ooh it's a corner

We are going to win this. First saturday 3pm kick off in ages. The crowd will be back in their routine groove and will provide 12th man support. the boys upfront will bag us a few today and we will leapfrog west ham tuesday when we beat them at theirs... bring it on.

...

myyyyaaaaaaaaawwwwwwww

I think it is an often quoted factor in Luton's point penalty. -10 for going into admin and another -10 for a second admin within a short period of time. Not sure if that is a bone fide rule, or not

"His trial heard that the contract he signed at Portsmouth in 2004 was worth £4.2m over three years. He emphasised that he had paid income tax totalling £8m – suggesting an income over the years of around £24m". People are beginning to join the dots and realise that HR's net worth is more than he could have ever earnt from football. Given the transfer calculations from PFC earlier in this thread of Redknapp's transfer commission of £500k, (with Portsmouth being his most lucrative contract before his current spuds one), where did he get all of his money from? I hope Portsmouth go bust, I really do, for the sake of what is good in this country, please let them start again.

be fair, there could be hundreds and thousands of reasons for his disappearance

You're absolutely right, he has been found not guilty. However, something in my core says that he is not the chariting giving, model citizen that the tabloids would have us believe. Dave Jones, in my opinion, was a good egg, falsely accused. Harry is a bad egg, falsely found not guilty. This is purely my opinion, not one that I am trying to convince others to share, just my opinion. That means that if (or perhaps when) he becomes England boss, I will feel less pride in that team, to the extent of not bothering to watch. that's all. But, as DP says, it's not the HR thread, so back to more important matters, are they dead yet?

So, it's me, you and my chip on shoulder, asking for the local boozer to put the tennis on the tele this summer then :-)

For those of you that don't understand why people are posting that they will stop supporting England if Redknapp becomes the new national manager, here's my reason why. I was fortunate to have been brought up with a sense of right and wrong, fair-play, sportsmanship and a need to treat others as you would wish to be treated. This does not make me a perfect human being (far from it), but when I believe people have wronged, then I also believe there ought to be a punishment to go along with said wrong-doing. To REPRESENT your country at anything, is (in my opinion) a huge accolade and an honour. You are showing the outside world, the qualities that your nation has to offer, in a given field. John Terry has been filmed using racist language on a football field. Guilty or not guilty in a court of law, it is enough for me not to want him to be associated with MY national team. By the same token, it is my opinion that Mr Redknapp has, during his managerial career, taken every opportunity to profiteer from football, with no consideration towards the greater good of the game (i.e. leaving some money on the table for the club) and has potentially behaved in manners which at best would be considered bringing the game into disrepute, and at worse bring crown court charges to bear. Of course, by the law of this land, he is innocent. Under the same laws, Abu Qatada is free to leave custody (albeit with bail conditions). I don't expect the national team manager to be perfect. I don't expect the national team captain to be perfect. However, if the FA think it is acceptable to spout racist bile (which fundamentally they do, or else they would have advised Mr Terry that he will never don the England shirt again), they will probably see it as acceptable to ignore any past or future allegations against bagpuss. Personally, I do not think it is unreasonable of me to expect the national manager to have a moral compass which points more-or-less due north - I dont think this is the case with Mr R. Of course this is my "opinion". Perhaps that makes me "opinionated". Perhaps I have a chip on my shoulder when it comes to this individual. I will accept all of that. And perhaps I will change my opinion of him when he leads England out at the final of a major tournament. Or, perhaps, me and my opinion will just ignore the whole event and become like many a recent England footballer and care more for club than country. That will be a sad day.

I don't think I have ever been so depressed with this country, ever. We let out suspected terrorists because we are not respecting their human rights (what about the rights of the other 60m citizens of this parish). We pay lottery millionaires benefits. We let off tax dodgers, because they've paid lots of tax already, so why would they bother trying to avoid to pay some more. We pay enormous bonuses to civil servants. If Redknapp becomes England manager, methinks my time will come to head for sunnier climes....anybody know what the British Virgin Islands is like?

For the record, if Mr Redknapp gets appointed England manager, it will be a cold day in hell before I watch them play under his stewardship...

Probably depends on the Redknapp case outcome. They will get -10 for being in admin, another penalty for their second admin in a short period of time (can't remember if this is -8 or another -10), plus whatever they feel is appropriate for having a former owner/manager guilty of tax evasion (if the two of them are found guilty). I think if the tax evasion case is guilty, then this would be a hefty penalty again, somewhere between 6 to 10 points. So, my my maths, that's -24 to -30 points, enought to be relegated. if they last that long

Yup. I can't understand the negativity, a few games ago it was "we've got to play West Ham, Brum, Cardiff, Blackpool, Hull, Leeds etc" I'm looking at the remaining fixtures now and thinking 17 to go, 8 against teams in the top half, 9 against teams in the bottom half. We are second. Teams have had a chance to overtake us, and with the exception of WHU have failed. We are going to be okay here folks, keep the faith

There seems to be some confusion on here (and evidently at Fratton) with regards to insolvency. I would like to clarify this. If you cannot pay your bills, when they are DUE, you are insolvent. If you CAN pay your bills, shortly after they are due, you are still insolvent, but will get away with it, due to the tolerance of your creditors (the people that gave you the bill). As an example, if I own a pension, which will give me a pot of money worth £1000 per month, when I am 60, but I owe the gas company £100 today, I cannot hide behind the fact that my pension is bigger than my debt, therefore, please don't cut my gas off. The gas company will cut me off. I would be insolvent. Lumpitt didn't authorise the player sales last month, because he knows the club is insolvent. Trading whilst insolvent makes him (and his fellow directors) liable for any increase in debt whilst they continue trading. Selling the players in January would have resulted in £2m ish worth of sales, and this would potentially be considered an insolvency transaction and he would be liable for this £2m. Better off to keep them, and let the 20th Feb roll around. In terms of this liability, for the Directors, it is unusual for this to be pursued. However, what is more common is the striking off of Directors, and to have them banned from holding Directorships for a period of time. Lumpitt will realise this. He KNOWS the club is insolvent (a 16 year old GCSE economics student would know they are insolvent). He will push this as hard as he can without threatening his personal wealth. But, my read and write friends, their club is insolvent, and that is a fact (fact).

here's hoping....

Let's do the tax dodge again, Let's do the tax dodge again. It's just a dodge to the left, It's just a dodge to the right, With your face in your palm, Hope and pray you'll be alright, But its the high court judge, they really drive you insane... Let's do the tax dodge again... Let's do the tax dodge again..

you can't sell the asset to somebody else without the charge being removed first. So, I could sell you my car, you could then think you own it, but if the finance company that helped me buy the car in the first place had a charge over the car (because I hadnt paid them off in full), then they would take the car back. The finance company would have a car, I would have your money, and you would have some explaining to do to the missus. It's like that, but on a bigger scale, with ugly gangster blokes, rather than your missus :-)

I reckon he's for it, the judge has got last year's home hit under his robes...

What? Is this allowed? So, I could ask my employer to give me a contract worth £5, then make un-contractual payments to an offshore account, which will avoid income tax? That's great, I will speak to HMRC tomorrow and get a bank account setup on the Isle of Man

So surely Redknapp is admitting that the money in the bank account was a bonus for the sale of Crouch, which wasn't covered by his contract with PFC, so was paid into an offshore account, which hasn't attracted any tax. Game over Mr Redknapp. you knob.

I couldnt agree more. They could argue during January that they were endeavouring to sell assets to make up the shortfall in cashflow. Right now, there is not enough cash to cover current liabilities - two home fixtures in Feb won't cover the existing debt, let alone anything else. You cannot just hope optimistically for a buyer to be found. If they do not file for administration tomorrow morning Lampitt needs to find himself a bloomin good lawyer, or his missus needs to start planning to down-size...

....of HMRC's Winding up petition...... You do not have any money, selling something valuable looked like your last chance saloon, but you blew it...... excellently.....

Go on then, I'll byte...

Maybe - but HMRC will contest it And if the bank account is unfrozen, I understand that HMRC can insist on the debt from their WUP being cleared. This would result in £800k being cleared immediately. A further WUP to be issued by HMRC and a repetition of this process. To imply that there is no relationship with old company and new company is just plain daft (but inevitably something PFC will try). Who is due to pay the CVA? Is it the old company or is the new company? They have reportedly had offers for their players during the open transfer window. They have turned these down, what logical reason could there be for this? If PFC argues that the offers that they have received were less than the liabilities on player contracts, then this adds fuel to the argument that they are trading whilst insolvent, and actually their liabilities outweigh their assets. When you add in the evident cash flow problem, then they are insolvent. Close them down. The court will ultimately decide, this much is true. But the court will have to decide if the company has the funds to continue trading (at the ongoing risk to other creditors - which includes HMRC), and balance this obvious lack of funds with a likelihood of being bought out. It is not the Court's place to gamble taxpayer and creditor money. They did this last time and I do not believe they will do it again (particularly as HMRC will want to protect their corner). If there is no buyer in the pipeline, with proved funds, by Feb 20th, then the court must close them down. How much is due on 1st March for the FIRST of their CVA repayments? Personally, I think (and I hope) that if they do not have a (very nearly) signed and sealed buyer by the 20th, they will be liquidated. Having just read that if they miss their first CVA payment, the creditors position returns to pre-CVA levels, this may be the best way for current shareholders to maximise their return on investment. It's a very murky world at the bottom of a pond......

Sad and probably wrong. There is a big gay market out there. David James posing in his undercrackers earns him some money, but if he were gay I bet he would be the biggest ticket in town - until everyone comes out, then the playing field levels out