stevegrant

I'm assuming Lampitt is only still in employment for the purposes of a "handover" process to Birch?

Sorry gents, game's off.

Matt Slater being the main one

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/pompey_could_have_more_points_deducted_1_3539161 A rather dangerous assumption, I'd have thought

Ah, but we would have gone down even if Pompey had won that game. Actually, imagine if Pompey won at Forest but Cov winning at St Mary's meant they stayed up by a point

Ideal situation: Seal promotion at Middlesbrough on the penultimate weekend, leaving us v Coventry and Forest v Pompey on the final day. Forest beat Pompey (or draw, either's fine) and we roll over and let Cov stay up. Payback

We're sending you down We're sending you down You dirty skate bastards We're sending you down Simple. Effective.

They almost certainly won't be able to sell players. However, the "emergency" loan window is open until mid-to-late March, so there's the option for players to go out on loan for up to 93 days, and clubs may or may not be willing to pay a loan fee as well as cover all or part of the wages. The other option for them would be to ask the players to take wage deferrals. This would enable the administrator to run the club as "normally" (by your and my standards, not Pompey's usual) as possible with a much-reduced wage bill, bearing in mind that the administrator is liable for any additional losses incurred during the administration period.

Strange how he's turned into a defensive ****wit having been exposed for not actually having the faintest idea what he's talking about.

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/table

Baker Tilly are one of the larger creditors (for the old CVA), so them and HMRC combined should be enough. Baker Tilly were proposed by HMRC to manage the CVA, and PKF were proposed by HMRC as administrators for the football club, so I don't think it's beyond the realms of likelihood that, if it comes down to it, they will vote together. Baker Tilly are unlikely to vote in favour of a reduction from 20p in the pound (or 10p in the pound if the revelation about the change in amount PFC were going to pay is true) to 20p in the pound of 20p in the pound, and we already know that HMRC will oppose a CVA as a matter of course.

If that's the end of matters I'll be ****ing fuming.

No. The "asset" () is still on the books of the football club, Chainrai simply holds security over it. I guess he might have been able to do something like that before they went into administration, but they're now offered protection from creditors.

I don't think he said anything one way or the other - I'd have thought you'd be best-placed to answer that question I believe there were comments querying the validity, but no evidence sought or provided by either side or the judge.

But we did go into administration

AA has been well and truly burned by Birch there

What a great idea, make the cost of administration twice as big

Dan Williams, ****ing hell, that's a blast from the past HelpMeRhonda

I'm led to believe he's a Saints fan

Was the issue of how the period of administration is to be funded raised in court? Not seen any mention of it so far.

According to our accounts for the year ended 30th June 2010 (the latest available from Companies House), the average number of employees during the year was 214 (61 "administrative", 153 "football"). In addition, we employed around 250 temporary staff on matchdays.

How many times has he actually been right with any of his "throw enough mud and eventually some will stick" transfer predictions?

The judge may yet oppose it, and ultimately he's the one that matters.

Surely if they were breaking even, they wouldn't need to go into administration?