saintbletch

A good post. A couple of points which are not intended to minimise the main thrust of your post which I agree with. I just think you're not seeing the problem of defaulters from the club's perspective. I think that your suggestion that there is a difference between being in debt to a credit card company and being in "debt" to the club goes right to heart of the matter, and I don't see quite the distinction you do. As I see it you are saying that if you pay in advance of getting the benefit of going to the games, then it isn't credit. But look at it from the club's perspective and I think you'll see that club sees this as providing a finite resource that cannot be re-sold (easily) for a staged-payment that carries the risk of default. And that is credit. IF the club gives you a season ticket and you agree to pay for it on instalments and you go on to default on your payments then the club has all sorts of problems with re-selling that seat. The manual check of the ticket on the turnstiles will let anyone into the stadium with a "valid" ticket. So the seat that was sold on instalments and subsequently defaulted on has no further value to the club. It has to stay empty because selling that to someone else probably contravenes some h+s regulation or would at least cause disputes over seats, etc. St. Jason's suggestion below of staging the payments BEFORE the season kicks off would have got around this. As would a computerised ticketing system. As would working with a finance company to manage the instalment plans - as the club would receive all monies up front and the finance company would carry the risk of collection. It's a shame that the club didn't look at other ways of solving the problem. None of this changes the sad fact that some fans will lose out and the club has communicated incredibly poorly here. But most worryingly is the semantic dance that David Luker appears to be playing over whether the contents of a charter are valid from one year to the next. I happen to believe that the word charter suggests something that has been arrived at following struggle or negotiation and that the rights that are extended within the charter will not be changed easily. That we have a charter for a season - or half season means nothing. It appears that one man's charter is another man's terms and conditions.

I went to school with a lad called A l a n C o c k h e a d. A top bloke, great footballer and talented musician and very popular despite the crap he had to take about his name. A lesser man would have been bullied mercilessly. Anyway, I remember after the Christmas break one year he came into school and, apparently inspired by the adverts for a famous port, informed everyone that we'd been pronouncing his name wrongly and it was in fact pronounced "Co-head". Like C o c k b u r n ' s port, the ck was silent. Everyone ignored that And then on the first day back in the fourth year when the register was read out he answered "Here sir" to the question "Alan Brown?". Brown was his mother's maiden name and the family had apparently changed their names by deed poll. I've never heard of another one since.

Love it! Billy Bragg is my all time musical hero. Well I always felt it was good to be able to sing better than one's heroes. He taught me to play guitar, helped me over many a relationship breakup, gave me a life-long love of language, showed me the relevance of politics and drummed into me the importance of compassion for your fellow man. I don't always agree with him but love him or hate him, very few people can craft a lyric like this man. Very relevant following the election his is a general comment on the apathy of the electorate, and specifically a call to arms to remove Thatcher's conservative party from power. This clip taken from "The Tube" from the Red Wedge era and is complete with guitar/amp failure near the end.

No BTF, that appears to be a deeper muscle further up near the groin according to images I found on Google. That said, the exercise you describe was one that the physio recommended. Now I'm a (Wiki) expert I can tell you that the quad muscles are a group muscles attached to the femur that include the 4 main muscles on the front of the thigh. My "inner quad" name is actually the vastus medialis on this diagram. Strengthening this can help with knee dislocation. So SuperMikey from what you've read on here, have you dislocated your knee cap or damaged a ligament do you think?

Assuming you're talking about your knee cap SuperMikey, my lad badly dislocated his right knee playing football about 6 weeks ago. He had it put back in in the ambulance and after a check up at the hospital he was discharged in a splint with crutches. He's been referred to a physio since then and has been given some exercises to do to strengthen the muscles on the inside of the upper leg (inner quad?). Apparently both the inner and outer quad muscles connect to the knee cap and they should pull evenly. He was told that if your knee cap keeps on dislocating and it is not down to an impact injury then this may mean that the outer quad muscle is stronger than then inner. The stronger outer quad is pulling the knee cap out of line and causes it to dislocate. He was told that his knee will now always be weak and more likely to dislocate again. But it helps a lot if your build strength in the inner quad. Google for inner-quad exercises. Swimming is good as is any exercise that causes the inner quad to tense. But avoid anything that makes the knee twist. Good luck.

Good luck Duncan.

The Catastophist - Ronan Bennett. Only just started it but I can already tell it's beautifully written. I read Zugswang by the same author a few years ago and having spent too long reading (and enjoying) police/procedural type books by Lee Child, Robert Crais, Stewart MacBride, Peter James, et al. I decided I needed to feed my brain a bit. The man really understands how to put letters and words in the correct order. Just finished Child 44 and The Secret Speech by Tom Rob Smith. Both good reads but Child 44 is particularly enjoyable with lots of twists. Tom Rob Smith is a first time author and Child 44 was only published in 2008 and I believe that it's already being made into a film by Ridley Scott for release later this year. Another notable recent read was Jeff in Venice Death in Varanasi by Geoff Dyer. A stunning stream of conciousness novel that follows the central character through a mid-life crisis/search for meaning in his life.

I'm not sure what your point is. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't stop Portpin or the owners of that company from buying the shell from the administrators. And it's the only way that it would make sense to throw more good money after bad. Benjii last night confirmed that player's contracts can be "disclaimed" (I think that was the term he used) when in administration, which basically means they are cancelled. So if you're Portpin and you can't afford to pay these high earners, and you can't get out of the contracts, then admin is a way to do that.

...unless Portpin is one of the interested buyers. Then putting further cash in might make sense - especially as that additional cash is likely to be far less each month as things are "cut to the bone".

This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. I'm talking about this thread obviously.

I think all administrations are different but one principle applies - that the administrator is trying to maximise the return to the creditors. So if by keeping on expensive staff (players) meant that the business was more of an attractive proposition to buy then he'd do that as it's not just about cost. Perhaps Storrie is so admired in footballing circles that the administrator thinks he has to have him as part of the company. BUT IMO you're right and as was discussed on here last night, there is something that doesn't quite add up about the continued involvement of the owners and directors going into administration. It does smell like the company won't be in admin for very long and the same people will get a chance to wipe the slate clean and start again.

Agreed. Which is why it will be a last resort for those with any form of saleable value and may be exercised quickly for big earners near the end of their contract with little realisable value. But we're also forgetting the players' good will here. I'm sure there will be a long line of players outside the administrators office tomorrow morning offering to play for free for the rest of the season.

McCarthy - I am a Wallet + Banking, Violence and the Inner Life Today The Wedding Present - George Best+

You're right! I did. Still not an inconsiderable amount if they're in admin for a while but then the Parachute money is going to be eaten into at a rate of £3M/month (that's before contracts get...what was the word..disclaimed).

Right, so I can see that he's played a blinder to mitigate his losses. But he's still a long way down on his £17M. If we can believe anything we read then he converted £10M of his £17M charge to the ownership of the stadium. Which means his secured creditor status is on the remaining £7M (an assumption here by me). However, my understanding is the administrator is working for the good (yes I know) of all creditors not just the secured creditors with senior debts. And the administrator should be looking if possible to put the club back to being a solvent going concern which when sold (yes I know) would raise the most money to repay the creditors. I also believe that Sky will drip feed any advanced parachute payment to meet debts as they are due, so that "income" will be tied to a specific expense. So I'm not sure that the administrator is going to allow Chainrai to take his cash leaving a shell. He might be forced into that but that won't be what he's aiming for I'm sure.

So can you help me see his end game? An end game that gets him somewhere near the £17M he loaned them - or is this "he's played a blinder to have got a fraction of his money back with a promise of rent on a stadium he owns with the potential that he might be able to sell the land at some point down the road."? Sorry to be thick but it doesn't add up YET in my head.

OK. I can see that Chainrai has apparently played a blinder so far in that he's manipulated the assets, the WUO and ducked the HMRC bill. But, he's setting himself up for quite a bill for wages (assuming he supports the administration as he has said he will) and all of this has damaged the product that he's now trying to sell. He will basically be offering a Championship club, that will be unlikely to get a CVA and so will start on -ve points. So from a purchasing perspective you are buying a L1 club. It will also have the spectre of a company that has traded insolvently with the potential additional points penalty that it might bring. Three of the clubs previous directors are charged with cheating the public revenue so could also land the club with additional points deductions (Luton) - and maybe not in the next season but beyond that. The club will be renting it's ground which will give it cash flow problems for years to come (Palace) - or someone will have to stump up another ~£10M+ to get the ground. The club's squad will likely have been decimated or they will be paying silly money to buy Prem players out of contracts (unless their contracts state a big drop if relegated). They will likely have dipped into the their first year's parachute payment which I believe the Premier League has said it will pay directly to debtors so Chainrai can't get his hands on this easily. For these reasons I'm not sure Chainrai is sitting pretty OR there is something that hasn't yet come to light that will make this all make sense.

Not sure. I thought I read that Chainrai's original loan was secured against some of the assets - perhaps this is the October 6th deed that GM mentioned below. This was in place before the WUO and therefore, to my eye, he was a secured creditor. The scope of this appears to have changed since the WUO. How that affects things I don't know. And why change it to be more specific. Perhaps the other didn't hold legal water? I also read that he wrote off £10M of the £17M debt when taking possession of "all the property known as Fratton Park". He therefore still retains a £7M loan, and I'm guessing here, that this is secured against the other assets of the club (Players...)?

The Proclaimers - Sunshine on Leith

This international gang of crooks that you speak of - has that just recently come to light, or has everyone in football known this since you were bought with gun money? To be honest I think it's a little hypocritical to, on one hand celebrate your FA cup win and the brief foray into Europe that it gave you, and then after it's all gone to rat **** call the same people you once lauded "an international gang of crooks". You're coming across now as a pity-whore who turned a blind eye to illegal and immoral activities over the last several years and now that you're faced with the inevitable consequences, you're wearing some sort of moral hairshirt. That's hypocrisy in my book.

I'd go so far as to say that I think it is unlikely that any NEW party will buy Pompey from the administrator. But not impossible. I could quite easily believe that those who have run up the debts will wipe the slate clean, throw a few non-playing staff on the scrap heap, laugh at the local businesses that are owed money and start again.

David Sylvian - Secrets of the Beehive

I think the article linked earlier in the thread at twohundredpercent football stated that non-footballing staff members' salaries are treated as part of the footballing debt. Won't stop them from losing their jobs now, but might protect what is owed to them. See the first comment in the post here.

Camera Obscura - Biggest Bluest Hi-Fi

You should have called the Peelers.