Saint in Paradise Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 Re the first CVA payment due 1st March I don't think they have to bother do they as didn't AA manage to string it along over several years when he was at Swindon? As to selling players don't they now need HMRC to agree now the WUP has been issued and maybe that's why they have had to turn down Ipswich? I still feel that the FL is too chicken to act and give them a points deduction and I am not at all confident the Court will close them down in Feb either. :x . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Jim Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 In the eyes of the law that was a different company. with the same people involved - Chinny and AA. I have a feeling that the courts will take this into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 (edited) Interesting points, though I'm not so sure about the bit in bold there - it was the Premier League who advanced them money before, and I don't think the Football League has any track record of acting similarly. I always thought the previous advance was born out of desperation to protect the PL's sacred brand - what could look worse than a member of the world's biggest and best league (as they proclaim it to be) going pop mid-season? They also knew that the Pompey problem would pass on to the FL at the end of the season, particularly once nine points were deducted. Would the FL be as accommodating? I rather doubt it, though time will of course tell. It's quite likely that Lampitt is doing his damnedest to persuade the FL to cough up an early payment, but that his request is not being enthusiastically received. As you suggest, if they do offer anything it will come with a hefty price tag attached. My guess, though, is that the FL will simply bide their time until either (a) Pompey get liquidated; or (b) they have inarguable cause to lob a substantial points penalty in their direction. The parachute payments are still paid by the Premier League. ... Who is due to pay the CVA? Is it the old company or is the new company? ... It's the old company. In my opinion, the CVA is dead. The old company is already in liquidation, and it's only "asset" is a debt due to it from the new company in instalments to allow it to pay the CVA. If it doesn't receive that money it can't pay the CVA. And the new company has enough "secured" creditors to ensure that there will be nothing available for unsecured creditors. Portpin ranks above all others as first secured creditor of the new company. Edited 31 January, 2012 by hutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 Just a thought on the Validation Order thing. The wages are already secured by the parachute payments, although they would be paid later than they would want. Would a Court really allow what little money they have to be used to pay debts which are already covered by a "payment guarantee" at the expense of an unsecured creditor who has already ussued a WUP and would stand to get nothing? Anything is possible in the murky underworld of Insolvency Practice, but that just wouldn't be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langleysaint Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 At what point are the Football league going to say anough is anough and give them a points deduction ? They were quick to deduct 10 points from us and put in place that any new owner could not appeal against the deduction . Just seems to be dragging on and on and now with there tax dogding accounts frozen they cannot pay the wages. The whole rotton club should be wound up and turned over for a pikey caravan site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 The parachute payments are still paid by the Premier League. Yes, of course - a gap in my thinking there. So it'll be down to the largesse or otherwise of the Premier League then. Would they, I wonder, involve the Football League in the decision? After all, it's the FL that now governs Pompey, not the PL - and the parachute payments are made in agreement with the FL as a whole (FL clubs voted on the recent changes to these payments). Hard to say, but either way there's been no sign as yet of any advance payments heading towards the Skates. When was it that Lampitt said he'd asked for an advance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 In the eyes of the law that was a different company. with the same people involved - Chinny and AA. I have a feeling that the courts will take this into account. I think that this will be tested in court, assuming things go that far. I'd guess that HMRC will argue that it's essentially the same business, albeit operating under a different name, which effectively defaulted on a much larger tax bill two years ago. When you look at it, that's a pretty strong argument. It will depend whether the court agrees with such an analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 Yes, of course - a gap in my thinking there. So it'll be down to the largesse or otherwise of the Premier League then. Would they, I wonder, involve the Football League in the decision? After all, it's the FL that now governs Pompey, not the PL - and the parachute payments are made in agreement with the FL as a whole (FL clubs voted on the recent changes to these payments). Hard to say, but either way there's been no sign as yet of any advance payments heading towards the Skates. When was it that Lampitt said he'd asked for an advance? Thinking laterally, perhaps what Lampitt is trying to do is cede future parachute payments to HMRC to cover the debt in exchange for consent to pay the wages, if they won't give him the cash now. I can't see any reason why they can't do that, and HMRC might go for it if it means they eventually get their money. The questions that route raises are: Is there enough "unencumbered" money coming from the parachute payments to satisfy HMRC? and Where does that leave them in April when the Baker Tilley payment is due? Without a new owner with loads & loads of money, anything else is just delaying the inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 @pn_neil_allen: So Andronikou is 'advising' #Pompey on player sales and was involved in Williams to Fulham deal. Disturbing news. Clearly out of his remit. Altogether now...."There may be trouble ahead...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 @pn_neil_allen: So Andronikou is 'advising' #Pompey on player sales and was involved in Williams to Fulham deal. Disturbing news. Clearly out of his remit. Altogether now...."There may be trouble ahead...." 'Out of his remit' or 'Trying to save the club' - you decide. Sounds like it's Handy Andy with his head screwed on, with Lumpitt rocking back and forth on a chair in the corner (avoiding the elephant in the room). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4097788/Pompey-hope-for-para-lifeline.html the cheats are still trying it on .the only people i feel sorry for the staff at the club who rely on their money rather than overpayed players they could not afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 Word up! Well, just a bit, but if I like it then a gobble! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 (edited) http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4097788/Pompey-hope-for-para-lifeline.html the cheats are still trying it on .the only people i feel sorry for the staff at the club who rely on their money rather than overpayed players they could not afford. But an application to bring forward £2.5m in parachute payment instalments cannot be ruled out ... Up-front parachute cash could at least keep them going until May Think the "Could at least keep them going until May" is rather optimistic. 2.5m would clear their tax bill and pay the upcoming tax bill then its all but gone. Where would the money to pay towards the CVA or all their other bill come from? Edited 31 January, 2012 by pedg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 @pn_neil_allen: RT @pfcespana: Pompey fans remember deadline days of hope and excitement? Now it's of despair and suffocation of the club. By crooks and their instruments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 'Out of his remit' or 'Trying to save the club' - you decide. Sounds like it's Handy Andy with his head screwed on' date=' with Lumpitt rocking back and forth on a chair in the corner (avoiding the elephant in the room).[/quote'] Pretty much nail on head I reckon. It's AA's job to get what he can for CSI's creditors, not to preserve the subsidiary company(s) in their current state per se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 I think that AA has now dropped all pretence that he is not the club is not in Administration. One thing we need to consider. About 50 pages ago there was a link posted to the London Gazette for the liquidation of CSI - where does their ownership rest after that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 Someone gets it... 1/2: @pn_neil_allen: RT @molecrochip: @pn_neil_allen As Andronikou is defacto owner he can advise the board to operate however he wants for the interest of the parent company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 I think that AA has now dropped all pretence that he is not the club is not in Administration. One thing we need to consider. About 50 pages ago there was a link posted to the London Gazette for the liquidation of CSI - where does their ownership rest after that? The creditors' meeting is on Thursday so I guess we'll know more after that (assuming the minutes of said meeting are public domain material?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 Geezer on Solent (Barry Dewing) just saying there's a split between the fans...haha Supporters Trust says although the 'pack out the park' is a valid idea, they understand and support those who choose not to go. Skate with his head screwed on though - he GETS it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 Is there enough "unencumbered" money coming from the parachute payments to satisfy HMRC? Not in a million years, no. PFC can't promise HMRC "first dibs" in the parachute payments because legally HMRC are, what, 4th in line after "football debts", Chinny and Gaydamak? Plus the CVA payment is in there too. If the validation order is granted, PFC's debt to HMRC will just grow by 50% overnight and there's no sign of any way it can be settled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 I think that AA has now dropped all pretence that he is not the club is not in Administration. One thing we need to consider. About 50 pages ago there was a link posted to the London Gazette for the liquidation of CSI - where does their ownership rest after that? With the liquidator. Different priorities though. An admin's job [] is to find ways to keep them going, even if that means putting some more money in. A liquidator's job is to convert them into as much cash as possible, whether through sale as a going concern or breaking them up and selling off the parts (if they're worth anything). He won't put anything in. But that's CSI, not PFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Red Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 I understand and support those that choose not to go... actually means... We're going to get f*** all turning up and therefore we need an excuse to justify the lack of numbers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Neil Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 Hpe they don't get any frozen pipes in the loos after all that investment. Lol if they can't play due to elf n safe tea 'cos they can't pay the plumber Ah thats what all the hot fat in the pipes was for, to stop them freezing up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 Just seen the forecast for Saturday 3pm....snow...don't suppose d'Urso is referee for the Pompey game per chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint si Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 Someone gets it... 1/2: @pn_neil_allen: RT @molecrochip: @pn_neil_allen As Andronikou is defacto owner he can advise the board to operate however he wants for the interest of the parent company So in that case has AA passed the FAPPT...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 PORTSMOUTH could be thrown a £2.5million lifeline by the Premier League. Pompey are desperately trying to sell players to bring in cash before the transfer window closes tonight. From the Sun article - trying so hard to sell players that they reject Ipswich's offers. While I realise that they don't want a fire sale, it doesn't appear that they are that desperate to sell some players to raise £1.7m (as well as lowering the wage bill). OK they sell some 18yo for £500k. He had broken into the 1st team but wasn't a priority this season. It seems to me, that Poopey are doing as little as possible to sell players in the hope that someone gives them the money to survive. Chin seems unwilling to throw any more good money after bad, so it comes down to the PL and what they do with para-payments. I wonder how much is left, as haven't they already advanced some to Old Co.? On a technical point, who actually is entitled to the parachute payments? It was due to Old Co, but should New Co be entitled to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/2012/01/31/rangers-owner-craig-whyte-admits-he-sold-four-years-worth-of-season-tickets-to-keep-ibrox-club-running-86908-23728301/ For those keeping an eye on what HMRC may or may not choose to do, you should keep an eye on how things are progressing up in Scotland. Rangers are equally under the cosh financially with HMRC chasing them down through the Courts. There are a number of good blogs out there keeping track (many by Celtic fans of course) But today it emerges that they seem to have similar owner sacrificing their future for a punt they cannot afford. When you look at their profile & the number of English Clubs in trouble, then the "softly softly" approach by the FL starts to become understandable. They (IMHO) NEED to have the rules adhered to, but they must also be aware that a hasty decision could start a major Domino effect. Would not be surprised to see a lot of horse trading behind the scenes looking at the bigger picture and the DFCSB's keep trying to exploit that for their own miserable aims Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 On a technical point, who actually is entitled to the parachute payments? It was due to Old Co, but should New Co be entitled to it? The PPs go to whoever/whichever entity holds the "golden share" at that time, so in that case I guess its Hacker/AA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 paradisebhoy wrote: When will you Rangers fans realise that this guy is a complete conman? You've been well warned about this for ages but continue to bury your heads. First it was Murray that was conning you, now Whyte. Your clubs cheating is now catching up with you. Liquidation is coming. Your titles are tainted and your five stars are quickly falling off your strips. Sound familiar? It's a comment by a Jock on that Daily Record Article. Perhaps we should be looking to become best friends with the Bhoys seeing we've both kept records of corruption in football.. Nah f\/ck that, they're sweaties and not worth the effort Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warsash saint Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 Geezer on Solent (Barry Dewing) just saying there's a split between the fans...haha Supporters Trust says although the 'pack out the park' is a valid idea, they understand and support those who choose not to go. Skate with his head screwed on though - he GETS it. yeah heard that ... he sounded spot on regarding starting all over again. Was starting to warm to the guy until he said 'we are a proud club that won the FA Cup a few years back' !!!!! That was where all your problems started - they just dont get it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubby Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 I'd take Henderson and Pearce, but that would be it. Ward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panda Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 Unpaid income tax and VAT; Your bank account is in a freeze; Can't pay the wages any more Coz there's a tax man at your door! Saying Pay up Pompey Or we'll wind up Pompey. Good bye you cheats, it's so sweat. Good bye you cheats, it so sweat .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 I think that this will be tested in court, assuming things go that far. I'd guess that HMRC will argue that it's essentially the same business, albeit operating under a different name, which effectively defaulted on a much larger tax bill two years ago. When you look at it, that's a pretty strong argument. It will depend whether the court agrees with such an analysis. Surely the only way that the Skates were allowed to carry on pretty much as they were, was because it was conditional on oldco being liquidated to enable a forensic examination being carried out on their accounts. As far as I know, there was no name change for the newco, they carried on playing their matches at the same place with many of the same people running the club and the same players. As newco retained the golden share and carried on at the same level in the league as oldco left it, then essentially it is still the same entity as before, barring some small technicalities. If they were a different entity, then why would they still be entitled to the parachute payments which were earmarked to oldco? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 Ward? A Skate born and bred. His heart wouldn't be in playing for us. Besides, the kid's a youngster with limited first team experience. This club is headed for better things and should seek to sign better than him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 Ward? Nah...too inbred and has scales! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 On a technical point, who actually is entitled to the parachute payments? It was due to Old Co, but should New Co be entitled to it? Thats a good point to highlight. With anything on the 'bad' side (e.g. debt liabilities) they trot out "that was the old company" line but anything on the 'good' side (e.g. parachute payments), ooh....all of a suddenn the old and the new entities conveniently merge into one..... Cake and eat it anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durleyfos Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 A Skate born and bred. His heart wouldn't be in playing for us. Besides, the kid's a youngster with limited first team experience. This club is headed for better things and should seek to sign better than him. Why? Darren Anderton is a born and bred Saints fan, he did well for Pompey. If he's a proffessional, he'll play at his best for whoever he plays for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingbattigger Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 Surely the only way that the Skates were allowed to carry on pretty much as they were, was because it was conditional on oldco being liquidated to enable a forensic examination being carried out on their accounts. QUOTE] Anything happened with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 From the Sun article - trying so hard to sell players that they reject Ipswich's offers. While I realise that they don't want a fire sale, it doesn't appear that they are that desperate to sell some players to raise £1.7m (as well as lowering the wage bill). OK they sell some 18yo for £500k. He had broken into the 1st team but wasn't a priority this season. It seems to me, that Poopey are doing as little as possible to sell players in the hope that someone gives them the money to survive. Chin seems unwilling to throw any more good money after bad, so it comes down to the PL and what they do with para-payments. I wonder how much is left, as haven't they already advanced some to Old Co.? On a technical point, who actually is entitled to the parachute payments? It was due to Old Co, but should New Co be entitled to it? Somebody posted the rules a few pages back. I beleive that the "club" is entitiled to the payments and as the club was bought by new co then they would come to them. More interestingly though it stated something very similar to "Should the club cease to be a member of the football league then the payments are redistributed amoungst the other clubs". Usually "no longer being a member of the football league" would happen when a club is promoted back to the PL. However... if P*mpey were to be liquidated I read it that all the other FL clubs would be due a share of the parachute payments. It could therefore be argued that forwarding the payments to P*mpey outside of normal terms (and hence delaying the inevitable insolvency process) is unfairly depriving other clubs of income which would otherwise come to them? Hmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 Surely the only way that the Skates were allowed to carry on pretty much as they were, was because it was conditional on oldco being liquidated to enable a forensic examination being carried out on their accounts. QUOTE] Anything happened with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingbattigger Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 Thanks Phil, just as I thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 @pn_neil_allen: Appleton desperate to avoid Pearce #Pompey exit. http://t.co/FxEiFmW0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 (edited) @pn_neil_allen: #Pompey braced for deadline day departures. But AA just 'advising' on sales. http://t.co/dfCP8x6N Pompey are today braced for a frenetic deadline day of departures. That looks set to begin with the exit of Ryan Williams – believed to be against the wishes of the club and boss Michael Appleton. However, Andrew Andronikou, administrator for former owners Convers Sports Initiatives, insisted the final say over all departures rests with Blues directors. Ipswich remain on the trail of Joel Ward, Stephen Henderson and Jason Pearce, although Tractor Boys boss Paul Jewell is now doubtful he will land all three players. Dave Kitson has also been linked with a move but suitors Brighton appear to be out of the equation after landing Sam Vokes on loan from Wolves. Williams is today expected to seal a £500,000 move to Fulham, after appearing in a trial match last night for the Premier League outfit. Andronikou suggested there wouldn’t be a mass deadline day exodus and was adamant chief executive David Lampitt had the final say on sales, along with his directors. But with Pompey not being able to pay their staff and players their January wages after having their bank account frozen – on top of a £1.6m tax bill still to be paid – player sales look inevitable. Andronikou said: ‘I am advising the board (over exits). They have absolute control. I’m advising them. ‘David Lampitt is the CEO and the three directors – him, John Redgate and the commercial director (Nick Byrom) – have the final say. ‘I understand the (Ryan Williams) deal came from an intermediary. A Premier League club have shown an interest in the player and you have to be fair to that player. ‘The money will be used for the club’s working capital requirement and to pay off legacy debts. I understand there is other interest in players, which has been reported in the press. But I don’t expect many deals to be done. The market is stagnant. ‘My ultimate goal is to make sure we bring stability to the club and secure it’s long-term future. Players come and go. But in terms of transfers, I don’t envisage much movement.’ The only possible arrivals at Pompey today are West Brom pair Joe Mattock and George Thorne on loan. Ipswich have been in negotiations with Andronikou in an effort to raid Pompey for Ward, Pearce and Henderson before tonight’s 11pm deadline. Grant Leadbitter and Damien Delaney were both mentioned as makeweights after Ipswich last week registered a £1.75m bid for the trio. Jewell says that isn’t the case and is now uncertain of what deals can be completed. Jewell said: ‘I never mentioned any of our players going there (Pompey). As far as I am aware, there has been no contact or no enquiries about Grant or Damien. ‘It is not dead (the bid for Pearce, Ward and Henderson). By the sounds of it, it will probably be difficult to get all three. ‘He (Pearce) says he hasn’t asked to move and he is a Portsmouth player so he is entitled to say that. I wouldn’t read too much into that, one way or another.’ Edited 31 January, 2012 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 .. Chin seems unwilling to throw any more good money after bad, so it comes down to the PL and what they do with para-payments. I wonder how much is left, as haven't they already advanced some to Old Co.? IIRC, there is ~£9.5m left for the second season after relegation after payment of the football creditors, £8m for the next two after that. However, did the club receive any advance while in the PL or in the first season in the championship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 @pn_neil_allen: #Pompey braced for deadline day departures. But AA just 'advising' on sales. http://t.co/dfCP8x6N Andronikou said: ‘My ultimate goal is to make sure we bring stability to the club and secure it’s long-term future. No it's not Mr Andronikou! Your ultimate goal is to secure the best finacial return for CSI's creditors. If that means PFC2010 are liquidated then so be it. Likewise, if preserving and protecting PFC2010 is the best return for CSI creditors (long term) then, again, so be it. But to have a pre-conceived solution that aims to guarantee the future of one of CSI's subsidiaries is surely not in the best interests of CSI's creditors. Surely he should be keeping an open mind to all possible outcomes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 Legally they might like to try and disown OldCo, but the FL won't have that, and the Golden Share is more important than anything the high court says. NewCo is useless without a league to play in. They would need a shedload of parachute payment to make it to the summer, and the authorities have been keeping that back to pay football debts. If pompey went pop and had been allowed to waste future staggered transfer fees and wages, there would be clubs and players up in arms. The parachutes are a guarantee of payment for football creditors. Can't see much of that being forwarded. AA controls CSI, therefore AA controls pompey, therefore any parachute payment will be controlled by AA. He could order Lampitt to pay it directly to Chanrai. AA is also cleverly distancing himself from any insolvent trading charge by listing the directors and confirming that they are still pulling the strings, even if they aren't. It might be time for Lampitt to walk away, while he still has a house to walk home to. Either way, it MUST be firesale day today, anything else while insolvent would be bonkers and criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 Why the fook should they be allowed to bring back those two from West Brom if they haven't paid their players under contract? Dirty, thieving, cheating, fishy, insolvent b@stards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 To be fair, if WBA are doing the Skates a favour and are paying Mattock and Thorne's wages for the duration of the loan then they're not costing the Skates anything. If they sell 2 players on decent money and replace them with "free" loans then they should be applauded for finally doing something right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 I wonder how the utility companies , Police , outside suppliers are viewing the situation at present. If any of you are council tax payers in the PO postcode areas I would be phoning up the town hall and asking that the council tax is paid to date and if not why are they not taking steps to get it. It still sems to me that they are going to get away with it again, the press seem to love MM and HR the jury were laughing at the banter and so are warming to them. The prosecution seem to be useless and a statement like HR made about not being able to text, that could easily be found to be incorrect has been left to float away unchallenged. Where do they get these prosecution lawyers?? it seems they pull someone of the street who has watched one episode of Crown Court to do the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 31 January, 2012 Share Posted 31 January, 2012 (edited) David Brown @DavidhBrown Milan #Mandaric told FA inquiry he opened Monaco bank acct. for Harry #Redknapp at centre of thr tax evasion trial. Posted by @timesnewsdesk #Mandaric says $145,000 payment to #Redknapp Rosie45 account was "not a major part of me life" Posted by @timesnewsdesk Edited 31 January, 2012 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts