Wes Tender

I'm surprised that the reasons why the Red Tops outstrip the sales of the more serious newspapers doesn't seem to have occurred to you. It is because the Red Tops are comics and therefore populist and because they feature bare boobs and are full of sex scandals to titillate the masses. As pointed out, one only has to look at the pages of useless Quango posts advertised in the Guardian to see where their target audience lies; the bleeding heart, sandal wearing, muesli munching liberal lefties and the Islington Champagne Socialists. Yes Minister summed it up beautifully. "The Times is read by the people who run the country. The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country. The Morning Star is read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country. The Independent is read by people who don't know who runs the country but are sure they're doing it wrong. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country. The Daily Express is read by the people who think the country ought to be run as it used to be run. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who still think it is their country. And the Sun's readers don't care who runs the country providing she has big tits."

Andronikou in The News:- Well, HMRC's claim was certainly prejudiced, because the Android took it upon himself to reduce the level of their claim. As for them and the other creditors having to show that the Android could have given them a better return, all they would have to do is point to the rival IP's assessment of what the payment could have been, which was substantially higher. As usual, the Android either has more front than Brighton (the resort, not the team), or else he is incredibly naive, if he believes that the CVA won't be appealed. Why, it is clear even to a Skate poster commenting on the article that the appeal by HMRC will be at the 11th hour to cause maximum damage to their plans. Shame that the Chuckle Brothers don't see things as clearly.

You're not on here so often now because most of what you say gets shot down in flames as being factually incorrect. Your ego doesn't like the bashing it gets so often, so you stay away until you get over it a little. Take the latest offering here for example. Others have already pointed out the shortcomings in your argument. You accuse us of spending above our means, when it is almost certainly the case that the expenditure on the players is probably balanced by increased revenue into the club through ticket sales and merchandising. You make the point, so you prove it, or admit that your hypothesis is based purely on groundless conjecture, like a lot of your opinions. As for PFC's contribution, his claim that we are just as bad as the Skates is just so wide of the mark that it is pure comedic value. It is like accusing somebody guilty of manslaughter as being as bad as a serial killer because they both committed murder. It is a question of degree as much as anything, so some sort of perspective from you two, the Skate Chuckle Brothers, would be appreciated, although I realise from past contributions that you two don't do perspective, humility or any feeling of shame for the victims of your club's insolvent trading.

I'll send George Osborne an email and advise him to contact you for advice as to how he really ought to be running things. Thank God that we have people in this country qualified in economic matters right down to grass roots level, although I really wonder why you're wasting your time posting on a football forum when you ought to be on the Bank of England's monetary panel or a highly paid and respected advisor to the International Monetary Fund.

Look, I already pointed out that I'm not passing comment on whether the severity of the punishment was commensurate with the seriousness or otherwise of the crime. Neither do I make anything of whether these people had previous or not. I simply do not accept that anybody can be categorised as being a model decent and law abiding citizen if they acted in the way that these people did who have been meted out jail sentences. How much is excusable as being one moment of madness? If it was drink related, then at least there is an excuse of them not being compos mentis perhaps, although of course that does not qualify as a let off if they get behind the wheel of a car. It seems to me that this one moment of madness could be used to excuse all manner of criminal activity, whereas most law-abiding citizens would be incapable of these misdemeanours, almost by definition.

Who is this "we" you talk about? The biggest single factor in the demise of British Industry was probably Union power which imposed restrictive practices, overmanning and high unit wage costs onto our manufacturers. That was all exacerbated by successive Labour Governments imposing high taxation onto the entrepreneurs as well as massive bureaucracy. Over a period of time, heavy industry would have lost out anyway to those parts of the World capable of manufacturing with lower unit labour costs and less Government interference, but Labour certainly did their best with the help of the Unions to speed up that demise.

Or else he could establish a reputation as he already appears to have done, that he is an individual who is prepared to act unethically and to bend the rules to suit those who employ his services rather than the ordinary creditors. I'm certain that there are plenty of dodgy businesses out there who would consider the Android to be the perfect IP for them.

I feel that its only fair to include you in that 95%, as you somehow believe that the culprits would otherwise be model law abiding citizens.

I'll be really generous with you, but I hope that you will accept what I say to be fair and objective. Today, it is my 61st birthday. When I was born in 1949, Pompey were pretty well at their peak. It was just after the war and they had benefitted from having footballers attached to them from their time in the services during the war. So as I'm now an old codger, qualified by age to have a bus pass and a winter heating allowance, surely you would deem it fair to commence the comparison of the success of the two clubs from the time of my birth. Well, as I said, your team started my formative years as the top of the pile in the English game, but during that 61 years, Saints have been far more successful than the Skates in terms of higher league positions, playing in the top flight for much longer and with higher attendances, even though for many years we had restricted capacity in the old Dell. But if you wish to go back even further, then fair enough, but I suspect that there would be little relevance unless you were alive at the time yourself.

Also hasn't had a fight since a similar age. I don't go looking for trouble, so therefore usually manage to avoid it.

No. You can't equate breaking the speed limit with wanton acts of vandalism, I'm afraid and I don't accept that they can be defined as "decent law abiding citizens" if they are capable of this sort of action. I'm not arguing the finer points of it all, the extenuated circumstances of it perhaps being drink induced, retaliation, the distinction between throwing coins or criminal damage to that garages stock of cars. I'm not even expressing an opinion about whether the punishment is extreme, I'm just saying that the phrase "law abiding citizen" does not sit comfortably in my mind with these actions.

You were doing fine until the bit in bold. A decent citizen is by my definition also a law abiding person. Wrecking the property of that Car dealer, even in the heat of the moment, is not the actions of a decent citizen.

Thanks for the lecture about what I could do with remembering, according to your opinion. I'm sorry to inform you that your second line contradicts itself and you would realise that with a bit of thought. If as you say, all the best qualified and most experienced people who could run giant corporations and industries were all esconced in doing Governement funded University and private research labs around the land, then those who are actually doing the work of running those companies are still worthy of their financial rewards. This is because of the simple law of supply and demand and if the top lot were unavailable because of their employment elsewhere, there would a shortage of qualified labour, wouldn't there? Those of an academic bent work in the halls of academia, whereas those whose business accumen is their strongest point, run businesses. You could also do with remembering that in order to succeed as a nation, we need to have a good supply of both, entrepreneurs and eggheads. Both groups need to be rewarded well financially and not overtaxed, or else they will emigrate to kinder tax havens as they have done so before.

I'm pleased that you are capable of making the differentiation that johhnyboy seemed incapable of. He inferred that the wealthy through corporate responsibility and those who owned 22% of the actual land, were one and the same. But then you go and contradict yourself by saying that these people who have owned that land since the times of William the Conqueror lack qualifications and experience to administer it. Isn't nearly a thousand years experience long enough? And the fact that the land ownership continues to that extent despite punitive death duties suggests that they must be doing something right. In reality, a lot of those large estates are run as proper businesses, employing thousands of people to work the land productively and efficiently. What would you propose? That the government confiscates that land and redistributes it to the less affluent in parcels, or to the friends of the government as Mugabe did in Zimbabwe?

Ah! The politics of envy rears its ugly head again with the intemporate and inflamatory language of the left. I'm assuming that in most cases the high earners have massive responsibilities and qualifications and experience that most do not possess, therefore these people are in shorter supply and can command higher remuneration for their skills. But no doubt you would wish that everybody earned the same. And as for that bunk about them owning 22% of the Country, what a load of tosh! They might have more influence than the man in the street over political affairs by virtue of their position as head of large corporations and they might own more land than most, but to suggest that they somehow own 22% of the Country is just ridiculous.

Nice one. We can't have Wikipedia misinforming people, can we?

I note that on the Wikipedia page for the Skates, they claim "The club is the most successful southern club outside of London" Now, this simply is not true, is it? Sure, they can state that in terms of silverware they shade their main rivals Southampton, but otherwise Southampton have historically been more successful in terms of playing at a higher league level for many more seasons than Portsmouth. I can't be arsed to change it, but perhaps somebody else might be prepared to correct that statement.

Thank God it's not a player, or it would cost a fortune to have his name on a shirt!

Blimey, some people are easily convinced that everything is the garden is rosy for the Skates. They haven't got away with anything yet. HMRC have the right to appeal the CVA within 28 days, there is still the outcome of their challenge against the football creidtors rule to look forward to with eager anticipation, not to mention the court cases against Redcrapp, Storrieteller and Mandaric. Any one of these three things could result in serious implications to them, let alone if the courts find against them on more than one. And what is your reasoning that some rich sugar daddy will find them anywhere near remotely an attractive proposition for pouring his money down the drain? Those who wished to launder their ill-gotten gains, to bankrupt the club for the land assets, to benefit from parachute payments, have already done their worst. No kosher bilionaire will be stupid enough to invest in them and any dodgey investors of the calibre of those who have already ransacked them, will not get past the right and proper persons rules put in place almost specifically after the horse had bolted at Pompey. So what remains of the carcase worth investing in? An ancient and decrepid ground with very limited capacity, no training facilities and debt payments to settle the 20% CVA (at the moment). No, this thread has a long way to go until the fat lady sings.

Surely if they had been in solvent, they'd come out squeaky clean...

Yes he can cut the debt of a creditor if he wishes, but whether he is right to do so legally is quite another matter. Although the Android probably believes he is God, thankfully there exists the right to challenge his actions in a court of law. If it is found that he reduced the amount owed to HMRC purely on grounds that by doing so he increased the chances of the CVA going through, as he has been proven to have done before, then if found to have acted improperly, he will have egg all over his face. It is a shame that so far his actions professionally do not appear to have been illegal instead of just unethical. Perhaps given the chance, he will cross that line one day. But it would have been nice to have believed that there was some sort of regulatory body that licenses these Insolvency Practitioners and who had powers to strike off those whose incompetance or unethical work brought that industry into disrepute. On the face of it, no such body exists, otherwise Andronikou would long ago have been prevented from practising further. As it stands, he was already the IP of choice for any company going into receivership which wished to achieve a certain outcome favourable to them rather than for the creditors. Should he be found out again in a court of law, I wonder how far his employers would be prepared to continue with him when their own professional reputation becomes more and more tarnished by association, so that they eventually become pariahs in that industry. He is a loose cannon, overseeing the dodgey dealings of one of the most corrupt regimes in British footballing history. As I said before, they deserve each other.

I must say that I agree with most of what you say. The game was the worst performance that I can ever remember from England. We seem to have adopted the "W" pattern of passing; pass it back, pass it forward, pass it back, pass it forward. I was going apoplectic in my armchair and needed one of those foam bricks to throw at the Telly whilst I shouted "get the bloody ball forward! As for the passing, I'm amazed that players who are so highly rewarded and supposed to be able to call themselves professionals at the highest level, can more often find an opponent than one of their team mates. We could still have been playing now and not have scored, so predictable were we. For all that Capello believes that Walcott hasn't developed into the player he ought to be, I couldn't help myself imagining how his pace out wide would have torn the Algerians apart. On the other hand, why does he persist in choosing that old donkey Heskey up front? Many of the pundits said he had a good game against the USA, but I disagreed. I can't remember the last time that he scored for us. Why leave somebody like Crouch on the bench when his presence in the box causes teams problems and his goal-scoring record is good. I'm increasingly forming the opinion that if offered a pair of tickets to go and watch England play an International, or a pair to watch Southampton at home, I'd rather watch Saints. At least I'd witness a team playing with honest endeavour and pride and the entertainment value would also be far superior. I can't say that I blame any of those fans giving those overpaid prima ballerinas the bird. It was a disgrace.

I'm quite content to bide my time in keen anticipation of HMRC challenging the CVA at the 11th hour. As the sage and knowledgeable Corp Ho advises us, the correct position is that they are not out of the woods yet. And I'm pleased for Ho that he/she is content that as the former head of integrity at the FA was happy with the CVA, it must be kosher. Personally, I'd rather rely on the opinion of the learned counsel of the High Court, rather than that of some divy from a bent football club.

Agreed. I have made copious studies of body language over many years and certainly wouldn't buy a second car from him. I'd also count my fingers after shaking his hand on any deal.

Who thinks that a challenge by HMRC is unlikely? The Guardian? Andronikou? Until I read from trusted source that HMRC reports a challenge as unlikely, I will believe entirely the opposite.