hutch

Just use common sense, and don't do anything daft, and you should be fine. The vast majority of South Africans are nice and friendly people. I'll be at Rustenburg as well. I'm looking forward to a very winnable game. But expect a lot of security. The Brits & the Yanks are both percieved as high value targets for terrorists. I wouldn't bank on getting Rooney's autograph.

I was just wondering whether the creditors would actually see any of the money from the player sales. 5% is already promised as commission to a sports management firm. Then there's the 10% for 'Arry ('coz he's 'Arry, innit, and that's the way it works). And 10% for Pete ('coz he has sooooooooo much experience of football). Then Mark will make half of what's left disappear to the Caribbean from a well-known City firm's Client account. Then Dan will put what's left into one of three paper cups on a folding picnic table in the car park at FP, and ask the creditors if they want to try and find it. All in a very transparent way. Absolutely.

If they are promoted back to the PL then the balance goes to the other clubs. They would be the first PL club ever to be liquidated , so who knows?

I'm not so sure that a liquidator couldn't still collect the parachutes when they become payable over the next 4 years even if the Company is liquidated. If you owe money to a company which is then liquidated, you still owe the money to the liquidator. Pompey "earned" the parachutes by being relegated from the PL. They don't have to do anything more over the next 4 years to earn them. Pompey's only "assets" worth anything are the future cash flows from the parachute payments and player sales. The Administrator would obviously have to sell the squad pre-liquidation, as otherwise the registrations go to the League (or the FA). If that's right, the creditors (and HMRC) would be in a better position if they were liquidated. Ball park figures: £30m "secured" debt (Chainrai £15m + "Football debt" £15m) £100m unsecured debt £63m income (£48m parachutes + £15m for the squad) The first £30m (1st year parachutes + player sales) would pay off the "secured" creditors, leaving £33m over the following 3 years (33p in the £) for the unsecured creditors. That is, of course, only if they would still get the parachutes if they were liquidated, and if they haven't already had, and spent, some of it already. My ball park figures are very different from the liquidator's, but who's to say whether their's are any more correct than mine? One of them (Keilly I think) was quoted as saying that 20p in the £ will cost £16.5m, indicating that the unsecured creditors are roughly £82m (of which HMRC represent 43%), which therefore means that the liquidators are working on £53m secured creditors if their total is £135m. I wonder if HMRC will have something to say about that. They laid down a marker about later challenging secured creditor status during the WUP hearings.

On that point, anybody with a shoebox under the bed should note that, in accordance with a Reserve Bank directive, the "old" R200 notes will not be accepted in shops here after 31st May.

Not quite. There are two avenues open to the league. Within those rules themselves, starting at 71 [p.165] : 71.1 The League shall have the power, and will excercise such power through the Executive, to investigate any of the following: 71.1.1 alleged breaches of any of these Regulations; and/or 71.1.2 any complaint or allegation of financial or other irregularity; and/or... In other words, a financial or other irregularity is in addition to, and not explicitly defined in, the League rules. 72.1 All complaints and charges made under these Regulations shall be referred to The Football Disciplinary Commission (the FDC). 76.1 The FDC may at any time make a decision, and may make more than one decision at different times on different aspects of the matters to be determined. 76.2 A decision may: ... 76.2.9 order a deduction of points ... The League can deduct points either for a breach or it's rules, or for a financial or other irregularity. Incidentally, the rules also provide for dealing with PL clubs: 74.2 Any matter affecting an FA Premier League Club or it's officials or players shall be referred to The Football Association unless the Club, Official or Player consents in writing to the jurisdiction of The League. 74.3 Where a matter is referred to The Football Association, it shall be entitled to excercise all the powers and sanctions set out in these Regulations in relation to the Football League Club, its Officials and Players. The other avenue is contained in the Football League Insolvency Policy. I haven't been able to get my hands on a copy of this, but this is what has been used in recent years to deduct further points from clubs in relation to exiting administration. If there are any deadlines, that's where we'll find them. From what I've seen so far, and remembering what happened to us last year, it's all tantalisingly discretionary. They are exposed to the Luton-style double whammy. Let's wait and see what happens. p.s. if anybody can find the Football League Insolvency Policy, I would like to read it.

An extract from the footnote to the Arbitration Award in Leeds United v The Football League, where Leeds tried to overturn the 15 point deduction: 4. We accept that the imposition of the 15 points in the instant case was not (and was not intended to be) a precedent, i.e. an automatic sanction in the absence of a CVA. Each case has to be assessed by the League having regard to the Club’s individual circumstances leading up to and of the insolvency itself. Such Conditions as the League considers are required will reflect these circumstances and any merits the Club can establish. Although dealing with sanctions for not achieveing a CVA, which remains to be seen in Pompey's case, this certainly reinforces the League's discretionary powers in these cases. And they don't like cheats.

Not much help there. I believe the answer lies in a document known as "The Football League Insolvency Policy". I couldn't find a copy.

None, but last time I came in through immigration, a few days ago, they were still doing that body temperature scanner thing for bird flu, or swine flu, or whatever it is this week. If you're planning to visit other African countries at the same time, you'll need a yellow fever jab, but not for SA.

A useful post to understand the strike. First the disclaimer. Abidjan isn't a BA destination, although it has been served by franchise operators in the past (BMed I think), but Accra, Lagos and Abuja are close by, and not very different apart from the language. The issue as I see it is that the long-serving CC could not be required to go to places like that, for a couple of hundred quid spending money. That's the fate of the new recruits. The old timers got to choose Tokyo for £935 instead. Or LA. Or Mauritius. Or the Caribbean. Or Cape Town. You can't blame them for trying to cling on to what they had, but in the real world the gravy train's over.

Sit tight, Nick. That looks like another "Financial Irregularity" to me.

Just for a bit of perspective on the "how much do they get paid for making tea" debate, I thought I'd post some information from what I consider to be a fairly reliable source. Both sides spin doctors, with the help of both sides of the media, are publishing conflicting basic and average wage numbers. The real issue IMO is about allowances, how much they are and who gets the chance to earn them. Over the years top up allowances have become as important as, or more important than, basic salary. AFAIK, BA operates a length-of-service driven route bidding system i.e. those who have been with the Company since the days of the Wright brothers get first pick of the routes they want to operate on. For example, Heathrow CC on the old contracts are paid top up allowances of £935 on a 4-day Tokyo trip or £835 on a 5-day Hong Kong trip. These routes are obviously very popular. Add that lot up over a year. The "New Fleet" contracts for recent and new starters are based on a per hour allowance for Time Away From Base pay, much less than the old allowances. The power struggle as I see it, driving the strike, is who will operate on these expensive legacy routes. BA will (rightly) want to use lower cost but equally well trained and efficient staff on these routes, and the old timers who have been trousering (or skirting) the allowances for years don't want to give them up. I don't think that BA are trying to impose revised contracts on any individual, but are reserving their right to decide who will operate on what routes. If the old timers find that they are restricted to working on the less lucrative routes with short or no stopovers, their take home pay will be reduced substantially. That is why the strike has little support in the Company in general, as evidenced by the sheer number of employees willing to stand in on Heathrow CC duties during the strike. And if, as I have seen reported, BA made it clear to the staff that if they went on strike then certain discretionary perks would be reduced or removed, then I don't think they can, or should, back down from that position.

AFAIK, Pompey are still bottom of the PL, and will be until the AGM, when they will be formally "thrown out", and become candidates for the NpC at it's AGM on, I think, 3rd June. Let's wait and see what happens after that. From my recollection, it's so far only AA who has predicted that they will start next season without a points deduction, although that was widely reported. None of the decision makers have expressed an opinion that I've seen. IMO they were fortunate to avoid the HMRC WUP, but insolvency is one of the "least fair" areas of the law which I have the misfortune to deal with, and, with great respect to some posters on here, insolvency practitioners can be a distasteful and shady bunch. Many directors of failed businesses get away with it relatively scot free, and just pick up and start again under a new name almost immediately, to fleece more punters. It's the way the law of limited liability works. The difference in football is that the league take a dim view of that, as has been shown many times in the past. Will they really turn a blind eye to Pompey's disgraceful conduct just because AA says they should? I doubt it. The definition of toast is subjective, but IMO if their rump is struggling in League 1 in their shabby little stadium 2 or 3 seasons after gloating in the PL, that'll do for me.

Nope. All included in standard DSTV package. Every match - live. Just waiting to find out how much of it will be on HD.

They're geting there. A quote from one of the comments: "If the Football League continue the ban then our punishment and pain just continues. I begin to wonder if it will ever end!"

I would take a different view on the timing. It seems that the TV had a latent defect, and that defect became apparent 11 months after you bought it. It seems to me that that is unreasonable. The retailer appears to have accepted that the defect existed, and that it was unreasonable (by undertaking a repair). The important date is November last year. I don't believe that the retailer has any right to "guarantee the repair for 3 months". I think they just made that up. I believe that their obligation in November last year was to provide you with what you bought (a TV that works). 6 months later they still haven't done that. If there is any time limit after the defect became apparent, that would be in your favour as you would only be required to give them a "reasonable" time to correct the defect. In my opinion 6 months is more than reasonable. If it was me, I would give them a fixed time (maybe 14 days) to either replace the TV or refund your money, failing which you will replace the TV yourself and sue them for the cost of your damages.

Is that a posh name for a petrol pump?

Exeter, Wycombe & Brentford. And maybe Bournemouth, Notts County & Dagenham & Redbridge as well. HTH

Straight swap for Pulis jr. Done deal:)

I hope we get our priorities right. We NEED a stand-in for Morgan. Look at the stats over the last 2 seasons. We're a different team when he's not playing (or a bit off-form). Anything else is just icing on the cake, IMHO.

Does anybody know when Pompey will actually have earned the parachutes. Is it a) when they are doomed to relegation (i.e. now), or b) when they are actually relegated (i.e. after the last game of the season) and if they are liquidated, will PCFC Limited (in liquidation) still be entitled to receive the payments as they become due, even if they are not competing in the league?

I didn't think Huddersfield would pick up 6 points out of the last 6, but I was wrong. I don't think they'll only pick up 2 (or less) from the next 9, but ....

Don't forget that the "Football Creditor's Rule" is only a rule. We're talking about Portsmouth here.

And we're now mathematically "safe", if that helps.

No need to be afraid. It's only a game.