stevegrant

A great idea in principle, but as we found out in 2008/9, there aren't always that many takers for older players on big wages. How much interest do you reckon they had for the likes of Lawrence, Rocha, Ben Haim, etc last month? My guess is absolutely none.

To be honest, bringing players in on loan with low (or no) wages is what they should have been doing from the start of last season, not giving 3 and 4-year contracts to the likes of Kitson and Lawrence. Bringing them in while under a transfer embargo is ridiculous.

Al-Fahim?! ****ing hell

Patrick Bamford, from Forest.

The latter.

Not convinced. The sums of money they're apparently talking about seem very optimistic, although the fact the club is now in administration makes it a bit more likely than this time last week.

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