Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga


Fitzhugh Fella

Recommended Posts

I know its chirlish and it is past history but...they're here, they're there, they're every ****ing where, empty seats, empty seats. Sorry had some skates pointing out how empty sms was when they weren't watching us on motd. League 1 with league 1 prices or not they are tin pot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have thought that the ref was too big for that game as he had the balls to send a home player off. Appy is obviously not appy as the home crowd did not influence the ref in his favour

Looking at the ref's stats to see if it's the biggest game he's been involved with (answer: 3rd, behind Hull v Brighton 11/12 and Huddersfield v Yeovil 11/12) I noticed that he's not trigger happy, in his 36 previous matches at Conference National and above he's only sent off two players before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil Allen ‏@pn_neil_allen

 

Hearing Portpin want to charge #Pompey Trust £1m+ a year to rent Fratton Park. Property developer option would cost 8th or 9th of that.

 

So what exactly would the 'property developer's' financial model be ? He isn't running a charity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil Allen ‏@pn_neil_allen

 

Hearing Portpin want to charge #Pompey Trust £1m+ a year to rent Fratton Park. Property developer option would cost 8th or 9th of that.

 

Lets be generous and say the property developer only wants a 5% (i.e. one 20th) return. If they claim he only wants 8.5% of the the £1m that portpin want then he would need to buy FP for £(1m/8.5)*20 = 2.35 million. Good luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets be generous and say the property developer only wants a 5% (i.e. one 20th) return. If they claim he only wants 8.5% of the the £1m that portpin want then he would need to buy FP for £(1m/8.5)*20 = 2.35 million. Good luck with that.

 

There's no way he would be happy with a 5% return.........unless he had an ulterior motive. Hmmmm

 

He either thinks he can get it for closer to 1.2m, or Mr. Allen is talking horsesh1t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no way he would be happy with a 5% return.........unless he had an ulterior motive. Hmmmm

 

He either thinks he can get it for closer to 1.2m, or Mr. Allen is talking horsesh1t.

I thought it was valued at 7m and a high profile Skate had reliably informed us it was worht close to 20m.Surely he wasnt talking s####
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was valued at 7m and a high profile Skate had reliably informed us it was worht close to 20m.Surely he wasnt talking s####

 

The £7M being mentioned comes from the Land Registry documentation; it's the price stated as paid for the property at its last sale rather than a valuation. As for Ho's famous Tesco valuation of £20M, that's just laughable - no change there then. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil Allen ‏@pn_neil_allen

 

Hearing Portpin want to charge #Pompey Trust £1m+ a year to rent Fratton Park. Property developer option would cost 8th or 9th of that.

 

So, the rent would be about £115k per season? Or about £5-6k per home game?

 

Lol. Only true if there's a dubious ulterior motive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil Allen ‏@pn_neil_allen

 

Hearing Portpin want to charge #Pompey Trust £1m+ a year to rent Fratton Park. Property developer option would cost 8th or 9th of that.

 

Beginning to look like my post of the 23rd was pretty accurate!

 

[h=2]icon1.png[/h]

My prediction: Chainrai takes over, then offers the trust a deal for them to buy the football club as such, but with him retaining
Fratton Park and charging them rent at a silly rate, say even £1 million a year, effectively getting a return on his money without losing his equity.

 

If the trust won't (or more likely can't) do the deal, he either builds up big debts all over again, extracting whatever he can from the parachute payments and reneging on football creditors deals then makes a run for it ---- or he just liquidates immediately, leaving FP to rot for a bit till the council give up on their probably uneforceable restrictions and let him build there.

 

; 23-08-2012 at
02:48 PM
.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit surprised more wasn't made of this little gem - the DCFSBs live up to their name yet again.

 

http://www.chichester.co.uk/sport/football/pompey-latest/appy-players-are-staying-until-january-1-4217723

 

 

Michael Appleton has revealed Pompey’s players cannot move to another club until January.

The Blues’ current squad will not be allowed to sign for another team before the start of 2013, despite most of them being on one-month deals.

And Appleton assured supporters the finance is in place to keep together the players currently at Fratton Park, regardless of whether a takeover of the club is completed in the coming days.

The Pompey players’ current deals run until September 6 – and Football League regulations state only players unattached on the final day of the window can be signed in a closed period.

Appleton said: ‘We’re in control of the situation.

‘They can’t leave the club until the contract finishes – which is the second week of September.

‘If they leave they can’t sign for another club until January, so it’s in their best interests to stay.

‘Even if they don’t want to stay beyond January they can earn themselves a contract by playing and playing well.

‘It was a difficult situation we were put in, but we knew what we were doing and we weren’t stupid.

‘We weren’t going in with our eyes closed.

‘It works for both parties. If they aren’t comfortable with the situation in January we can reassess it then.

‘It’s in everyone’s best interests to re-sign.

 

 

 

Surely he meant RESIGN ??

 

Now that WOULD be in their best interests

 

PS Can someone request the FA's "How to run an insolvent Business" brochure ..... must be a best seller by nowi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Section 56 of the FL rules make it abundantly clear that Appy is incorrect about players not being able to sign for other clubs if they leave Portsmouth. He's just talking nonsense again.

 

Perhaps he was meaning they can't move until the January transfer window, which I think he's wrong about anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he then goes on to say that he didn't actually see the incident - so he's slagging-off the ref for losing the plot in the heated atmosphere of a half-empty stadium, and getting a decision completely wrong regarding an incident that Unappy himself claims he didn't see.

 

The complete lack of logic would have Mr Spock foaming at the mouth!

 

Which is the stock answer from most Managers.

 

It's always amazed me how it is that most Managers mysteriously MISS what happens on the pitch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appleton is talking b*ll*cks, imo.

 

If those players dont sign a renewal, they are free agents.

 

Unless, of course, they have some clause that PFC must formally say it is over after the month otherwise it is automatically renewed, which means imo Birchy has been lying about them being one-month contracts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you got lucky, there was only one major development while you were away, then it all fizzled out a bit after that.

 

If you want to save yourself time -

 

the Trust agreed a deal of £7.25M for the ground, Chinny ripped up all security and has walked away smiling - we were sad to see him go.

 

Tesco has offered £20M for the land but the Trust is more likely to redevelop the site themselves with the backing of supporters.

They also increased their offer to CVA creditors, sorted the charities, and renegotiated with all the former players to pay £6M.

They've already cleared that in cash from the new pledges that are now pouring in - their management structure and plans look really professional.

 

Birch has overturned the points penalty and the FL have apologised.

 

The fresh feel-good factor meant a sell out for the home win over Oldham but despite all the optimism, Appy is still reluctant to spend money and has been using youth team members instead of mercenaries, a policy that has been rewarded as many of them look really promising and a credit to the academy that is the envy of many top European clubs.

 

And a local plumber has identified the source of fat and fixed it for £80 + vat.

He still awaits payment....but they have 30 days, and the recent U-turn in policy and the refreshing winds of change blowing through the club would suggest that he will get paid earlier than that.

 

 

Many of us are quite jealous but refuse to admit it.

We had to put up with a boring game yesterday AND I washed my hands at half time and they felt a bit fatty afterwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appleton is talking b*ll*cks, imo.

 

If those players dont sign a renewal, they are free agents.

 

Unless, of course, they have some clause that PFC must formally say it is over after the month otherwise it is automatically renewed, which means imo Birchy has been lying about them being one-month contracts

 

They already kicked one out (his name was Doolally or something!) and he said at the time he was looking for another club so that does not tie in with Mr Appy's comments !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil Allen ‏@pn_neil_allen

 

Hearing Portpin want to charge #Pompey Trust £1m+ a year to rent Fratton Park. Property developer option would cost 8th or 9th of that.

 

More scurrilous reporting from Pompey's chief spin doctor.

 

The only plans and submittals in are for either Portpin to own and run the club, or for The Pompey Trust to buy the club and run it. There is no proposal for Portpin to lease the club back to the Trust, Chainrai has said he doesn't want to do that (not that his word is anything to go by, of course).

 

Just more of a media witch-hunt from Neil Allen I feel, to drive the anti-Chainrai brigade closer to fever pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my reading of the rules, I think the DFCSBs have pulled another quite impressive piece of loop-hole negotiation.

 

As far as I can tell, the FL rules would not allow the players to sign for other clubs after the one-month elapses.

 

At that point it will be after the transfer deadline, and the players were not free agents at the point the transfer deadline expired, so therefore don't qualify as free agents.

 

Stand to be corrected on this! Either way, it's a pretty shameful attempt to leave the players with their hands tied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my reading of the rules, I think the DFCSBs have pulled another quite impressive piece of loop-hole negotiation.

 

As far as I can tell, the FL rules would not allow the players to sign for other clubs after the one-month elapses.

 

At that point it will be after the transfer deadline, and the players were not free agents at the point the transfer deadline expired, so therefore don't qualify as free agents.

 

Stand to be corrected on this! Either way, it's a pretty shameful attempt to leave the players with their hands tied.

 

Would like to see the FL reg's that lead you to that conclusion.`

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see their match on Tuesday is live on Sky Sports, will be good to see the 'bestest' in action.

 

Hope there are no empty seats or booing... :lol:

 

Bound to be, they think it is a nothing competition, below their standing in the football world, or so they said two years ago.

Edited by Gingeletiss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would like to see the FL reg's that lead you to that conclusion.`

 

59.2 A Club may only register a Player in accordance with Regulation 59.1 (subject to the provisions of Regulation 41.5) during a Closed Period if he is an Unemployed Player.

 

i.e. you can sign players outside the transfer window if they are "Unemployed Player(s)". So what is an Unemployed Player?

 

41.6.3 'Unemployed Player' shall mean any Player who: (a) has not at any time been registered with:

(i) a Member Club;

(ii) a club that is participating in The Football Conference (National Division) or The Premier League; and/or

(iii) any other association football club in a country other than England,

or

(b) if he has been registered with any of the clubs listed in paragraph (a) above, his registration has expired at any time prior to the end of a Transfer Window and he has not since been registered with any such club.

 

- "not at any time been registered" would seem to exclude option (a)

- for (b), "expired at any time prior to the end of a Transfer Window" would not apply as the non-contract registration will have expired after the Transfer Window shut

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my reading of the rules, I think the DFCSBs have pulled another quite impressive piece of loop-hole negotiation.

 

As far as I can tell, the FL rules would not allow the players to sign for other clubs after the one-month elapses.

 

At that point it will be after the transfer deadline, and the players were not free agents at the point the transfer deadline expired, so therefore don't qualify as free agents.

 

Stand to be corrected on this! Either way, it's a pretty shameful attempt to leave the players with their hands tied.

 

Is that not why they were allowed to join on a 'non contract' basis !!

I know that it is a bit of a nonsense but that is what the Skates said at the time and if this is correct then the players were free agents at the point of the transfer deadline !

Surely if Pompey are able to dump the players then they have a right to employmant elsewhere ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trick pulled by Pompey here means that can "have their cake" and they "can eat it" too.....

 

If a player proves good enough, but wants to leave at the end of their "non-contracted" one month contract - then the skates can hold their registration (even if out of contract) until the January window

 

If a player proves too expensive or just not good enough - they can release the registration and the player is then free to sign for someone else, having been "non-contract".

 

It's the registration that they can hold on to - that way, they can (in effect) hold a player to ransom, by insisting they re-sign on terms that are preferrable to the skates...

 

Slippery b*stards, aren't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trick pulled by Pompey here means that can "have their cake" and they "can eat it" too.....

 

If a player proves good enough, but wants to leave at the end of their "non-contracted" one month contract - then the skates can hold their registration (even if out of contract) until the January window

 

If a player proves too expensive or just not good enough - they can release the registration and the player is then free to sign for someone else, having been "non-contract".

 

It's the registration that they can hold on to - that way, they can (in effect) hold a player to ransom, by insisting they re-sign on terms that are preferrable to the skates...

 

Slippery b*stards, aren't they?

 

Are you sure of that Steve, it just doesn't make sense to me as surely "non contract" must work both ways ??

I understand your point about registration but can't see that the Skates are in any position to hold these guys to ransom ?

Even cr@ppy players like these must have agents who study the rules before committing them to a totally one-sided contract (or 'non' as the case may be!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what exactly would the 'property developer's' financial model be ? He isn't running a charity.

 

maybe not but it appears anyone providing a service to the DFCSB's is running a charity......after all they haven't yet been paid for said service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trick pulled by Pompey here means that can "have their cake" and they "can eat it" too.....

 

If a player proves good enough, but wants to leave at the end of their "non-contracted" one month contract - then the skates can hold their registration (even if out of contract) until the January window

 

If a player proves too expensive or just not good enough - they can release the registration and the player is then free to sign for someone else, having been "non-contract".

 

It's the registration that they can hold on to - that way, they can (in effect) hold a player to ransom, by insisting they re-sign on terms that are preferrable to the skates...

 

Slippery b*stards, aren't they?

 

Think someone needs to email the FL and point this out. No way that this was intended when the rule was set out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think someone needs to email the FL and point this out. No way that this was intended when the rule was set out

 

Already sent this in to the FL earlier.

 

To Whom It May Concern,

 

 

I would be grateful if you could clear up a misunderstanding that is going on regarding Portsmouth football club and the players that they have signed on one month contracts.

 

My issue arises due to this article on an interview with Michael Appleton, manager of Portsmouth Football Club

 

http://www.chichester.co.uk/sport/football/pompey-latest/appy-players-are-staying-until-january-1-4217723

 

 

Michael Appleton has revealed Pompey’s players cannot move to another club until January.

 

The Blues’ current squad will not be allowed to sign for another team before the start of 2013, despite most of them being on one-month deals.

 

And Appleton assured supporters the finance is in place to keep together the players currently at Fratton Park, regardless of whether a takeover of the club is completed in the coming days.

 

The Pompey players’ current deals run until September 6 – and Football League regulations state only players unattached on the final day of the window can be signed in a closed period.

 

Appleton said: ‘We’re in control of the situation.

 

‘They can’t leave the club until the contract finishes – which is the second week of September.

 

‘If they leave they can’t sign for another club until January, so it’s in their best interests to stay.

 

‘Even if they don’t want to stay beyond January they can earn themselves a contract by playing and playing well.

 

‘It was a difficult situation we were put in, but we knew what we were doing and we weren’t stupid.

 

‘We weren’t going in with our eyes closed.

 

‘It works for both parties. If they aren’t comfortable with the situation in January we can reassess it then.

 

‘It’s in everyone’s best interests to re-sign.’

 

 

 

I find this both staggering and unbelievable.

 

If it is true then surely, once again, Portsmouth Football Club have made a mockery of The Football League's rules and found another loophole to allow themselves to carry on regardless, ignoring the supposed "transfer embargo" and gaining an advantage when surely a punishment should be the correct scenario.

 

I do understand that Mr Appleton, to put it politely, is not the sharpest of men, but, he is not the one doing the actually sanctioning of deals so he doesn't need to be as long as someone with half a brain left at the club can outwit the Football League and interpret the rules to suit.

 

Could you just tell me if Mr Appleton is correct or incorrect in that these players can be held hostage till January 2013 and Portsmouth can once again do as they please?

 

I hope that you actually read this email and don't just give me the bog standard reply pointing me to section 56 or 59 of the FL Rules & Regulations as I do not believe the answer is clear enough and is open to different interpretations.

 

Regards

 

I expect a reply pointing me to the relevant section of rules and regulations, despite asking them not to do so, but it makes me feel better ensuring that the FL are aware of any gloating that the no eyebrowed idiot spouts to the press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its true, hence why all contract terminations happen before the transfer window ends to allow them to move on free transfers outside the window.

 

They will be with us till January on the proviso we still have a a club

 

This is perfectly understandable if you renew their monthly contracts, but is surely can't be true that if you choose not to renew the contract of one of them he will be stranded , in limbo, out of work and unpaid, but unable to sign for anyone else until January?

 

So a player who is with a club and is secure, can be loaned from whenever the loan window opens, but a poor sod who has been conned into signing for PFC on a monthly basis can be put in a postion where he cannot work, at the whim of Appleton?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking about it, I can't recall the FL ever using the term transfer embargo in relation to 'them'

 

They did say no signings until you've reduced your wage bill and as all contracted players have gone then they've done that.

 

I think the main factor is what TB is making available to spend and what his policy is. As little commitment as possible probably and that's what he currently has.

 

The FL do seem to have set a limit of 20 players for them though

Edited by Winchester Red
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corp Ho is on cracking form over on POL, coming out with even more deluded and completely incorrect garbage than usual, bless him.

 

According to a certain broadsheet journalist (who will have to remain nameless) there are big problems between scummers manager and chairmain/ CEO. Their three big signings (Carlos Kickaball, Yoshi's CB brother and the african striker) were all signed by Cortese with no input from Adkins. Cortese ignored the manager when he wanted to sign Boro's CB Rhys Wiliams and signed the Japanese guy because it made more commercial sense (ie trying to sell the club to the Japanese market). Relationship "very strained" acording to Mr Journo. Maybe the rumours about Harry going back to take them down for a second time are true.

 

Never mind the fact that Rhys Williams was watched by us and in that match got injured and is likely out for most of the season. Good one Ho.

 

Also...

 

Would be interesting to hear the thoughts of our little lurking pet scummers on the issue of wages and transfer fees. They were very vocal when we were signing Campbell, Defoe etc that it wasn't "sustainable" on our gates. Well, their gates are around 10K more than we got at an average of £25 a ticket that gives them about £4.75m more than us a season in ticket sales. yes they've got corporate boxes but is that additional income enough to cover signing the likes of Ramirez on £60K a week tax free (so effectively £120K a week). Not to mention how their other players will view players being signed on this kind of money and how it will affect their wage demands.

 

Cheats?

 

He thinks Ramirez is on £120K a week :lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corp Ho is on cracking form over on POL, coming out with even more deluded and completely incorrect garbage than usual, bless him.

 

 

 

Never mind the fact that Rhys Williams was watched by us and in that match got injured and is likely out for most of the season. Good one Ho.

 

Also...

 

 

 

He thinks Ramirez is on £120K a week :lol::lol::lol:

 

He conveniently forgets that we get sh*t loads of money when we sell our players whereas they give theirs away lol. And we had 20K more attendance last weekend than they did.

 

Oh and we get sh*t loads of TV money too.

Edited by bridge too far
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And he conveniently forgets that we sell players for substantial sums too. They just give theirs away lol

 

A Pompey fan was kind enough to point out that we got promoted from League 1 to the Premier League with a net transfer spend of £3M. Which caused a bit of confusion all round, really.

 

Nice to see that Corpie cares so much that he's over there still starting threads about us. PompeyScot will probably be on here reading through soon, even though he never ever looks on here, no sir never. Hi Bill :toppa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})

{{comment