hypochondriac

Because as I said, they would rather the club were run fairly and liquidated then run dodgily and continue giving money to Chanrai.

Note of caution though lads. It's possible now that Chanrai will have his charge downgraded to just a secure creditor. That makes the club a lot more attractive to a buyer and Chanrai loses his power.

I think many are at the point that they would rather see the club die than Chanrai continue to profit. Shame they didn't take that approach earlier...

But they can't even afford those staff (and probably 10 percent of the staff earn 90 percent of the wages.)

No more backhanded dodgy deals. No more inflated debts, no more 'we will be taken over in three days.' PFC will no longer be able to run in admin whilst insolvent. If no buyer can be found (and it's going to take the new administrator a while to get acquainted with stuff) then he can (and will) liquidate.

How on earth are they going to fund admin?

Woo. Justice.

Old news MLG...

The worst thing is that after the first time they failed to be self sufficient. Didn't any Portsmouth supporters question where the money for the wages of Kitson and Lawrence were coming from? But no, they just went on and on about being the smallest squad in the league. Disgraceful.

Bob Beech saying that the Premiership and football league washed their hands of them. How about you ensured your club was self sufficient Bob before you complain, then it wouldn't have mattered if your club was dodgy. If they had gone down the route of someone like Milwall and had a sensible wage cap they could afford, then they would have a right to feel aggrieved. Fool.

What does that mean?

Apologies. Back on topic.

As I said, I don't believe it would have happened. As we saw with Portsmouth, the judges don't have the guts to liquidate and certainly when you consider how much smaller our debt was in comparison to theirs. We would have survived somehow.

Nope. Don't believe we would have been.

Lol. Birch says he cannot work with AA as they have a very different attitude to compliance.

But Le Tiss was not part of the team. He said he would help anyone who wanted to take over the club.

Sort of, but it was a lot more than luck. When you look at our assets and potential, I am surprised we didn't attract more serious interest TBH.

We got a good buyer because we represented value for money.

There is a clear conflict of interest. If Aa is administrator then it is ridiculous really.

The different league argument is sort of like our different companies argument when we went into admin. Technically it is correct but should ultimately make no difference at all.

It's a disgrace if AA is appointed.

That is blatant blackmail. Can they do that?

They are away...

Was it not in the original terms of the CVA? That they can basically change it when needed?

Any idea when we know if opposition to AA has been successful?