stevegrant

I particularly liked the bit of the article where the writer was clearly distracted and thought their fingers were in the right place on the keyboard but ****ed it up

£16m CVA to Baker Tilly, £1.6m to HMRC for unpaid PAYE/NI from December/January, about the same in unpaid wages for January.

Have you replied to any of the messages? If so, that's why you're getting loads. Scammers send messages out to completely random numbers, hoping to get a reply, which gives them the knowledge that it's an active number. They then sell that number on to other scammers.

HMRC won't necessarily be the problem, although they'll have a significant input. Baker Tilly, as supervisors to the old CVA, are owed £16m, and as they were installed as supervisors by HMRC, it stands to reason that they would probably vote against any new CVA which dilutes the old creditors' return even further.

He's quite touchy, isn't he?

It still puts the loss in the 18 months since they came out of admin at around £17m. In fact, that means that the loss is much more than £100k a week...

Even though they *did* give them money only last month... seems very odd.

If Lampitt did anything he shouldn't have done legally, and it's discovered, he'll get done for it. It doesn't matter that he's not a director anymore.

Christ, they've just made 30 people redundant and the first question to him is "What is the situation with signing players?"

All well and good, but as has been mentioned, sale-and-leaseback hasn't done much for other clubs, and of course you need an idiot willing to buy it first. With various charges, security, etc and the uncertainty over whether they'd actually get paid any rent by the tenant football club, I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

Wonder if Lampitt will be asking for his old job at the FA back?

Who's posting as me?

Not exactly new news, tbf

Oh look, another News webchat from 1pm

Their home record is what will keep them up, if anything, I reckon. Their remaining fixtures at the Ricoh look pretty kind, to say the least, while away from home they've managed a whole 3 points so far. If they're going to stay up, they'll have done the business before the trip to St Mary's.

Yes, without a doubt. For what it's worth, even if Pompey had beaten West Brom in 2005, we'd have gone down anyway, so their claims that they "sent us down" are inaccurate.

*points and laughs* You're old

I'd be inclined to say that is nearer a fact than a conspiracy theory, to be honest. If there is no football club to play there, the council wouldn't give it a moment's thought before revoking the "leisure only" covenant on the land.

To be fair, Darlington fans have (so far) raised more than £200k in £100 shares in their new "community club" buyout since the scheme was launched last week. Pompey are a bigger club than Darlington, so there's no reason why they couldn't raise significant sums of money to fund a similar scheme, although I guess it would be much more suited to the phoenix club option rather than the current debt-saddled rabble.

Wahey

Already this season, they've dropped 20 points from winning positions

Because there is no rule about that - the only rule is that a club can name a maximum matchday squad of 16, and under the Laws of Association Football, the minimum number of players required to constitute a team is 7.

My suspicion is that there is some history between Birch and Andronikou. Birch's comments in court about the differing approaches to compliance were incredibly barbed and - assuming there is only rumour and no actual proof - only just on the right side of the slander line. I can imagine that sort of besmirching within the walls of the High Court might have annoyed Handy Andy a bit

Football does have a tendency to unearth plenty of sentimental idiots, to be fair. Whether one exists with enough money to see Pompey through until (realistically) the end of NEXT season is another matter.