saintbletch

And they say altruism is dead. Touched.

My 3 tickets for Exeter haven't arrived yet. I'm going to be out all day today so I won't know if they arrive in today's post until this evening when it might be too late. I was told that they were going to be posted on Tuesday evening so I'm starting to get a bit worried. I'm going to email the club and will try to call them but I imagine they'll be knee-deep in requests for Pompey tickets. Does anyone know if the club has a procedure for this eventuality? Can they re-issue new tickets for an away game with limited allocation? Any advice gratefully received.

Good analysis Saint_John!

Neutral Milk Hotel - In the Aeroplane Over the sea.

Hmm. So why keep Storrie on if he is implicated in the cash from agents case? Wouldn't it be better for PFC to distances itself from the problem? (although I realise that didn't actually help Luton)

The Decemberists - The Tain

I think the responsibility and scale of liabilities is the key question for me. If Chainrai has wrested control of the club, has he taken responsibility for the liabilities? Surely he must have? Does that include Gaydamak's? Surely it does. Would it not have been better then to have waited for the road crash to happen and then take the land against which his loans were secured? It seems like he is in a more exposed position now than he was as a lender with security. Perhaps he does intend to invest and stay around.

Sulaiman Al-Fahim yesterday finally confirmed that PFC had dropped plans to build a toilet-lookalike super stadium, adding that since he took charge of the struggling club, Fratton Park has been a more than suitable place to sh!t on.

I agree. People's use of lose is too loose. Having said that I'm relaxed about the change in language earlier in this thread, there are two grammar crimes that I'm struggling to accept. 1) Treating the single as a plural. I'm fighting a losing battle here and I have even capitulated recently as I've started to sound archaic. For example "The BBC are showing Only Fools and Horses again" There is only one BBC entity and it's singular so it has to be "The BBC is showing Only Fools and Horses again" 2) The abuse of none. It is not "None of them are any good" None is a contraction of Not one. i.e. it is singular. Therefore it is "None of them is any good" But following these rules nowadays make you sound like some sort of Victorian school master. And rule number 1) above used to be enforced by the BBC religiously but now they've left it up to the presenters to decide. I don't know about Radio 4 but the TV and Radio 5 talk about how Manchester Utd. are signing x and how BP are increasing their revenue. My family are fed up with me shouting "IS" at the radio and TV. So instead I've decided to bother you lot instead. Heigh ho.

Whilst I think it loses something in translation, technically I think it's "decode" (assuming your files are compressed in some way).

I didn't read it this way. I thought the point that Hutch made was that Chenrai's loan is secured against the entire PFC operation. i.e. if they default on that loan then he gets to pick over the bones. (subject to this agreement being enforceable as it post-dates the WUO and also subject to whether player's registrations can be transferred to an individual in this way). And as such this is not good news for Pompey as it means their main creditor doesn't expect or even want to be paid. Did I get the wrong end of the stick? Hutch?

The Thick of It. For anybody who keeps more than a weather eye on politics, this is genius. Was originally on BBC 3 but I think it's now getting repeated on BBC2 from time to time. Absolutely the best dialogue of any comedy in recent years. Yes Minister brought bang up to date with a heavy dose of cynicism. And it has absolutely the best character in the shape of the evil spin doctor Malcolm Tucker played by Glaswegian Peter Capaldi. He swears non-stop but not just any old swearing, this is Malcolm Tucker swearing. . That's all. Fukity-bye.

Yes I guess that's true but it might take years or wrangling. And I'm sure the club wouldn't die quietly and there would be an AFC Pompey that might have designs on the location too and the council would be under great pressure. Plus what if the club lived but was mortally wounded. The loan note holder that has the ground as security (Is that Chenrai?) would only be able to have Pompey as a tennant as presumably the council would not grant permission for redevelopment. It's mucky as hell.

IMO this is very important information SaintKeith. So this is why all loanees with bits of land around FP as security may yet still help the club. I'm presuming the council might be encouraged to help PFC by giving development permission for some of the surrounding area as long as the stadium stays as a stadium. But if the club were to cease to be, then the stadium, and presumably the land around it will fail to get permission to be developed. This gets curiouser and curiouser.

Just heard from a very helpful person in the ticket office that we got our 3 x tickets. Excellent!

An interesting use of the term "buyer" here. That implies that the company under administration has any assets worth buying surely? I've lost track of the assets they've used to secure various loans but I'd be surprised if post admin they had anything to buy. And if memory serves, unless they come out of administration to the satisfaction of their creditors and the football league then, they don't even get the golden share which means no league participation which means starting at the bottom of the pyramid as AFC something-or-other.

Because it gave PFC the chance to trade players and raise some cash so that they might be able to fulfil their fixtures? If the Premier League thinks it has a problem with Pompey at the moment, then PFC not being able to fulfil its fixtures gives the Premier League a problem on an entirely different scale.

That doesn't seem like good news then as my history doesn't show any tickets for Exeter. Yet! Thanks.

Of those who have got tickets, have any of you NOT been to 3 or more away games. i.e. have they made the draw for tickets for those who are just ST holders? Or did the 3 or more crew get the entire allocation? Any info gratefully appreciated. I hadn't been to an away game in a few years as kids came along and stopped all that fun. Decided with a couple of mates before Xmas that we'd do an away game this year and picked Exeter. Booked our luxury (and cheap) accommodation early, in the TravelLodge and then this fiasco. Am trying to find out if we've been lucky but can't find any information.

Very strange. Perhaps it was a condition the PL set in lifting the embargo?

Oh dear. Re the keeper I think it's unlikely that Stoke would pay £3.25m up front in cash - unless that was a condition of the transfer. i.e. £4m staged-payment or £3.25m cash.

He's 35 I think. So I'm sure he's putting out some feelers and a show like this is a great place to get rid of his awkwardness on camera. Could still play on another season IF he can get fit and stay fit. I've spoken to him a couple of times at club events and he comes across much better than he does on the box. I also saw him in Costa Coffee in town reading a book whilst drinking his coffee. It was a thick book too so in footballing circles that makes him either an intellectual or gay - or both. Good bloke. IMO.

Irony?

It wasn't me, it was him...

Somebody has cleverly, and presumably maliciously, directed the https:// (secure http) certificate to the Argos trade sale web site. I guess it was some internet savvy Saints fan. Firefox and Norton are basically telling you rightly that you can't trust the certificate and that someone is trying to impersonate http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk.