pedg

Obvious case of chinese whispers. Someone obviously misheard someone say "Even an american would be daft for take us over"

Sorry, not had time to ratify his arrival, too busy chatting to some interesting people from the PL, sure you must have someone else to play in goal??

In terms of them getting new players in I can't see many PL clubs (despite saggychops) loaning them players after what their QC said about them on Wednesday.

300 people x 10 f5's a minute = slow for everyone

101 ways to leave a football league?

Lots of people interested in spanish air traffic control strikes?

Thinking about: 'The other clubs wanted Portsmouth Football Club to go to the wall and divide all the TV and other money among themselves,' It may be true that the other clubs wanted rid of pompey for a number of reasons but I very much doubt their main desire was to get an extra share of the pie as this statement suggests. In fact if I was the PL I would be taking issue with this statement as it defames the PL and I very much suspect he has not proof that it is true.

Still wonder who paid for the 'alternative CVA'? It may well have been used by HMRC in their submission to show that the administrator had clearly more interesting in maintaining a competitive club for chainrai than getting the best deal for the creditors as he should have done.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8886009.stm

So.... on the assumption the losing party appeals, how long would it be until the appeal is heard?

to summarise.. please ignore the laws we have broken and don't punish us otherwise it will hurt.

It was one assume: If you stay up its an advance on next years TV money, if you go down its an advance on the parachute payment.

So so far we have: Players who were possibly not eligible to vote voting in the CVA Including all parachute payments in CVA when they had already had an advance Ignoring a HMRC assessment without having the appeal.

Don't know who could have blatantly copied and pasted for that first one.

Is this one of ours? Not heard this point raised here? [Comment From Oxo54 Oxo54 : ] There is an anomaly here (one of several) - if the players were paid to offshore accounts in the guise of 'image rights' then they were not employees of the company. If they were not employees of the company then whose employees were they? Were they deemed to be self-employed or were they the employees of the company/organisation(s) receiving the offshore payments? If the latter - then the Tevez question emerges as to who actually owns them as employees. Furthermore, if they were paid under this guise of 'image rights' then why does a figure amounting to tens of millions of pounds appear in the Company's audited accounts under the heading salaries & wages. The whole thing is a transparent farce.

whowouldbuyaPUP?

He failed to include the trademark sign so he better have a good lawyer...

exactly how does showing no one likes then prove the CVA vote was valid? As you say v. strange.

I refer the learned gentlemen to the past few pages of the thread..

are we actually going to get any cross examination of AA etc? HMRC still not finished and the pompey QC has a few hours of waffling yet to go.

love the ™ [Comment From TCWTB2 TCWTB2 : ] The Best Fans in the World ™ simply don't deserve this.

I think you are reading too much into the non-legal experts opinion that Pompey are ahead just because there QC made a statement saying they should give up.

An interesting way to say cheating.

full article with it in is here: http://www.pompeyonline.com/2010/07/details-of-the-meeting-with-david-lampitt/

Think that was the bit where lampitt effectively claimed HMRC where also manipulating their debt, thus confirming that pompey had been actively trying to increase theirs.