stevegrant

SFC appear to be giving season ticket holders a £2 discount

It's possible, but I don't see why they needed a fixed and floating charge over ALL broadcasting revenue for the 2013/14 season if the BVI loan was for only £3.8m. It seems fairly clear that the loan was for cashflow, and it's coincided with both a massive transfer outlay and significant spending on the training ground redevelopment, but I don't see why those who were (rightly) asking questions about why we needed to take out such a loan given a) Cortese's comments in the past and b) the supposed continued support of the Liebherr estate were given such a hard time.

It's a difficult one, really. I can see where he's coming from, and West Brom were one of the other clubs of the same belief, that clubs should be able to manage their business however they want, and be left to suffer the consequences if they make a pig's ear of it. That's what eventually happened to Pompey (as well as the variety of crooks and idiots they jumped into bed with), and I'm sure it'll happen to a number of other clubs in the future. However, all of the leagues are right, IMO, to want to bring back a semblance of sanity to football club expenditure. How they've gone about it is different at pretty much every level of the game, but the key for them, mainly from a PR perspective, really, is that they are being seen to be doing something. I don't know whether the new rules on wage bills (which don't actually apply to us anyway because our wage bill is way below the £56m threshold set by the PL) will have the desired effect. I guess it's timely because it means that the players won't hoover all the extra TV money as soon as it starts rolling in in August with demands for new improved contracts, but in reality the leagues could impose any rules they like and it will still protect the bigger clubs from any smaller upstarts with a vision and financial backing. Cortese's thinking that he can run our club better than the chairman/CEO/whoever runs Villa, Stoke, West Ham, Everton, etc without regulation, which is fine, he's entitled to believe that, and his belief has some merit, and the concern is that imposing regulation on these clubs will force them to improve their ways which in turn could lead to them punching a bit higher in the future.

I've seen nothing that gives a definitive figure on the loan, that Companies House document is a mortgage/charge document so it is only there to show the security, which in theory (unless you use Pompeymatics to calculate the value of assets) means that the loan value can be anything up to the value of the security.

There is a mortgage charge lodged at Companies House with all of that information. It doesn't state the actual loan amount, but there is a fixed and floating charge on next season's broadcasting revenue.

Yeah, when you look at it from a business perspective it makes complete sense. Of course if you're trying to protect your arse, you can do a Peter Storrie valuation of your playing assets and pluck a wildly inaccurate and high figure out of thin air, but for real accounting purposes, a player's registration is worth exactly zero to the club once his contract expires so to depreciate his value evenly over the period of his contract is entirely logical.

Interesting that these figures have been released before the publication of the 2011/12 accounts. I assume it's a Premier League rule that six-monthly figures have to be released, we've certainly never revealed half-year profit/loss figures before under the current regime. All in all, looks fairly promising. It's worth bearing in mind the "profit" figure in no way relates to the cashflow of the business. Player transfer fees are accounted for evenly over the course of the player's contract rather than in one big hit when the player first signs for the club. If we assume that most new signings will be on an average of a 4-year contract, that means that only around an eighth of our transfer spending will have been accounted for in the June to December figures.

Different scenario, tbf. AFC Wimbledon was a brand new club. Pompey are a (somehow) existing club so the Conference or Ryman League might be a bit more accommodating.

Shelvey's a horrible turd

Damned with faint praise

Forren looks good with the ball at his feet but he got completely done by a simple threaded through ball just before he scored, looked like he was running through treacle but fortunately the striker missed the one-on-one. Should fit right in with the first team back 4...

Inconceivable they'd move it now, I assume they'll simply show the games they'd already picked when they're eventually re-arranged.

Yeah, they edited out a bit I added there which clarified that Camara effectively replaced Beattie in January - the point still stands that he had access to that strikeforce and still managed to take us down.

Rather ironic considering they only actually ended up paying about £5m to build it as they went into administration shortly after it opened...

No and no. The rules were different back then, the payments were only for two years.

4, like everyone else gets

And of course that interest rate will almost certainly be an annual interest rate, with the loan supposedly being repayable within five months, so it'll be (5/12 x 5%), roughly £30,208. They might be able to keep one public toilet open for that amount

I assumed you had to pay for LFCTV?

Possible/Probable that'll be on Liverpool TV, which means streams may be available...

So basically the council have drawn up contingency plans for if the club goes bust, but have decided that, because of the cost of demolition and associated risks with such old and badly-maintained buildings, the land is effectively worthless. Which begs the question of why the property developers are involved at all...

And now they have definitely scored

Swear Filter FC now winning as well Edit: or perhaps not, flashscores.co.uk has just deleted it

The one area of the law that is particularly grey when it comes to online defamation is who is ultimately liable. It could be any one of the following: 1. The individual author(s); 2. The administrator(s) of the website where the defamation is published; 3. The owner(s) of the website where the defamation is published, if different to (2) above; 4. The hosting company of the website where the defamation is published; 5. Any other website that allows the original defamation to be repeated or copied. He seems to think it'll be a fansnetwork thing rather than anything personal to him. We'll see, I guess...

Pompey's leading scorer starts tonight. For the opposition

To be fair, I'm not entirely sure you can get legal aid for a libel defence, which is a civil matter rather than a criminal one.