Corporate Ho

I wouldn't trust AA as far as I could throw him either BUT I don't believe even he would state in this kind of document that the charities had been paid if they hadn't. It's one thing to massage figures but don't believe UHY would put their name to something like that if it wasn't true. Lampitt's also confimed it publically remember I'm aware he didn't sign anything Clapham but he did make a personal promise to pay them out of his own pocket. You heard/ read it yourself and it was well documented at the time If you're not careful you're going to strain yourself by overreaching clutching for those straws. You, Lard and Holepuncture have had your proof. Give up

Well, that's a legal document so do you really think UHY would state that all charities had been paid if they hadn't? As for your point about the club repaying fans, where did you get that from? The fans clubbed together to pay the St Johns Ambulance. How would the club track who was owed what from donations like that? All charities have been paid. Lard was wrong/ trying to score points using a "source". Just admit it, yet another "fact" you've all banged on about for months was wrong Thanks Clapham. Lampitt's point was that Portpin/ Chainrai agreed to pay the sub £2500 cremditors himself. So let him pay them. God knows he made enough money out of the club. PS, anyone seen Dubai Phil? He seems to have gone missing lately

Sorry girls, I was replying directly to Holepuncture, referring to Lard's mysterious "source" saying the Harbour Cancer Charity hadn't been paid by using Lampitt's quote to prove it has. You want proof that all charities have been paid? Here's a link to UHY's final report to creditors. At the bottom of page 19 you'll see that it says "All charities have been paid in full". http://www.pompeyonline.com/downloads/final_progress_report.pdf I await the next chorus of yeh but no but yeh but no but posts with interest

My answer wasn't woolly in the slightest. Read it again. I said that when Antonov bought Spyker Sports cars he probably retained Muiller as CEO of the company, as he did with Lampitt at PFC. What's woolly about that? In fact, one quick Google brought me this story - that's exactly what happened. "Spyker Cars has agreed to sell its sports car business of the same name to a UK holding company to allow it fully concentrate running Saab. Muller will remain as CEO of Spyker until a successor can be found, and Spyker Cars will soon change its name to better reflect its business as owner of Saab." http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/255596/ Some/ large chunks of it (as FC has posted) may have gone in paying up contracts and agents fees. Some (as I've posted) may have been taken out of the club by the owner (whoever it was at the time). I'm not sure of the legalities of that and whether they would be allowed to do it or not. But as I said, what's not clear is how the debt increased by the levels it did AFTER our days of signing big name players on high wages had ended Hopefully it should. But when you're saying it couldn't just be taken out of the club you seem to be forgetting we're talking about Chainrai, Azougy and BVI listed companies here. Nothing would surprise me. I came back on to post answers but had used up my three posts. Lampitt went on record back in January saying the charities had been paid IN FULL http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/David-Lampitt-s-January-Diary-1771.aspx Do you really think he'd have done that if the charities hadn't been paid? Imagine the consequences for him personally. So, what do we believe, Lampitt's official statement that they've been paid or Lard's mysterious "source"?

A special treat for you all, a post from me on a weekend!! Think it's all a matter of public record. CSI own the club and the ground (Portpin no longer have a charge on Fratton Park) and Gaydamak still owns the land surrounding the ground. He can't do much with it because although Tesco want to buy it they know the council would oppose any planning permission without a redevelopment of the ground being included and while the appeal might get through it's too much hassle for Tesco. CSI might buy the land and use the funds from a sale to Tesco to redevelop but I'm not holding my breath. Think CSI bought the club to add to their sporting portfolio and that makes sense for them. I can't see them throwing millions at the club, I think they'll just run it steadily and hope to get a bit of luck and fluke a place in the PL via the playoffs in a couple of years time. I can't see any sense in the claims on here that they want to launder money through it when we're under such close observation by the FL. They could have bought another club to do that and if they wanted to they have plenty of other businesses to do that through. CSI are the owners of PFC. But if you look at the CSI website Antonov, Dubov and Akers are listed as co - founders of CSI so it's the same thing effectively http://www.converssport.com/structure So Pompey are the only club to have bought players on instalments are we? Saints have never done this? Your point about transfers is a little misguided though. "The majority" of the fee we received for players like Johnson, Diarra etc didn't go to the clubs we bought them from as we made such a massive profit on them. We paid £4m for Johnson and sold him for £18m. We paid £5m for Diarra and sold him for almost £20m. Now, correct me if I'm wrong but even allowing for a sell on fee in the case of Diarra to Arsenal "the majority" of the fee we received didn't go to Chelsea or Arsenal - or are you still adamant that most of those players had negative equity attached to them when we sold them? What about Defoe (bought for £9m, sold for £16m) or Distin (free transfer, sold for £5m). Also we weren't booted/ forced out of Europe We were in administration so not allowed to enter. Simple as that (despite that clown Andronikou's claims about challenging it). As for your point about clubs "such as" Udinese, you mean just Udinese don't you, because you can't think of any others? There may well be something in what you've said but even if we only broke even on those transfer dealings it doesn't explain how the debt rose from £58m (which is the figure David Conn quoted as the latest available from companies house in his article) to £130m when, as I've said, our days of signing "name" players for big fees were well in the past. Yes we still had some high earners but we were turning over around £50m a year at the time, easily enough to cover our wage bill and have some left over. I'm not sure on the legality but as I said earlier, it may be that Gaydamak took some of the fees receievd for himself and as owner maybe he was allowed to do that. But, if that's the case, it means that PFC were the victims of his greed.

...

1. As others have pointed out, small creditors claims are worth around £120K. Work out what percentage of the vote against a total of £130m they hold and whether they'd hav been able to block anything 2. How many more times, cancer charities have been paid. I didn't ask for a "link" between CSI and SAAB. There are plenty of links. I asked Philly how Antonov would access the EIB loan when he didn't own SAAB (which, as I posted last night, Philly clearly wasn't aware of). You (Weston) originally posted that Victor Muller was listed as founder and CEO of CSI because you misread the website. He's not, he's listed as founder and CEO of Spyker cars. Antonov used to own Spyker cars in it's entirety but sold the main company back to Muller when the EIB blocked Spyker's takjeover bid for SAAB if Antonov was involved (I hope you're following this). Antonov then bought the sports car division of Spyker for around £32m. Ref the website, I suspect that as with Lampitt at Pompey, Antonov retained Muller as CEO of Spyker sports cars even through he owns the company and that's why he's listed. You'll notice that despite owning CSI Antonov has CEO's running most of the companies that fall under the whole parent company. Finally, ref PFC123's posts about us getting a points deduction, I'm not so sure as he is. I think the payment to Amdy Faye could hit us (although I wouldn't be surprised to be fined rtaher than hit with points). I think the Mandaric and Redknapp issues relate more to them personally and so wouldn't hit us. The forensic investigation could be interesting, especially if it shows up that money we pulled in from the sale of Diarra, Johnson, Muntari and all the others, which could have paid off our debts almost completely was diverted out of the business and where it went. Not sure that would fall under the banner of "financial irregularities" but if it did and Gaydamak had the cash I presume that, as the owner of the business, he'd have been entitled to do so BUT might affect claims he (or others) still have outstanding. Abd can you not keep banging on about Luton's 30 point deduction as a "precedent" as the circumstances are completely different. They got 20 points for exiting administration without a CVA and therefore only 10 points for around 50 uses of illegal agents. Finally finally - has anyone seen Dubai Phil to maybe answer the questions he's running scared from answering or is still working on the year before last's budget?

Another exciting day on the site that was once known as Saints Web Forum but has now changed it's name to Barrackroomlawyer.com. I'll answer some of your questions/ ridiculous theorising. If I miss any, do please let me know. 1. PFC haven't discovered a loophole around the CVA and aren't contravening it's agreements. The offer to pay the creditors under £2500 100% was made by Portpin (Chainrai) himself out of his own pocket (see link). This agreement was never part of the CVA, it was an offer Chainrai made. I agree it's not a massive amount in the scheme of things but the offer was made by Chainrai so do you think it's fair that he doesn't pay it himself? So, the CVA stands, still applies to Pompey (newco) but the agreemnent to pay the small creditors 100% was never a condition of the CVA so wouldn't lead to a points deduction. 2. Victor Muller isn't a co-founder and CEO of CSI. Look at the website again. The site lists the founders/ CEO of each company that are connected to or fall under the umbrella of the CSI organisation (eg Lampitt is listed as CEO of PFC). So yes Weston, yours was yet another mad conspiracy theory. http://www.converssport.com/structure 3. Nothing's being "muddied" over Spyker and SAAB other than you lot on here's inability to understand basic company structures (see point 2). As I've posted before, (http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?14620-Pompey-Takeover-Saga&p=1101851&highlight=saab#post1101851) there are two arms of Spyker, the main company and Spyker sports cars. Antonov bought the sports car division as a seperate entity from Spyker but isn't involved in the main business. Despite Philly making desperate attempts to say mentioning SAAB upsets me (it doesn't, it just frsutrates me that I have to keep telling you the same facts again and again) it's clear that he wasn't aware of the distinction between Spyker and Spyker sports cars which is why he kept on about Antonov using the EIB loan to fund the purchase of Pompey when he wrote: "Saab are owned by Spyker Cars , Spyker are owned by the few's great whiter than white hopes the Russkies, Spyker got 400 mil in loans from the EU to save Saab" http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?14620-Pompey-Takeover-Saga&p=1054987&highlight=spyker#post1054987 4. Ref queries about whether Victor Muller (who you thought was founder and CEO of CSI) had undergone the FAPPT, can I ask if everyone connected with the Estate of Markus Liebherr have passed it? 5. Storries and Mandaric's court cases were put back, originally until December but now brought forward (to October I think). Media can't report on the Redknapp case as it might impact on the other cases. Has been mentioned God knows how many times on here. 6. I'm still waiting for Phil, middle east buisnessman of the year and runner up in the sychophantic caddy with hot girlfriend category to answer my question about whether or not his budgets have changed at all over the past few years or whether the figure has been exactly the same, year after year since he started working for Ouds are Us. Any comment Philly baby?

It was eaxctly the point I was making Philly. And that point was, most companies don't duplicate budgets to exactly the same level year after year. Does your company do that? Is your budget the same this year as it was last year? Or the year before that? Or has it changed depending on what your targets are? My budget has gone up considerably this year as the area of the business I look after looked like it wasn't going to be hit as hard by the economic slow down as some of the other areas of our business. Does your company not do that? In answer to your question, I don't know what their budget for PFC is this year. But nor do you. You have evidence that they'd allocated £8m last year to a project. Where's the evidence it's the same this year. And even if it is, what are you saying? That they'll spend this last £3.8m then fold the club? Why would they waste £8m if that was their intention? There you go, I've answered your questions. How about you answer mine. Does your company allocate exactly the same budget to each department every year, year after year. Yes or no?

So one fan's opinion means every Pompey fan thinks that? I don't give a monkey's about PL football. I watched Pompey in the old Div 4 and I'm happy watching them in the Championship. They're my club ad I'll watch them wherever. If we go up I'll happily take SKY's money but your fans seemed to agree after your first relegation that it was more enjoyable in this division as it was far less predictable. According to David Conn's article in The Guardian in 2009 (see below) which included the latest available info from companies house Pompey's debts had increased to arund £58m FC, thanks for agreeing with me that the whole of football don’t view Pompey with contempt for what happened. I just wish the Pompey haters on here would accept it and grow up. But once again, you’re falling for a misconception about our level of debt. I keep saying it and keep getting either ignored or dismissed but of our £120/30m of “debt” more than half of that figure was owed to Gaydamak, Chainrai and even Al Fahim for debts they’d incurred but loaded onto the club. It wasn’t £130m spent on players as so many on here keep insisting. Hopefully the forensic inspection will find out what happened to that money but again, quite a few on here seem to think that any financial irregularities will automatically result in a penalty on a par with Luton’s rather than realising that every case is different. Indeed, if money went into people’s pockets then they might be prosecuted rather than the club. Difficult for some of the posters on here to understand I know. David Conn’s article in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt) from 2009 with figures taken from the latest registered at companies house at that time show that our debts were around £58m and our big spending on players was effectively over by that point. From then on we sold over £50m worth of players including Johnson, Crouch, Muntari, Kranjcar etc so whatever the cause of the debt doubling, it certainly wasn’t from signing players was it? As for those players being “way beyond our means”, again, the article shows that our turnover that year was £70m, wages as a % of that were 78% (considerably less than your turnover/ wages ratio from your last accounts you’ll notice) and that we lost £17m but, had we sold a couple of players and brought in a couple of more conservative replacements those losses could have been easily managed downwards towards a break even figure. I’m not defending anything here, I’m stating facts. As for your point about your debts, I accept that Liebherr’s track record is for not to use outside debt and that’s laudable. But, that doesn’t mean that the debt/ loans don’t have to be repaid to the Liebherr’s at some point. A loan is a loan (although it could be converted into equity which I accept but as you’ve also accepted, you don’t know for sure). Oh dear Philly, are you really that dumb? Of course budgets are allocated and usually on an annual basis. My point was does your business (or anyone who posts on here’s company) allocate exactly the same amount of funding to each department/ company year after year? If I was allocated a marketing budget of £2.5m in 2007, would I be allocated exactly the same amount year after year? Of course not. Budgets are reviewed and changed around depending on different factors (economic climate, new product launches, shift in focus/ priority from one product area to another and so on). The fact that you feel that because they spent £8m on a project last year means that’s exactly the amount they’ll spend this year is, let’s be kind, speculation. Maybe last year they’d earmarked that amount for a different “project”. Maybe this year they’ve allocated £20m. Or maybe they’ve allocated £4.2m and that’s it for the year. Maybe they’ve decided to pump some of their own money into the club and not use CSI’s funds, who knows. You certainly don’t. My question to you was – does your company allocate you exactly the same budget to your department year after year after year. So, do they?

FC, I’m always happy to debate things sensibly. The problem on this forum is that whatever I say Saints posters automatically take the opposite stance. Very few (if any) actually take the time to read and digest to understand the points I make. So I’ll take your points one by one and then read the follow up posts saying “skate **** just doesn’t get it blah blah blah”. I agree with your statement that finance in football is rotten. But to say that your overspending was debated on the form so it’s not hypocritical/ double standards can be countered by the fact that the Pompey boards saw plenty of similar debate during Gaydamak’s reign. Many questioned whether we could afford it while others were calling for the money to be invested in the infrastructure of the club instead of players. So, does that exonerate Pompey fans in your eyes? I saw no protests or boycotts from Saints fans when you were trying to buy your way back to the PL and that’s why I always say it’s hypocritical of your fans to slam Pompey. I know you had the “money in the bank” but as you rightly say, it was money you couldn’t afford to spend. The hypocrisy charge also stands against your fans because other teams that you highlight have done the same as Pompey but don’t seem to have 840 odd pages devoted to their wrongdoing. Perhaps I’ve missed those threads somehow. There are constant accusations on here that the rest of football hold us in contempt for what we did. The fact that you claim there’s no debate about Leeds, WHU, Leicester (and all the others) who are doing the same thing would seem to strongly suggest that there is no football wide condemnation. That most fans (Saints fans excepted) just think we overspent and got relegated. I work for a big company with fans of many different teams and whilst there’s plenty of banter but no-one thinks we cheated, just that we “did a Leeds” and got relegated. In their eyes that’s “punishment” enough. I’m not sure why the punishment isn’t equitable with the “crimes”. We belong/ed to a private members club and we abided by the rules of the competition. Yes it’s sad that local businesses lost money and that HMRC lost out but we paid the penalties that our “members club” had stipulated. Your fans still constantly blame Lowe for not putting you into admin earlier to avoid the points penalty you got for the following season so that again seems to smack of hypocrisy and that your claims that Pompey weren’t “punished” enough are in direct correlation to the penalty you incurred – ie that we did what you wanted Lowe to do and went into administration early enough to avoid a points penalty for the following season. There’s also the constant cries that “legally” it wasn’t the club that went into admin and you shouldn’t have had the points penalty. Again, those were the rules applied by the members club that you belonged to. “Legally” we could have decided to only pay football creditors 20p in the £ along with the others, but that’s not the rules we agreed to abide to. Your point about Liebherr is a good one. It was great that he decided to pay your creditors straight off (although it’s been said on here plenty of times that they certainly didn’t get 100P in the £ so your creditors lost out too) but your status now is a matter of luck. Yes you had a decent infrastructure but it was chance that Liebherr bought you. It could just as easily have been SISU and you could now be staring a second administration in the face. Would that make you cheats? Or would it mean you’d been subject to a bout of mismanagement? You tell me. Your last set of accounts showed you lost £7m that year and had debts of £22m. There seem to be a few people pointing that out but most Saints fans seem to be of the opinion that “we’re loaded, doesn’t matter”. Of course Liebherr’s estate may change those loans/ debts into equity but you don’t know that. Didn’t seem to stop your fans calling for you to spend £6m on Maynard or Rodriguez. Pompey overspent but so do 90% of clubs in the PL. Two wrongs don’t make a right but to single us out does seem hypocritical and adds weight to my argument that if it was another club the debate on here would have died a long time ago (if it had ever started). We didn’t “cheat” to win the cup any more than most other teams and we didn’t win the cup because of the players we bought. We won it because of a set of freak results that’s saw all the big clubs out before the semi final stage. The way the draw opened up probably won’t happen again for years and we benefited from that. As for “cutting our cloth” I’ve already posted on that last week. Our last year in the PL saw us sell £43m worth of players and release another 12-15 players before the season started. Yes we brought a few players in but what else should we have done? That money and the money we pulled in before that (£18m for Diarra, £16m for Defoe, £13m for Muntari and on and on) was more than enough to address the debt levels but somehow that money was diverted elsewhere. And before anyone says we carried on spending, our transfer dealings for the last two years in the PL saw us make a profit on player trading of £59m! Yes it’s wrong HMRC and the other creditors lost out but “Pompey” didn’t cheat them, certain individuals who made a lot of money bleeding money out of the club did. Cue “just doesn’t get it”.

I didn't just "say I didn't say it, I posted links showing exactly what I said and not what was being claimed. No-ones posted links to me saying ANY of the "quotes" I highlighted above Seems you find that concept a little challenging. Now where's Phil to get us back on track about the takeover by talking about how hot his girlfriend is. Three posts and out. Bye girls

Jack, you don't normally come across as a stupid guy but as I've constantly posted links proving I never claimed either of these would happen maybe I'm wrong. Here's an idea for the mods. To save everyone going over old ground, maybe there should be a sticky created, something along the lines of "Things dumbasses keep claiming CH has said but actually didn't" We could have the Maradona/ Saviola/ Riquelme one, the one where I apparently claimed the Harbour stadium would definitely be built, the one about my "Transfer Gossip" posts being me believing Pompey would actually sign all those players, the one about me being serious about Fahim being 10 times wealthier than Abramovic, oh, the list could go on and on We went into administration and got the points penalty. How were we treated leniently? You lot seem to think that because Luton got docked 30 points that we should have also. Never mind that the circumstances were completely different. We got docked 9 points because those are the rules of the league we were in. You got docked points because whatever you may say about "legally" etc etc SLH was almost exclusively SFC and your club agreed to abide by the rules of the private members club (the FL) that created the rules. It's laughable when you lot say that all you want is "justice". You don't. You want to see Pompey punished because we're your rival. Other clubs have gone into administration and paid creditors far less in the £ than we are but there's no hysterical screaming about them. Nor are you foaming at the mouth about clubs like Leicester and Ipswich who both went into admin and got their new stadiums effectively free. Funny that. As for the "respect of the football world", WTF are you on about. Most football fans think we "did a Leeds", spent too much and went bust. There is no football wide consensus that we're cheats. We didn't win the cup because we cheated, buying players we couldn't afford. If that were the case other clubs who spent more than us would have won that year. We won because we had the luck of the draw, plain and simple. You're not upset because you're morally outraged at what happened. You're upset because it was Pompey and you use it as an excuse to beat us with on here when, let's face it, NO-ONE ELSE CARES. Admit that and I might even find a bit of respect for you prima donnas. Cue the cries of "just doesn't get it" ad nauseum

PMSL. Is that how your business operates Philly? You have a budget one year and that's duplicated the next year, and the year after that, and the year after that? What a strange, tin pot little business that must be. Meanwhile, back in the real world, other companies change budget from year to year. They take funds from one area of the business and use it in another where they want more focus at that time. Still, if you're saying that's it, I assume, with your wealth of business knowledge and understanding of budgetary allocation and control you must be right. £3.8m and lights out it is Oh, by the way, is Antonov not going to use the EIB loan to SAAB to fund us any more? What happend to that juicy little tidbit that you kept throwing out in your usual "aw shucks, I'm not ITK but here's some more incredible info I've been told by my contacts"? Lampitt said back in January they've been paid. I posted the link. If that's not correct, why not get the media on the case and prove it's wrong. Do you really think he'd publically say they've been paid if they hadn't after the (absolutely valid) outcry? Or maybe we should believe a Saints fan on a mesageboard who I'm sure is completely impartial on the subject I'm sure they'd like their money back ASAP and I hope they all get it ASAP. My point was they signed on to alegal process which is still in place. That's not defending anyone, just pointing out the facts. I'm not acting smug, I'm not defending the club, just trying to correct so much inaccurate crap that you ****s keep posting on here. If CSI don't pay the CVA payments on schedule I'm sure the FL will impose some sort of sanction on us, possibly close us down. But until then, it seems as though they have cash so let's wait and see if they choose not to make the payments on schedule. As for your fans "finding it hard to defend" your lot trying to weasel out of a points deduction, what a complete load of crap. This board was full of your fans saying it was an outrage and talking about legal action. If you want to talk about rewriting history, let's start there

Sorry scumlettes, I wasn't "gloating" about anything. I was merely pointing out to one of your own who said CSI were broke that we'd spent some money in this transfer window. In fact, we needed to as we only had 8 players at the start of it. If you want to talk about lack of intelligence how about looking at some of your own posters like the ones saying one minute that only us and Stockport wanted Benjani and the next minute claiming we're paying him £30K a week - anyone see the slight problem with that one? And as all our deals have to be ratified by the FL and in line with the requirements of the CVA and the buisness plan CSI submitted to them when they bought us do you really see a problem with us actually getting a squad together? As for the CVA, I find it somewhat disheartening to have to remind you that it's a legal process and as such, a schedule of payments has been agreed with the creditors. Yes, Chainrai pushed that schedule back a year because he didn't want to pay it because he's a scumbag of the highest order but if CSI don't meet the payment schedules we'll be closed down. So we assume the first installment will be paid as scheduled - as the creditors have agreed. So please God stop bleating on about "this and that would have paid the CVA instalment" because the people owed the money have agreed when they'll be paid. As for the cancer charities, they've been paid. Sad that it happened but it's been done now As for Holepuncture, what was the point of your beautiful arty post about Gaydamak still owning the land? You never did tell us

Broke Russian money launderers who have to run every deal past the FL so would find it tough to launder anything - expenditure in transfer window - £4.2m Super duper morally upstanding we've got billions and billions to spend courtesy of Liebherr's daughter we won't sell our best players honest guv Saints expenditure - £2.5m

But you did spend money. You bought Scheiderlin. It may have been in installments as were the deals for the players we brought in but you bought him nonetheless. You also brought free transfers like Wotton, Holmes, Molyneaux & Ryan Smith. And if there were no signing on fees or agents fees involved that would be a first in football. We sold £43m worth of players, not to mention desperately trying to offload the likes of Nugent (who we loaned out anyway) and Utaka. Would you not call that cutting our cloth? As for bringing players in, did you really expect us not to at least bring in some replacements for the ones we sold for £43m and released on frees? TBH is on too much and it was a crap deal that should have had a relegation clause added but that's one deal. So we brought a few players in, it was hardly spending like there was no tomorrow. Can you not see that £43m in player sales and the SKY money should have been more than enough to fund these players AND pay off whatever debts we had at this time (or at least reduce them significantly) to where admin wouldn't have been needed and we could have survived comfortably on the parachute payments? It's the one that Saints fans always turn a blind eye to Not sure what point you're trying to prove. CSI own Fratton Park, that was proved by looking at the land registry ages ago. As for the Gaydamaks "running the show" - how exactly? Gaydamak certainly owns the land around the ground but the ground's not going to be extended any time soon so how are they "running things". They get a rent for the car park - whoopee doo. If (and that's a big if) CSI decide to redevelop Fratton then maybe they'll buy the land. Until then, why bother? Gaydamak's not going to do anything with it. the council won't approve planning permission for a supermarket if it impacts on the ability to expand the ground in the future otherwise he'd have sold it ages ago. It's an impasse. Neither group has the upper hand. So, what was it you were trying to prove?

About time you got a ban then Phil, unless telling us how fit your girlfriend is, caddying for Tiger and waving Your hands in the air like a gay Crocodile Dundee at Moby gigs counts as somehow takeover related. Dubai Phil - if he was chocolate he'd lick himself I see Daren's gone up in the world from baggage handling. Good to see, however, that the link confirms what I posted earler about how much of our "debt" is to our ex owners rather than transfer fees

You're forgetting we had Mad Mandy and his euro super coaches like Zajec. So you're telling me now that you all WANTED the club to go into admin just to get rid of Lowe? LOL. Everyone (me included) knew you were in financial trouble due to overspending (cheating?) in the previous couple of seasons. Lowe was trying to balance the books. If it hadn't been cheap dutch coaches it would have been cheap English ones. Makes no difference. And I'll come to the "playing the kids" thing later You seem to think the unpaid "debts" were all down to transfer fees. In fact, well over £60m of those "debts" were down to debt that our beloved owners had loaded onto the club and went God knows where. The transfer fees were accounted for in the CVA and have been/ are being paid via the parachute payments so the rest seems to have gone into the owners pockets and they're still somehow owed. As for HMRC, yes it's bad but we offered to pay approx 50% of what we owed them (£6m) the Jan before we went into admin and they refused saying they wanted it all. Once Chainrai came in the amount we owed racked up as he put ius into admin Well Chez, you said we paid £3m for Williamson and were wrong so are you pwned over that one? And £43m wasn't our total income. Once you add in SKY money we're close to £90-£100m that season. Are you suggesting we shouldn't have replaced any of the players we sold, not to mention all the others we released? I'm now expecting a "should have played the kids" chant. Looking at the season you went into admin when you "got rid of everyone and played the kids" only McGoldrick, James and Gillet played more than 20 games. Lallana and Surman did but they were already established players. In addition, you had senior players playing plenty of games like Kelvin Davies, Chris Perry, Skacel, Saganowski, Saejis, Wotton, Euell etc etc who all played plenty of games. Most of your other youth players played 5 or 6 times. There goes another myth And if, Chez, you think we shouldn't have been signing players or even loans, how do you feel about Saints being in dire straits that season and signing Scheiderlin for £1.3m along with Wotton, Lee Holmes and others plus loand like Cork, Pekart, Gasmi, Liptak, & Alex Pearce? Was itr wrong for us but OK for you? Did you "cheat"?

Agreed, I forgot about Boateng for £4m and looking at your post in isolation it looks like you’re making a good point. But that means we spent a total £8m (Williamson was £2m not £3m) plus the loans and freebies we signed. That sounds like a lot – until you look at the players we sold and released. Glen Johnson £18M, Distin £5m, Kaboul £5m, Crouch £9m, Kranjcar £2.5m and Begovic for £3.5m (Kitson and Lawrence came in last season, not the one you’re talking about here in exchange for Marc Wilson, not Begovic). So, that’s £43m we pulled in from transfers and spent 18% of it. Plus, if you think we brought in too many players based on the ones we sold, let’s not forget we also lost or released Sol Campbell, Sean Davis, Pamarot, Lauren and quite a few other squad players. Doesn’t sound like we were exactly going for broke to me. Anyway, now we've disproved another accusation, what about the boycott. Are we all agreed now that it was all about Lowe trying to run you within budget and that you weren't happy about it? I can't see any other explanation.

Sorry if you're too dumb to understand the point I was making. I wasn't saying Pompey fans had been boycotting for the last 30 years (although given the criteria you lot judge a boycott by maybe they have). I was just pointing out that Pompey have had to put up with a series of owners who have done nothing for the club, failing to improve infrastructure and just lining their own pockets. It's resulted in many fans just drifting away after becoming disaffected with it and also failing to attract new, younger fans because of high ticket prices. Your crowds fell by nearly half in just two or three years when the same happened to you (for whatever reason and however you want to dress it up). You were lucky enough to attract Liebherr as a new owner. If you';d been bought by Pinnacle or SISU are you really telling me your crowds wouldn't have dwindled? Err, yes, it has. Our last year in the PL was distinguished by us bringing in about 3 players for a total of around £2m (a massive outlay) and last year I'm not sure we spent anything at all. And before you bleat on about Lawrence and Kitson, they were PX deals, we didn't pay for them and although their wages were higher than the £10K a week wage cap that was initially proposed the fact that we went with a smaller squad meant that our total wage bill was still approved by the FL under the terms of the CVA. That seems to be a difficult concept for you lot to grasp but every deal and all wages we pay have to be approved by the FL. Again, any transfers we pay for now have to be approved by the FL. So how are we cheating? Let's put this one to bed. Despite God knows how many times people have banged on to me about "we did the right thing, we played the kids" that's exactly why you were protesting/ boycotting/ staying away. Lowe was trying to balance the books and stop you drifting into administration and you didn't like it. You weren't "competitive" as one of your posters has said on here, you weren't buying better players. You wanted more "investment". Despite your high and mighty moral stance the simple truth of the matter is you didn't want your club to be run within it's means. What a complete and utter ****ing bunch of hypocrites you are

Plenty of talk about me ignoring what people have written on here so think it's only fair to point out that you all seem to be saying it was OK for your crowd numbers to fall due to a chairman's unpopularity but when it happens to Pompey for over twenty or thirty years it's not acceptable for fan numbers to drop. I'm not saying there wasn't a boycott, the "mythical" bit I mentioned was that the fact you were getting gates of 14K was you saying that was solely due to an organised, orchestrated boycott. That the 7K fans you'd lost from the previous season were all because of an orgainsed boycott and not because of people being fed up with crap product. I'd love to have been at the boycott for the roll call and not quite sure how the club actively policed not selling tickets on the day to any of the people who'd handed in ST forms but if you say it happened . . . So that's 2500 people. Even if we assume that numer is robust (and I don't see how you could expect anyone to believe that all 2500 stayed away for every game) that still leaves 4500 who weren't part of the organised boycott. Last question - I know the boycott was to get rid of Lowe - why did you want him removed? I've said over the last couple of pages what I'm arguing but none of you dullards seems to be able to grasp the simple point of it. You're complaining that crowds went down both because of a boycott but also because you had an owner/ chairman who wouldn't invest in the club and the standard of football and investment was poor. Pompey fans have had to endure that situation for over twenty years now but somehow you don't seem to think the same rules that applied to your crowds should apply to ours. That's not a difficult concept for you to grasp, surely? You point out that we haven't a full squad yet, that we've lacked investment for two or three years, that we have a stadium that's less than state of the art yet still say we have a crap fanbase. If you were in the same situation do you genuinely expect me to believe that you'd be getting crowds any bigger than ours? It's not an argument about who has better fans or who's the bigger club. It's a simple statement of the obvious

There are bloody loads of them. POL ban them instantly (as Guided Missile found out when he "cunningly" posed as a Pompey fans and was spotted first post) but on TBA and others there are plenty. And they make me look like Bertrand Russell The ST form is a lovely symbolic gesture but I wonder how many who gave you the form still attended games anyway paying on the day? The fact the gates went up doesn't show much other than a sense of relief he'd gone. Otherwise how do you explain that if it was only Lowe keeping your fans away you only got an average of 21K the season before this one when Lowe wasn't there? The trust brought the article from the Rumafia.com website (along with other information) to the attention of the FL when CSI were doing due diligence. As you might remember a couple of Pompey fans unvovered the link months before it appeared on here. teh FL said they were aware of the stories but a lot of the rumours on te website had been proven to be completely bogus in Russia (the FL had apparently already checked it out). HTH No doubt even if the whole world were starving and a cost effective way of mining moon cheese had been found all 6bn of the warth's population would boycott the foodstuff as Rupert Lowe once chose the cheeseboard as a dessert. Your refusal to answer my hypothetical question says more about what you really think than words probably ever could. Again, most of you seem to have completely ignored what I've actually written and seem to suggest this is a "which club is bigger" argument when all I pointed out was that after you laughed at us getting a crowd of 13,500 you got similar crowds a couple of seasons back. You've then blustered on justifying it as it was all protests and boycotts ad nauseum when all I'm pointing out is that if fans of any club are unhappy at the way their club is being run they'll vote on their feet and not attend matches. You've talked about lack of trust in your board etc but Pompey have had no stability for years yet somehow you seem to suggest this shouldn't affect attendences for us. Let's just point out that your crowds were already falling after relegation from the PL and that resulted as you slipped down the table in more fans staying away. Just accept it

They've answered but completely missed the point. There were some protests etc but as Hole Punctures post proves, the vast majority of people partaking in them did so inside the ground. And your crowd figures still fell. That's not rocket science for anyone to grasp, is it? Because we were being run by a chancer who was running the club into the ground. You seem to be saying it's Ok for your fans to stay away in that situation but not ours? Several people have responded to this challenge, but you either do not comprehend the English language, or choose to ignore them because it doesn't suit you to have your argument shot down in flames. See my point about Hole Punctures post. There were proteste but most of them were in the ground. Despite that, you were still getting 14K crowds. That means those numbers included the protesters. Do you not get that? With the additional factor that many didn't attend matches because they boycotted the Lowe / Wilde regime. I repeat again, the fact that numbers increased in the third division when Lowe left is indicative of that. Unless you can give some other credible explanation for it. Err, just a guess but maybe because you'd just been taken over by a billionaire who spunked several million on your team making you everyone's favourites for promotion? There seems to be every reason to come on like the governor of the Bank of England about it, as otherwise I don't know how else the facts might penetrate your thick skull. I'll explain it to you point by point. Lowe never had sufficient investment himself. During his entire tenure, he actually took out more than he put in. He only had about 6% of the total shares. Had anybody been introduced by him with real money to invest, do you seriously believe that they would have allowed Lowe to run the club? Or would you accept what I have trying to get you to understand, that they would take over control themselves? If so, then there would be no further need of a Lowe boycott, would there? Jeezus, how many more times. IT WAS HYPOTHETICAL. Pointing out that if Lowe had by some miracle come into money and invested it in the club your fans would have flooded back. If that had happened and your form improved crowds would have improved also. Fans are fickle. many would have forgiven Lowe if he'd brought investment into the club. To deny that is laughable Thanks for backing up what I've been saying. The new owners have a lot to do to convince Pompey fans that they're the real deal and not yet another false dawn. hence a a lot of Pompey fans are not going to (or boycotting if you'd prefer) games, especially at £30 a ticket. Which was the whole point of my original post on the. You lot laughed because we only got 13,500 but your crowds were not far off that. Call it a boycott, call it what you like but dissatisfaction with the way a club is run means fans not going. But somehow it has to be turned into a moral standpoint by you weirdo bunch of new puritans

I think you'll find whenever I've mentioned your "boycott" I've used inverted commas because as I've said many times now the majority of your stay away fans did so because of crap "product" not en masse because of an orchestrated and co-ordinated boycott. Or do you insist that it was an orchestrated campaign that people bought into as a group that resulted in your crowds dropping? That's the question no-one seems to want to answer So, yours was a boycott because of you didn't like the state your club was in but ours is just the result of our fans not being as super duper as yours. That's what everyone seems to be telling me. Which of course is ******. If a team starts to do well crowds rise and when they drop down crowds fall. That's the simple fact of the matter and it's exactly what happened to you It was hypothetical situation. No need to come on like the governor of rthe bank of England about it. the point I was making was that IF (hypothetically remember) Lowe had come back with big investment and bought a load of good players and you'd risen up the league your crowds wouldn't have fallen like they did. Or are you telling me if that happened (no responses of "but it didn't" thank you) your fans would have all stayed away because of their dislike of Lowe? I already posted a link proving harbour cancer trust have been paid. Go back and look at the original post. And PFC didn't pay St John's ambulance, the fans did, again as I've already posted. As for the bet, I accept you'll have higher crowds than us this year. You have a bigger stadium, lower ticket prices (plus free tickets for under 11's) and have a couple of good years behind you that have rallied your fans. We have new owners (again) and a set of disillusioned fans who, as Dubai Phil has pointed out have a distinct sense of deja vu and need convincing to part with £30 a match to watch football that has been very uninspiring for the past year not to mention that, as many have pointed out on here, not even got a full squad yet. So not a "boycott" by Pompey fans, just people needing convincing they should part with their hard earned cash in a dodgy economic climate