stevegrant

I think they only froze the assets to which they had access to, i.e. assets in their own country.

OK, so it doesn't seem as though they're doing them in any particular order. Mine was done on Monday (averaging 7 or 8 aways, I think, from 4 of us), while Spudgun, who's not a ST holder had his done seemingly before yours.

But can he? Why would Chainrai register a charge against all CSI revenue and assets three days after the Lithuanian government took control of Snoras and one day before an arrest warrant was issued for Antonov? I reckon a lawyer with half a brain would be able to get that overturned. That said, we said the same about the Fratton Park one last time...

Those who appear to have just had their applications processed, how many away games have you got?

If it isn't, there's quite a serious data protection and privacy issue in play...

Surely this "delay" could have been avoided by the ticket office running whatever "checks" they're doing at the time of receiving each application? Not everyone handed/posted theirs in at the same time on the same day, they would have been staggered over a period of A WHOLE MONTH (original OS article: http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10280~2485151,00.html - started accepting them on 17th October with closing date on 19th November), so all they need to do is process each form for eligibility, label the form with the average number of away games and put them in an ordered pile ready for payment processing. Once the deadline comes round, if there are more applicants than tickets available, you start working from the top down until all the tickets are gone. If, as appears to be the case, there are more tickets than applicants, simply go through each form and process payments. It really doesn't need to be rocket science, just a bit of common sense.

The key date to compare it to would be when the European Arrest Warrant was issued, IMO... Also, the delusion here is incredible: http://fansonline.net/pompey-fans/article.php?id=385 Wah, it's all the Football League's fault, and as compensation they should give us an interest-free loan to help us out of the situation we've landed ourselves in

Except it's not a half season ticket... http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/staticFiles/b5/94/0,,10280~169141,00.pdf Terms and conditions: "This package is not a season ticket and does not provide purchaser benefits reserved for season ticket holders."

Which is fine, but why then the rather terse and arguably confrontational "no comment" snippets after that? Someone has asked a series of legitimate questions, albeit aimed at someone who wouldn't actually know the answers, why the need for an arsey response like that?

To be fair, given that likely scenario, why wouldn't the head simply say "sorry, I don't have the figures, the vote is taken nationally", rather than appearing to be obstructive by saying "not able to comment"? Many people really don't help themselves in this sort of situation.

"Footballing debts", in the way that the Android is referring to, are basically those which are counted under the Football Creditors rule (the one currently being challenged by HMRC in the High Court), which generally covers due wages and bonuses to players and coaching staff and fees due to other clubs in the UK. Interestingly, the fact that the Football Creditors rule does NOT include clubs in other countries is one of the arguments HMRC are using against the rule on grounds that it is discriminatory and contravenes EU legislation.

In fairness, there's an ever-growing list of reasons why people might not bother with it. Even the timing of the game, being the last weekend before Christmas, might even be one factor for some. Then of course there's the lack of faith in our ticket office to actually process applications properly, having to collect coach tickets in person (with only one matchday available for that collection), etc.

Ultimately, everyone acts in self-interest these days, rightly or wrongly. As a result, as this strike doesn't directly affect me, I'm not really that bothered by it all, to be honest. If people have a genuine reason to go on strike - and I don't really know enough about the situation here to decide one way or the other - that's fine, but every single one of them should be manning the picket line for the duration of time they were due to work that day. If there's one thing that only adds fuel to the "lazy, workshy public sector workers" stereotype, it's people "on strike" who use the day to have a lie-in, go and do a bit of shopping, go to the gym when it's quiet, etc, and then the same people wonder why private sector workers get arsey when another day of strike action is announced.

Just as well I'd booked a return train at 8.10pm rather than an earlier one

Or, more accurately, other ways to lose money

Ultimately, I'm not entirely sure what the FA/Premier League/Football League are really able to do about that situation, to be honest. It was perfectly legal for Vladimir Antonov, under the name of Convers Sports Initiatives PLC, to purchase Portsmouth FC from the administrators. He wasn't banned from owning a company or from being a director of a company, and the legal system in this country largely works on the basis that you are innocent until proven guilty. Once he has got ownership of the club, there's not a cat in hell's chance the Football League are going to say "sorry, we don't like the look of you, therefore we're revoking Pompey's membership" - it simply wouldn't happen. Just think of the ****storm that would create, a relatively powerless organisation uses a few blog posts and rumours as the basis for kicking a football club with a core support of 11,000 fans into the wilderness. While the idea of the (now-titled) Owners and Directors Test is a noble one, it simply doesn't work in practice as the Football League (or indeed the Premier League, despite their seeming belief that they are above the law) has no legal power to say who can and cannot own a UK company.

There is no precedent to prove that, if they were to agree a CVA, they would be punished any further than the initial 10 points, so point 1 is not necessarily true. As far as I can work out, the only clubs to have a) had a spell in administration since the points deduction rules came in, and b) had more than one spell in administration in total are Bournemouth, Rotherham and Luton. None of them agreed a CVA in 2008. If one of them had managed to get one agreed, we would know whether the Football League would definitely hand out an additional points deduction on exiting administration to clubs who have been in that situation before.

No it wasn't. Read it again. They were done for exactly 10 points at the time they went into administration. No more. No less. Subsequently, when they applied to exit administration and transfer the "golden share" to a new company, but having failed to agree a CVA with their creditors, they were hit with the "standard" (as set by Leeds) 15 points for doing so, plus the additional 2/2/5 for having done so before. Whether those additional points are as reference to the number of times they had been in admin, had failed to agree a CVA or had applied to transfer the golden share is fairly irrelevant as all three apply equally.

They carried over that administration into the Football League, so it's one of those grey areas that they love to apply the "spirit" of the rule to.

Yes, but not for "going into administration", which is what is likely to happen here.

My understanding of the situation in the past was that the club would issue you a duplicate ticket for a fee (whether it's £10, £20 or whatever is irrelevant), which would be refunded to you on production of the original at the ticket office at a later date. That way, they would have proof that you hadn't just got an extra ticket for a mate on the cheap.

The points deductions of 17, 17 and 20 points that were handed out to Bournemouth, Rotherham and Luton respectively in 2008 were not specifically for going into administration. All three went into administration during the previous season, and were deducted the standard 10 points. The additional deductions were for exiting administration without an accepted CVA (for which Leeds were hit with a 15-point deduction the year before), with 2, 2 and 5 extra points respectively for having gone into administration before.

"The club has funding in place for the short term, but will now be seeking alternative investment for its longer-term requirements." Given their tendency to embellish the truth somewhat, that wouldn't inspire much confidence.