stevegrant

"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.

Must admit I couldn't find that bit in the FL rules when I had a quick look just now. Must be buried somewhere if it's in there at all.

It's mine as well, and I'd prefer to do a more thorough job

This could be another loophole to exploit as they were in the Premier League when they entered administration (i.e. "suffered an insolvency event", as the rules would probably say). However, the courts may determine that "Newco" is in breach of its CVA because its 100% owner has gone into administration itself and initiate liquidation proceedings. I do think jumping to that sort of conclusion will have to wait until the end of this week to determine whether the players get paid on time.

Unfortunately there is a fundamental difference between the two circumstances. While Southampton Leisure Holdings plc was essentially the football club, CSI does own a pretty diverse range of companies with absolutely no connection to Pompey, so I can't see them being penalised on that rule. The only thing, IMO, that can get them is if PFC is heavily reliant on CSI's cash to prop up its own cashflow. As I said just now, it's difficult to tell just how reliant they are.

It depends what Chainrai's security is held over. If it's CSI's shareholding in PFC, I wouldn't expect him to get his hands on anything for some time, as CSI entering administration (as seems pretty much nailed-on now) would protect them from creditors.

Because they've chosen to pay that money, simple as that.

Not necessarily. Depends entirely on how reliant the club is on CSI's money on a month-to-month basis. Without direct access to the books, it's pretty much impossible to know for sure.

And there it is... @JohnSinnott Portsmouth's parent company Convers Sports Initiatives are the subject of insolvency proceedings #bbcfootball #pompey

Interesting, as it's a rumour I also heard yesterday

There are a few factors involved here, IMO. Firstly, the current system, as you rightly say, has been in use for years. I don't think there's been any functionality changes since it was first installed when we moved to St Mary's in 2001. I know for a fact that AudienceView, the company who provided the software, have continued to evolve their products over that period of time, but presumably we didn't believe it to be worthwhile either from a functionality perspective or from a cost perspective to keep the software updated. My assumption is that the club paid a (fairly hefty) fee up front and then an annual service contract to ensure it's maintained, but they clearly don't go as far as to keep the functionality updated. As far as they're concerned, it seems to serve the purpose on the limited budget they want to operate within. Secondly, a custom-built solution would be VERY expensive, both in terms of development time and cost. That is why many clubs are going down the route of using existing providers such as eticketing and Ticketmaster - they have tried and tested systems in place to cope with the likely demand, so for the clubs it's pretty much an off-the-shelf solution that they can "skin" to look like their own system. To develop a new system from scratch with all the functionality most of us would like (e.g. pick an individual seat, apply for away ballots, view full order history even when you're not the lead purchaser, etc) would, at a very conservative estimate, take a team of 4 developers a year to design, develop and test, and the cost would be well into six figures (the salaries alone would do that). Given the choice of three options, i.e. 1. Purchase a new off-the-shelf product from a third party, e.g. Ticketmaster, eticketing, etc, at substantial setup costs and see them take a percentage of all revenue; 2. Contract a software/web development agency to develop a bespoke system at very substantial cost and with at least a year's lead time before it's installed; 3. Persevere with the current system that can handle the basics but annoys the hell out of anyone who wants any sort of half-decent user experience, at very little cost; It's not hard to see why option 3 is the one they continue to choose.

To be honest, I get that very tram every day and you simply can't tell what sort of people are stood there on the periphery, so I don't really blame anyone for not wading in. While my experience of Croydon in the year or so I've been living here is that (August 8th aside) it's not as bad as its reputation would have you believe, there are clearly plenty of unsavoury characters who live in the area - as with most parts of London, to be fair - so in situations like that I'd be inclined just to keep my head down. Confrontation in an environment where there's no escape route if things go pear-shaped is asking for trouble, IMO.