Winchester Red

Nice quote from the commentator about Sheffield United 'They definitely have more reputation, history and support than Portsmouth' Surely not!

Yep, I just don't get it Teams always used to play 3 competitions and not die of over-exertion. Can't imagine Channon, Case, Moran, etc saying give me a rest, I played on Saturday (showing my age now). If you're in europe too then maybe, but there's no reason for us to do anything other than try and win every match. Fringe players already get more opportunity than they used to because you can use 3 from 7 subs instead of 1 from 1, so I don't see that as a reason to play a reserve team either

Again, I don't get the subs I think it goes something like..... AC: we're getting a foothold in the match at last and creating some chances NA: quick. Make a couple of subs. Stick guly in the middle, that'll snub it out

Didn't think he did an awful lot wrong football-wise today Rather gazza was still in goal though

.....

Surely the player burn rate of money (with b*gger all income) is having a far greater effect than PKF It's got to be £40-50k a week compared to PKF's £9k hasn't it. That could be PKF's tactic and why they're still signing players they shouldn't - just burn up the money In 6 months time when the last tranch of parachute money has gone it'll be a case of PKF saying, 'right Chinney. The cash has gone. Complete a purchase or we liquidate tomorrow.' ????

I suspect that any attempts to shut Hall up will not be of the legal variety. He's a nobody on their scale so sending the boys around is a far easier option... (There's no point him going to FP for protection though. Going there doesn't guarantee anyone will be within 20 seats of you! Although it might help to have that much space around you to see the hitman coming)

We're only 10points off champions league

It's the FL's fault How can they justify blocking the signing of Michael Owen. Pompey and Owen were made for each other

The general feeling seems to be that it becomes cheating if/when you can't pay it back if it's asked for, or maintain interest payments. That definition would mean that 90% of the teams in the league are behaving properly unless something outside of their control changes and then they're cheating. Examples of things that could change include: Bank reducing previously agreed overdraft (Southampton) Owners being idiots (Previous americans at Liverpool) Owners being criminals (Portsmouth and watch this space for a few more) Owners deciding they need their money back (most clubs) Owner dying and estate not wanting to continue funding (Nottingham Forest, Southampton?) This list could go on forever I think the Reduction of Overdraft one is a particularly harsh definition of cheating. In my time I have had personal loans and an overdraft and if they were called in for instant payment I'd have been in trouble, but I don't consider myself a cheat.

Just noticed on the BBC website article about Owen Coyle being sacked that when they were relegated Bolton owed £110m, mostly to a single benefactor. This got me thinking as to the (our!) actual definition of what is cheating and what isn't. I would say that Bolton's support level is very similar to pfc (given similar league status), so have Bolton been cheating? They would argue that the benefactor has no intention of calling in the loans, but they would say that. So my question to you all is, where does reasonable investment stop and cheating start? Other than the skate owners being particularly shadey, and they're not the only club with owners like that (Reading anyone?), how do they differ from Bolton? ---- Additional ---- So many clubs could have the funding cut off at any time. I have a friend who's business went bust primarily due to Abramovich suspending 3 building projects (one of which was a building at the Chelsea Training Ground) during the banking crash a couple of years ago, so even the most wealthy can feel the pinch and do the unexpected.

The quicker Chinney takes them on the better in my view

The guy in front of me against Fulham spent the whole match slagging him off. I wonder how many people would like to be judged in their lives by the standards they like to apply to others...

When you cut all the emotion and rivalry out of the situation it still amounts to one thing. Whoever owned the club (Criminal or Saint), if the club is found guilty of wrong doing it has to be punished. Did Juventus fans ask their management to break the rules (and the law!)? No, of course they didn't, but it doesn't stop the punishment being applied. Did Luton fans deserve their massive deduction, or Bournemouth, or Swindon, or Darlington? No, the fans of the club never do, but the clubs were managed by individuals that broke the rules and the clubs were punished accordingly (and by world standards, leniently!) Pompey fans were unlucky to get the owners they got, no doubt. In my view we were unlucky to get Rupert Lowe and Michael Wilde (but that's a different argument). But they were the owners they had, they spent the money and played the game. It's now time to pay the piper and the Skates need to stop bleating and accept what comes their way. If it's only relegation to L1 with a couple of -10's for 2 admins and £160m written off and then straight back to overspending then they're lucky.

1-2 Come on MK

Out of interest does anyone know how many tickets are sold? (Sorry to break into the debate raging on the 'How many tickets sold for Fulham' thread

Corrected it for you HTH

A 'Super' win against an 'abject' team Can't have it both ways neil - w*nker

Does anyone else think that statement was just a little bit Michael Wilde ish? Another fella who likes to come over all wise and parential, and has a bit of a god complex

The man in charge (TB) is signing the cheques - he's spending BC's money. As I said above - when they come out of administration the fun will begin

When they come out of admin their player problems will begin. All of them will want some sort of security and are only playing on month to month contracts because of the usual pompey promises of something better later (we all know what a pompey promise is worth) It's easy to give Howard £4k a week when they only have to commit to one month at a time. Come out of admin and he'll expect his 2 year contract (worth £400k) along with the other 19 players, then the sh1t will hit the fan. Don't think BC or the trust's budget will stretch to £8m. BC won't throw good money after bad and no bank is going to give the trust an overdraft so they can spend beyond their means on players. .....I can't wait

That is sooooooooooooo true Only the fans fully owning the club can take them to a level they truly deserve... the very bottom, followed by administration, again! Nobody deserves it more!

He's out of contract at the end of the season so the next dilemma is just around the corner.

The thing is that they all want a fans owned club, whilst still insisting on the need to be competitive and for them that means challenging at the top (many L1 and L2 teams aren't competitive, but they are still subsidised by wealthy owners - eg, Orient. Hearn spends £800k a year getting them to break even and they don't have a vast player budget and own their own ground - they also aren't particularly successful!). If they become fans owned they will either be getting 12,000 and challenging at the top of L1 and then the Champ but be sinking into the mire financially or they will live within their means (no, really) and they'll hop between L1 and L2 (and that's being optimistic) and attendances will fall to 5,000 in the bad seasons and maybe hit 10,000 in the good Everyone knows what will actually happen is that BC will buy the club, wait until all the parachute money is in, take everything he can get, put it back into admin and then the fans will get it. After a year it will be back in admin again (the debt will have got smaller and smaller, in line with the resources of the current ownership), and then be bought out by a local business type figure and continue in L1 or L2. It'll be a return to the Gregory type era. I don't see long term fan ownership as an option because none there seem to understand what the League standing of a team with a 5000 to 10000 fan base is with no subsidising. They want a fans club and the extra money that external ownership brings. Ironically even their current model which is woefully underfunded relies on several 'high net worth' individuals putting more money in - aka having wealthy owners (with a greater say), albeit on a micro scale. Pretending you have more fans than you do (because we got £20k in the prem and there were 250k on southsea common mate) isn't the answer, they're fooling themselves and the brighter ones should know better. It's weird that they expect a better outcome than Exeter when the situation will be almost identical (ground ownership outstanding - Exeter could be in a better position really)

So what the Trust mean is 'we are the biggest of all the Trusts that aren't bigger', Yes?