SaintBobby

Potentially big, big differences with SLH. At least in theory. If SLH had hit the buffers because another subsidiary it owned had collapsed (e.g. if SLH had owned Northern Rock), but Southampton FC had - in its own right - been a going concern, then we would almost certainly have avoided the points penalty. In practice, however, it seems to me almost impossible to believe that Pompey are a going concern in their own right. Others have crunched the numbers endlessly. There is no way the club's income covers its expenditure and liabilities - their only prayer was (and remains) a sugar daddy bailing them out. I would have thought that Portsmouth FC are now trading while insolvent. Which, I believe, is illegal.

I'm not an expert in the rules surrounding these issues. But if the FL fail to impose the rules, Southampton FC should take legal action. We have already lost one match to them in virtue of their financial cheating, we shouldn't accept any possibility of losing another.

I find the whole immigration debate really interesting, but often clouded by nonsense. Anyone who says "sod off, we're full" is just wrong IMHO. The population of the UK has about doubled in 150 years. And we have got much richer in that time. I guess that there may have been general hysteria when the population got to 10m then 20m then 30m etc. The latest horror story is that the population might reach 70m before too long. Good. So far, the more densely populated we've got, the richer we have become.

Ah well, that's me embarrassed. I owe a fulsome apology to Corp Ho. This guy was clearly on the straight and narrow all along! :-) Joy. Joy. Joy. This is surely catastrophic for skate finances? Please tell me it is....

OMG. Is that all you lot cling to these days? The Jimmy Hoffa case? This is the proof that my analysis is wrong and all is well at Fratton Park? Hell, things are even worse down there than I thought.

Disaster. With this sort of approach to the retail of children's clothing, all hope is clearly lost.

I'm not sure if Portsmouth have been used (again) for money laundering purposes. It's very possible, but it's not certain. Reasons for buying Portsmouth rather than one of the other 92 clubs would be pretty obvious... Yes, the club is under more scrutiny than most, but this scrutiny is so lax as to be almost non-existent. Certainly easy to get round. Additonally, Portsmouth's internal checks and balances are likely to be almost zero, so utterly dysfunctional has the club been in recent years. It is true that if you bought, say, Burnley, you would have slightly fewer half-hearted types from the FA/FL looking through the paperwork, but you'd run the risk of some internal check and balance (a senior staffer, for example) blowing the whistle. By way of analogy, it's why dodgy mafia types invest in strip joints/brothels in Soho rather than, say, launching a takeover bid for Mothercare. The former are under enormously more scrutiny from Scotland Yard/The Vice Squad/The Child Protection Unit etc...but it's a damned lot harder to run laundered money through the latter. I don't know how acquainted you are with international banking regulations. Barely at all, by the sound of it. Contrary to popular belief, banking is one of the most tightly regulated sectors on the planet. Laundering money through your own bank would be reckless verging on suicidal. You'd likely be caught very quickly indeed. That is why, throughout recent history, the mafia have tended to avoid the financial services sector. You don't find the Cosa Nostra putting their capital into banking and insurance - they invest in drugs, bars and restaurants. The dubious organised crime interests in 1960s America didn't run pensions funds - they bought up Las Vegas casinos. Al Capone had a network of illegal drinking dens, not life assurance annuities. Organised crime always gravitates to the leisure industries with high cash turnover and few questions properly asked. I think it's reasonable to say that English football broadly fits into that category. Nothing of this means your owner is definitely a crook. He may be a misunderstood, unfairly maligned, genuine, well meaning, self-made, honest billionaire with a purely philanthropic interest in Portsmouth FC's wellbeing embedded deeply in his heart. But, the circumstantial evidence points in another direction.

In nominal terms about 2 or 3% is easy to secure. In real terms, about -2%, owing to an inflation rate of about 5%. So, in all likelihood, if invested conservatively, the 12m is now worth less than it was.

Not sure Forest are "somewhat bigger". Saints are in the region of 12th-20th biggest club in the land I'd say. With a fair chance to grow. SFC's marketing effort is, however, truly lamentable.

Useless. No petting zoo or rollercoaster.

Those two Saints fans arrested for homophobia should count themselves lucky. My lawyer tells me I face a seven year prison sentence for sexism after chanting "She fell over".

We should have had at least two penalties. But just not the two given.

A few obvious gaps on the corporate section in Itchen too. I'd say a block of about 300 empty seats there.

Did the ticket office really reference membership? It's cool if you got a ticket. But you made the first bit up, right?

I'd swear I've heard this tune sung before....sigh....

Well, tweak the numbers/people to show the problem. If Jos gets a £20k pw deal, what do Chaplow and Guly ask for? They just say "Fair play, guv, I'm happy with my £7K a week...good luck to Jos, must have a great agent!" ???

Amongst the many things I worry about, the OP's question isn't that high up my list...

Sorry, I'll try for a third time. It's unlikely the sticking point will be the transfer fee. A range between 750k and 2m, I guess. Probabaly settle at about 1m. The problem is salary. Let's say he's on £20k a week at Celtic and we are presently paying 50% of his wages. (guesswork...but probably in the ballpark). As of January, he can return to Glasgow on £20K a week or sign for us on maybe £10K? £12K? (e.g. a poss loss to him of £500K a year). Or if he sign him on a c.£20k a week deal, then those star players on c. £10k a week (Lallana? Kelv? Rickie?) may also ask for a pay hike.

Surely, you have to measure net spend...not gross spend. E.g. the sale of AOC should add £12m+ to our balance sheet. Seems to me we have possibly made a net profit on transfers since Liebherr bought the club. If not, then we have certainly spent small. If some schmuck wanted to buy Tony Pulis off us for £100m, I don't think it should count against us if we then spent £80m on transfers ourselves. On the basis of net transfer spend, I think you'd expect Saints to be in the bottom 5 or 6 in the NPC. Wages, however, are a different matter...

I really hope we get him, just feel salary could be a sticking point.

I'm a London based STH. Get to about 18 of the 23 home games per season and maybe 7 or 8 aways. Find midweek games at SMS pretty hard to get to. So I will select games partly based on the opposition - especially in the cups. A 2nd round Carling Cup game v Northampton.....hmmmm....can probably give that a miss. A cup game v Pompey or Man Utd and I'm doing all I can to make sure I get to the match. As far as league games go, the opposition matters too. I'm making a bigger effort to get to top of the table clashes than less glamorous ties. Does this make me plastic? Do I care?

I think the trickier bit could be salary demands rather than price. Aren't Celtic presently paying a good % of his wages?

I don't think the "expanionists" have really tackled CB Fry's key point about the pricing strategy. Look, to take a wild punt, I reckon we could get crowds of perhaps 50K in the premiership if we charged, say, a quid a ticket. But 50k x £1 is less than 32K x £25. Heck, if attendance is all we care about, why not charge "negative prices" (i.e.pay people to attend)? At some point, we could get crowds of 100,000 or more (but would obviously be running at a huge loss!) The point is that even if you're utterly sure that we could get crowds of 40K every week, it is not necessarily profit-maximising behaviour to expand the stadium. You could just put the prices up for the 32K seats available. This might even yield as much income as a 40K sellout depending on how price insensitive the keenest/richest 32K fans are. And, of course, it avoids any financial outlay at all. Even if you can show that expanding to 38K, 40K, 42k etc would "pay for itself" in ten years, it doesn't follow that this is the profit-maximising strategy. Squeezing a hardcore 30K until the pips squeak might be the better option from a pure profit motive. It is also obviously, without question, the safer option.

Genuine question. What is your prediction is for our finishing position now? I'm not trying to prove a point. At the start of the season I said 10th. My Mrs said auto promotion - prob 2nd. She's now saying she was pessimistic!!!

Presumably, like most agents, he makes his £ from turnover. So if Sharpe departs, he gets a cut?