structured? Most on here seem to think he pumped £10.8m into subsidising the club for wages etc. but if the reports were accurate £5m of it went to Chainrai as the first installment in paying for the club. Some went to other clubs for player purchases. So presumably, either the Lithuanians would ask Chainrai for that cash back or PFC would ask for it back to give back to them. Would Chainrai give it back? Who's liable for it? I guess we could sell the players we bought and use the money generated from that to pay some. Unless anyone on here can tell me exactly how the money was spent and how the "loan" was broken down. You're all investigative genius' so I assume you know the answer

Which part of "as one economic entity" is it that you struggle to understand? PMSL I bet any journalists who come on here after reading your proud boasts about your investigative prowes and intelligence must be so impressed at the fact that everyone's a mensa member Happy for one of your investigative genius' to prove me wrong but so far Lithuania can't seize/ freeze Antonov's assets anywhere except their own country. If they could, presumably they'd be stopping Andronikou's company from finding buyers for the various CSI businesses to pay off Chainrai's charge. But they're not, are they? Furthermore, if the money Antonov used in PFC was stolen, I fail to see how he can expect the club to b expected to pay it back to him. That leaves PFC owing around £3m to Gaydamak and around £12m to Chainrai (I seem to remember it being reported that CSI had paid an installment off the purchase pice of £17m for PFC) plus the CVA. So any potential owner could probably pick up the club for around £10m, plus the cost of th CVA - a lot of which is covered by the parachute payments. Chainrai only gets his money if the clubs a going concern. If it folds he only has the value of the land which is £7m and even then it will take him years and a fortune in legal fees to get any building approval granted. Whether anyone will buy us or not in time is a doubt of course but the moneyneeded to do that which you lot are quoting seem way over the top to me

Jesus Christ, what a bunch of 'tards. OF COURSE Pompey and CSi are inextricably linked - Pompey are/ were part of the CSI portfolio. The statement about SLH and you as a club wasn't whether you were just "inextricably linked", it was whether you were inextricably linked "as one economic entity". The other businesses in SLH were worth about 2 bob. CSI's other assets like the WRC may actually be worth a lot more. It's a problem for PFC if the other businesses aren't worth anything meaning only Pompey has value in their group but as Eclestone is supposedly interested in acquiring the rights to the WRC and there's also the Spyker Sports car division I suspect that's not the case

OK Girls. I'm going to take this very slowly so even you 'tards might be able to understand something written in basic English. These aren't figures I've made up. These are figures taken from the article David Conn wrote in The Guardian abou finances in the PL which I posted a link to in my post a couple of pages back (and again before that and probably yet again befor that one). I've posted it yet, yet again here for you to look at and try and understand that these aren't numbers I've made up and Conn states in the article that they are the accounts submitted to companies house up to 31st May 2008. Got that now? I know it's not as if Conn is a professional journalist who's used to stating official statistics and reports in articles like you genius' on here but let's go with it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt Accounts for the year to 31 May 2008 Turnover £70.5m (up from £40.2m the previous year, an increase of 75%) Gate and Matchday £12m TV and Broadcasting £51.2m Sponsorship £4m Retail £3.3m Wage bill £54.7m (up from £36.9m the previous year, an increase of 48.2%) Wages as proportion of turnover 78% Loss before tax £17m Debts £57.7m Interest payable £6.6m OK, go that? They're not figures I made up. They're the ones David Conn stated in his article. Now, that spending may not have been sustainable long term but all the time we were getting the PL money the fact that we only had gates of 20K didn't mean that much. Clubs like Bolton, Boro, Blackburn etc had bigger grounds but had less income through gate receipts, partly because of our cup run but also because our ST prices were a lot higher. it's about the cost of the ticket, not just the numbers into the ground. So whilst that spending may not have been sustainable long term it was fine that year and the wages to turnover figure and debt level was in line with many other PL clubs. Take into account the money we pulled in from transfers of Diarra, Defoe, muntari etc and the wages to turnover ration and debt levels should have been easily managed down to sustainable levels even with replacement signings made. I await the next round of yeah but no but yeah but no commnts with baited breath

1. Give it a rest? Dubya banged on and on and on and on and on and on and on about his "discovery" of their budget. Now he's been made to look a complete tool (once again - remember he confidently told us Antonov owned SAAB) I'm supposed to forget it? Like you lot would if I'd said something similar? People still have a pop at me years after for things I never even said in the first place. 2. Except in this case our "income" was £70.6m. Read the David Conn report I posted the link to. £51m from TV money alone. Then read what kind of debts other PL clubs had at the same time. Sustainable, maybe not. Out of the ordinary for clubs around us - absolutely not 1. But now we have foun differently, haven't we Dubya? And no matter how it was broken down, whether some was paid up front for the club or any other reason, their budget was clearly more than £8m. Let's face it, they paid that before the season was half over so your brilliant corporate mind was about as wrong as it could be. 2. I thought we'd get all of Antonov's £300m did I? That must be why I posted all the time that they'd clearly said they weren't going to spunk millions on players but build the club slowly (even slower now of course!!!!!!). Stop trying to save face and admit you look a complete cock (yet again) you muppet You seem to be finding it hard to understand that our gate income was only part of our income. Read the article by David Conn that breaks down our £70m+ income that year - £12m gate receipts, £50m+ Tv money + sponsorship + commercial. Do you not understand this? PMSL. That's so typical of this thread. So the article clearky states he had nothing to do with it but you feel it says he did it or organised it. Then it becomes enshrined as fact on here. You're a mentalist, aren't you?

£8m. According to Dubya it can't change from one year to the next

I took your advice and had the lobotomy done Dubya. I now find that all I can talk about is how ****ing great I am, my much younger Polish girlfriend, how I'm best buddies with everyone in the field of sports and journalism and golf. Weird Oh, and about CSI having an £8m budget for Pompey this season Nick Nack, are you really that dim? The reason Rochdale can't do it is because they didn't have a turnover of £70m which Pompey did the year we won the cup. That's because what we paid players wasn't just based on gate income, it was based on TV money as well. Do Rochdale have a turnover of £70m a year? I've posted this David Conn article before (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt) but read it an tell me Pompey weren't doing anything the majority of other PL clubs were doing the year we won the cup. Our debts were £58m, on a par or less than at least half the clubs in the division and our wages as a ratio of our turnover were roughly the same or less than many clubs. So if that gave us an unfair advantage in the cup the year we won it also gave those other teams the same unfair advantage. So why didn't they win it? Because, like I keep saying, they didn't get the luck of the draw like we did. That's it. Plain and simple.

Not paid a penny? Apart from £23m to the football creditors. Either you're so stuoid you forgot about that or your hatred is so great you have to lie about the situation. Either way, I have to feel sorry for you The Man U comparison is silly. But read the David Conn article about PL debt I posted a while back and youll see that Pompeys debts and wages to turnover ratio were no greater than at least half of PL clubs the year we won the cup. Our problems didnt start until standard bank called in their loan the following year. So would you be bleating years later if any of those clubs had won it that year or is it just because its your rivals? We all know the answer Oh Phil, you're so marvellous and to top it all Ive heard a rumour you work for an American multinational too. What a guy. But I'm a bit concerned and have one question - what did the journos say about CSIs £8m budget for Pompey this year. Because no-ones been able to disprove that to you have they? Oh, wait a minute . . . . . . .

1. The CVA is for £16.5m I believe so if we have two staged payments of £8m to come then it's pretty much covered, wouldn't you say? 2. The football creditors have all been paid by the money already paid out in parachute payments A good point, one that most on here forget in their whining about Pompey. Chainrai promised to pay these people and then reneged on the deal. 1. The "massive football creditors bill" has already been paid from the parachute payments 2. Our cup win in 2008 wasn't illegal. It may have been funded by bank loans but if that's illegal then a good 75% of PL clubs are operating illegally. Our debts at that time, as I've posted time and time again were less than many other clubs in the PL. The issue started when Standard Bank called the loans in overnight which would have been a problem for 99% of clubs. We won the cup because we rode our luck against United and because of a set of freak results elsewhere that saw only NPC clubs left with us by the semi's. The fact you guys can't accept that says more about your jealousy and resentment than I ever could. It was £6m IIRC which left us with £42m to come. There was £22m of football debt so that leaves £20m to pay the CVA plus change

‘We are still monitored on a monthly basis by the Football League and they have sanctioned all of the transfer business we have done. ‘That’s part of the revised business plan we’ve put together which the new owners and the Football League have approved. ‘It’s different to the plan we were working to before and it does allow a greater level of investment.’ While there are still restrictions on Pompey’s transfer dealings, boss Steve Cotterill, Lampitt and the new owners have stuck rigidly to the task. Lampitt said: ‘We still have our parameters based on what we have planned with the owners and what the Football League will allow us to do. ‘But we are absolutely within those parameters.’ http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/great-matches/pompey_are_back_in_control_of_wages_1_3019537 Not that it will make much difference now Granty but everything was going through the FL, including their approval for CSI to increase the investment that had been agreed before

Interesting that you should choose to respond to what was just a jokey comment. I wonder what a psychologist would make of that. Your last line is interesting because there seems to be a definite trend in the media over the past week in accepting that Pompey as a club and it's fans have been failed both by owners and the football authorities. These journalists certainly seem to have respect for us, just not some of the ******s that have attached themselves to the club. As for all the smug arrogance on here, let's not forget that if SISU had been successful in buying you before Liebherr you'd currently be staring at your second administration in a few years. And who knows what will happen when the Liebherr's get fed up of bankrolling you or decide to cash in. Don't be too smug, you never know what's around the corner

QUOTE=holepuncture;1203072]Antonov bought Pompey as part of his money laundering scam yes, that is quite clear for all to see. It gave him a public profile, made him some friends on facebook and gave him the ability to load some debt (through stolen funds = laundering) onto a UK based cash cow. You dont seem to be giving the russian mafia a glowing reference anymore corp, you used to trumpet that they were respectable when we claimed they were criminals... So, someone looking to launder money would want to be high profile in the UK and would buy a clun=b with more focus on it from the football authorities than any other. That makes sense. I've never given them a glowing reference, just said Antonov had never been found guilty of anything. Might change now of course, but it might not. Odds pretty high against him though you'd have to say. Does anyone else wonder about Holepuncture's tirades. do you think he was bullied by a Pompey fan at school and this is his way of getting back at us? Well, Pompey fans had the Rumafia.com information months before you did and were already in dialogue with journalists like Jamie Jackson & David Conn way before you were (did you like Conn's "thank you to Pompey fans" after you were all back slapping on here that you'd passed the info on to him?) "You may have got some small details wrong"? You lot have got so much more wrong than you've got right in this ridiculous Moby **** of a thread. You constantly big yourselves up on it only to find Pompey fans are often monhs ahead of you, not to mention the amount you've got wrong (HMRC wouldn't take it to court if they didn't know they were going to win, the ridiculous conspiracy theories) not to mention the fact that you've even missed the involvement of some of the key slime balls like Shelley Narkis in the whole sad story. As usual Mr "I fail to acknowledge that result" (LOL) proves that he doesn't even read what I write. My whole stance on CSI buying ompey has been that as I said above, unlike most on here I just don't see why they'd buy the club as a money laundering vehicle whn they own so many other businesses they could have done it through. You're the ones who ar so blinkered you won't even look beyond your one track explanation. Now, what about Dubya' £8m budget. Anyone care to comment on that little fact that one of you got wrong (another one)

Blimey, there's not a dry seat in the house on this thread is there. Bless all your excited little hearts. It's like watching kids on Xmas Eve, all so hyped up waiting for Santa to bring them just what their little hearts desire on Xmas morning. Sorry I haven't been on for a few days but it's a very busy time at work. So, can we just confirm what the "nothing will happen to them because they're protectd by an international conspiracy that goes right up to Blatter/ UEFA/ Gordon Brown" crew think now? Are we still "protected"? Also, do you still maintain that Antonov bought Pompey for money laundering purposes because if, as alleged, he took £250m (and counting) out of Snoras I really can't see why he'd need PFC for that sort of activity And finally, has anyone pointed out to Dubya how much Antonov has allegedly spent on PFC so far as it's 30% more than his incredible investigative talents have led him to confidently predict.

Why get nervous. It's all happened before to Pompey. If he's charged (assuming he's back in Russia and they agree to extradite him) what will the FL do? They passed him through their new, strenuous FAPPT so will they admit any culpability? Anyway, according to you lot Chainrai is still in charge really so what difference does this make in the scheme of things?

You know, your post seemed to be quite eloquent and well thought out and then you posted the above, which was a real ROTFPMSL moment. Maybe you could tell that to Jimmy Hoffa - if you can find him

Like I've always said Steve, I think they just wanted a club to go with their portfolio and we were available at the kind of price they wanted to pay (ie not too much). But the whole thing about they only wanted us for money laundering makes no sense, especially as other keep pointing out, they also tried for Bournemouth and were linked with Rangers. But on your point about net liabilities, there are plenty of clubs with more liabilities than that. The debt we have is the CVA so the figure is known and whether you believe Lampitt or not at least a large chunk of it will be paid by the parachute money. Let's face, buying a football club is never (or rarely) about turning a profit. I think it was more of a branding/ marketing exercise and as a club who's recently been in the PL and two cup finals we have a fairly high profile I don't know why but that made me laugh out loud. The FL have to approve any deal and any monies paid for transfers etc have to go through them. How would that benefit someone who wanted to run something criminal? As for the money from Snoras, whatever Antonov's lost, he wasn't ploughing money into PFC anyway so I don't see how it would impact us greatly. I suppose the Lithuanian government might try and seize us as one of his assets but the best they could hope for would be to sell us on, even if legally they could seize a UK company. I don't see what good liquidating us would do. The CSI website (the company that owns PFC) still is working fine. http://www.converssport.com/ HTH Isn't that what I said? They bought us because we were available? And if they wanted those other two clubs (and two more besides them if Dubya is to be believed) the where does that leave the people on here who say they only bought us because we're "dodgy" and they wanted to launder money through PFC? I'll tell you. It leaves them with a massive hole in their argument

I've asked the question time and time again but if they wanted a club to do anything "dodgy" through why not but ANY other club than Pompey? Our finances are now so strictly monitored by the FL that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to buy us for that purpose. You'd be better off buying any other club. For example, if you wanted to launder money and owned banks why bother buying a football club? Why not do it through the banks? I read a post earlier calculating how much of Antonov's personal welath has been lost from Snoras' assets. For such amazingly investigative minds you do seem to miss obvious points such as the fact it's not the only buisness he owns (not even the only bank he owns come to that). Now, before everyone claims I've said he has millions elsewhere because I think he's going to pour it into Pompey let's make it clear I haven't and have never thought they were going to do that. It's just funny that you big yourselves up so much and miss such obvious points. As for the Rumafia.com article and the Kroll report, these were on POL months before you genius' posted them on here. And just to point out another (yet another) mistake in a Holepuncture post, SAAB didn't block Antonov from taking over, they were desperate for him to invest. The EIB blocked him taking over. At least get your basic facts right you cock