stevegrant

I thought we actually played some decent stuff yesterday. Stark contrast to the Forest game.

I would say that his position, in opposition to the likes of Crouch, has been strengthened. However, his position in opposition to fans has almost certainly weakened. I guess the overall picture depends on how much power you believe Leon Crouch, Lawrie McMenemy and the Corbetts to hold.

Eventually done... ****ing hell, that took ages, and I've probably still left out some bits I wanted to say! :smt012

Yep. I'm trying to write a report/opinion piece for the main site about it, but keep having to start again because, for once, I'm really struggling to put across how I'm feeling about it all, because it's just all such a complete mess.

I'll take the option of "none of them under any circumstances" after today.

I have a feeling that the Virgin Media one may be UK-only due to the way the rights are distributed.

The last I heard was that he absolutely hated it at Sheffield United, presumably on the basis that he wasn't getting a game. I think up until two or three weeks ago, he'd made 4 or 5 sub appearances which gave him a total of about 20 minutes on the pitch. That said, he scored on Saturday so he's obviously playing more of a part since then. I'd still expect to see him back here in January.

It'll be the last to open if necessary. Itchen South is already open and the Kingsland North will be the next.

It might shut Michel Platini up for a while though...

Juande Ramos is a bit of a cup specialist though, so they might not be quite so useless... Also, I think Real Madrid are the only La Liga team Fernando Torres never scored against when he played for Atletico.

And I'd expect the FA to allow the same special dispensation because the intention was to sign him permanently on 31st January 2008 but because of Man City's dodgy fax machine and Benjani's inability to stay awake at the airport - neither of which were Pompey's fault - it didn't happen at that time. Of course, permanent signings are forbidden outside of the transfer windows, with the exception of signing unattached players, so I imagine his actual registration date is still 31st January/1st February 2008. It doesn't necessarily mean that that money is *actually* his, of course... IMO, Gaydamak's not selling Pompey because he's skint, he's selling Pompey because in its current state and in the current economic climate, there's absolutely no way he'd be able to make any money out of it, so he's cutting his losses now before he gets in deeper than he can afford. I think he envisaged having the stadium building work started by now, probably didn't predict the slump in the housing market, and didn't think he'd be sanctioning the paying of a number of £3m+ annual salaries among the playing squad. The stadium won't happen with the original residential plans because of the collapse of the housing market, and I'm led to believe that Portsmouth city council won't allow an out-of-town stadium to have retail developments surrounding it because it could/would take people out of the city centre and Gunwharf. All of which means the entire stadium development would either have to revert to Mandaric's original plan of rebuilding Fratton Park (still the most realistic idea of the lot, I reckon) or be funded by the football club, an investor or external borrowing. None of the three options for a non-Fratton Park site are viable at the moment as far as I can see.

I think I remember reading somewhere that the window will actually close on Monday 2nd February this season due to the 31st January falling on a Saturday (and therefore no admin staff at the FA available etc), which would mean that they have a 24-hour window in which to seal a deal on that front. Having spoken to various financial types in the last couple of years, the general consensus (back when more people were actually to **** money down the drain into football clubs) was that benefactors would potentially be willing to stake up to 10% of their net worth as a gamble on getting a return in the future. I assume AG has a higher worth than just the £35m he now possesses, but I wouldn't have thought it would be that much more - assuming he is willing to put any more money in, £5m or so is hardly going to make a big difference to you, is it?

The only point, as far as I can see it, is as a PR exercise. It portrays the Football League in a positive light in that it's ramming home the notion that its member clubs are dedicated to bringing through young players from an early age rather than just going for the "cheap" option of importing a ready-made player from abroad. It also allows the likes of Barry Fry to go on Sky Sports News saying "I've always said there are too many foreigners in the game, and this is something to redress the balance" etc, which is clearly complete ********.

It wouldn't affect them either. The likes of Fabregas have been at the club since they were 14/15. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference whether they're English or Iraqi, it's the age that's the key.

We're fully accepting of our position, we know we're up the creek and have to sell players in January and the summer. If anything, I'd say you were the one clutching at straws for failing to realise the financial position PFC finds itself in (hint: a negative net assets figure on the balance sheet is not a good thing - even we don't have that yet!) - Tony Adams can talk about having money to spend and not having to sell players until the cows come home, but anyone with half a brain knows that you will be selling sought-after players both in January and over the summer. The reason Adams, Storrie and anyone else connected is saying they don't have to sell anyone is because if they were to say "yeah, fair do's, we do have to sell players", the asking price for those players would go through the floor so you'd get less money in that way, and also the morale of a lot of the fans would also deteriorate to such an extent where they say "well the club's clearly got no ambition anymore, so I'm not going to bother paying through the nose to watch them anymore". The reason I know this to be the case? Because I've seen it all happen here in the last three years.

To be honest, I see this rule having very little effect on any club. Basically any player who has been in England since they were 18, whether they've come through their current club's youth structure or not and whether they're a UK national or not, counts as one of the four players. I would hazard a guess that that would actually cover the majority of players in the Championship, not the minority.

I feel dirty sticking up for a skate, but never mind. How many Premier League (or other top foreign league) clubs would pay money for Sol Campbell these days, particularly given his likely wage demands? I reckon you'd be able to count them on the fingers of one hand with some fingers left over. You can't make the bet and then turn around and say "we'll wait and see who you sell and then I'll decide which players are your 'top' players"!

The accounts from summer 07 showed debts of about £60-odd million, which along with assets of about £25m, left PFC's worth at an overall -£35m or so.

I don't see why not. The company would still be a limited company, which means the directors are duty-bound to act in the best interests of the shareholders and to ensure the company is trading solvently, and the debt would still be owed in the same way as it is currently. The only difference in terms of anything that might affect them is a £250k or so annual cost has been removed from the cashflow. Unless I'm missing something...

Treble it and you're closer.

To be honest, Nick, I'd agree with the skate on the overall "top players" list and also the Campbell issue - he's starting to become a bit of a liability rather than a top, top player Redknapp>.

It's a fair point - in the previous years that we've been either on the full LSE or on AIM, there have been tangible benefits in terms of exposure and also the supposedly increased ease with which people can buy shares. However, with the economic situation as it stands now, it would make sense to save the £250k or so it apparently costs to be listed on AIM each year. Whether it would get shareholder approval or not is another matter, although I suspect the major shareholders may actually be in favour of such a move because then there is no fluctuating share price that they can compare to, and as such can pretty much name their own asking price rather than say "well the public share price is Xp, so I think it's only fair you offer X+15p" or whatever. It should probably be added that you do lose a little bit of the finer details from the publicly-visible financial reports.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/dec/17/englandcricketteam-twenty20 Good news for the purists, bad news for grass-roots funding.

Diarra would have been getting regular games at Arsenal last season had it not been for the massive improvement in Flamini's performances. I suspect Wenger was expecting to be able to persuade Flamini to stay, hence not being too worried about losing Diarra.

As opposed to the -£33m yours was worth as per the last accounts?