Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga


Fitzhugh Fella

Recommended Posts

Half a pint of Rohypnol shandy and he's anyone's - he's gonna be in trouble if an aroused Avram wanders by.

 

Though, in the dirty old prossie-botherer's defence, if you go around dressed as pretty as that in skimpy hotpants, you are asking for it.*

 

At least he can ring his bell and have both hands free now.

 

 

 

 

*Not really, even Avram at his most inflamed would think twice about unleashing little Avram on a mission that ugly.

On this showing, Westwood must've been the only kid who went to Top of the Pops and didn't get molested - probably made it right through Catholic choir school, a children's home, the scouts, and never even got a Valentine's card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's great that this guy has put these questions together, but there comes a time when really you should just give up.

 

So far he's sent 54 questions to Portpin via their PR company and he's received 54 'no comment' responses! It's a given that the next 46 questions will also be met with the same no comment answer, so what is he trying to prove now? We get it, Portpin aren't bothering to answer any questions. Stop making yourself look like an even bigger bell end by sending the questions 10 at a time! Just send the whole lot next time and get the whole lot not answered!

 

It's a good way to score easy points when your opponent does not want to fight back. And fair play, his questions are interesting and quite possibly insightful too, so he should just go for it ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't appear football authorities treat all clubs the same...

 

Exhibit A

 

"We tried to sign some players on non-contract terms, we had five players to register," he told BBC Radio Northamptonshire.

 

"The FA told us on Thursday night don't bother sending them in because there's an embargo on the club.

 

"They said that you can't sign any more players because you've already registered 30, of which 15 or 16 were players that John [beck] had signed on contracts for trials, they never even played for the first team.

 

"We fought all day Friday, all the way up until 12 o'clock at night and then early this morning we were told there was no way we can sign players.

 

"And at the bottom of the email that we got it says 'we'll fine you if you don't put out a team'."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19859492

 

Exhibit B

 

queens-park-rangers-akos-buzaky-268-panini-2009-2010-coca-cola-championship-football-sticker-40182-p.jpg

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem. All they have to do is give Cheats FC a quick ring to ask how to successfully skirt around it.

 

As irksome as it si, theuir current wage bill willbe under 65% of turnover given their parachute payments - still instead of opaying that back to creditors, they spend it on a squad that is unaffordable to most L1 sides....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's great that this guy has put these questions together, but there comes a time when really you should just give up.

 

So far he's sent 54 questions to Portpin via their PR company and he's received 54 'no comment' responses! It's a given that the next 46 questions will also be met with the same no comment answer, so what is he trying to prove now? We get it, Portpin aren't bothering to answer any questions. Stop making yourself look like an even bigger bell end by sending the questions 10 at a time! Just send the whole lot next time and get the whole lot not answered!

 

The next time any Skate questions the fact that they were trading whilst insolvent, I think that we should refer them to these articles (by one of their own!) as he clearly asserts that there was intentional skullduggery and (alleged!) fraud !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least he is trying.

 

Wonder what the response would be if WE pulled the top 50 moans from the main board and sent them to Sibley/Cortese?

 

True, it's just a pity he's a lone voice and didn't try harder when it mattered.

 

And that's the nub. I imagine he was happy to cheer on Campbell, Johnson, Defoe etc and the hell with the consequences...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest that their current wagebill is only TECHNICALLY less than the 65%.

 

Don't they have about £2M of deferred WAGES to pay this season in addition to their slightly inflated wagebill?

But those wages will be dressed up in the accounts as 'football creditors'.

 

In fact they could even suggest that their current wagebill is very low but they do pay quite a lot of short term contracts to non-fulltime individuals, some of which I'm sure are not even wages, but Image Rights.

 

The accountancy game has great ways of avoiding rules such as the 65% one - as with previous scams, pompey will be pioneers in this.

 

 

And the remaining £8M PP doesn't all come into this year's figures - and if it did, it's wiped out by the Hero Paymentsso in reality it makes no difference to the %.

 

Their real wagebill for the next four years will be £2M higher than the cost of their squad - hence UnAppy's reduced budget in the summer, when he was the only person in Europe who hadn't twigged that there was money still to pay and it would come out of his little 'warchest'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has this been posted yet (I assume it has), but Kettering Town could only field 10 players yesterday after their reserve goal keeper declined the chance to play out field to make up the numbers. They lost 7-0. Wouldn't it be lovely if Pompey found themselves in that situation...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19859492

 

Don't they have a right to be competitive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pompey's superfan representing them well yet again.

 

A1UFcQeCMAA9yvj.jpg

 

Apologies for the offensive picture. I feel sick.

 

What a f*ckin' 'orrible sight. And the next time the TV cameras focus on this bell-ringing freak as if he's some kind of iconic face of the football fan, maybe they should ask him what that tattoo is on his leg...or are hooligan badges acceptable when it's "plucky little p*mpey"?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often wonder who is the most obsessed - them or us, but right now it seems to be 50/50. Some might say they are judging by the long thread of theirs, but I bet we're not really much different if we were to merge together all the threads that have brought scum into conversation on here.

 

F*ck off Fratts; we're way more obsessed than you are.

 

Well, perhaps not you personally, given your apparent regular forays onto here, but you get the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff...

 

@blueballoo2000: FansNetwork - HALL RIGHT NOW: Revealed - The true story behind Ali Al Faraj - Portsmouth news: http://t.co/EHuuwuf5

 

it's important that fans know that there are serious question marks over all the financial transactions at Pompey between October 6th, 2009and March 2010, and that this is almost certainly why the Baker Tilly investigation is taking so long.
Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff...

 

@blueballoo2000: FansNetwork - HALL RIGHT NOW: Revealed - The true story behind Ali Al Faraj - Portsmouth news: http://t.co/EHuuwuf5

 

There are a lot of holes in that and some errors. Perhaps the biggest holes being that Storrie Lampitt & Roberts were all officers of the Company and yet appear to have done nothing to report misconduct to any authorities

 

At the moment it is a story, to have published it they need to have one hell of a lot of actual evidence. Which begs the question who gave it to them.

 

But the thing is, it had all pretty much been speculated on and discussed on here.

 

As the article stands it is a clear attempt to destroy Chanrai's chances of taking control.

 

Unfortunately it could also deliver a clear opportunity for legal action - which, as we all know could kill any chance the trust have

 

So as Pearce says - good investigative work. But possibly something that they should have sent to the Press and not published themselves...

 

Which again shows either egos at work or naivety

 

Unless of course the Press wouldn't publish it because of lack of evidence and holes in which case Mr Hall may be receiving a knock on the door very soon

 

The real interesting part will be "How does this evidence impact upon submissions given at the High Court with respect to the original HMRC Winding Up Petition?"

 

If this turns out to show "falsehoods" were stated in a court action involving the previous company which meant that it WOULD have been liquidated....

 

Hmmmmmmmmm

Edited by dubai_phil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back through this thread. Not in a "we were right" way but in the "how many times did BTF and others mail or ping media guys" to draw attention to the story.

 

Nobody ever followed up, nobody seems to have had off the record lunches with Storrie/Roberts etc to see the picture.

 

No doubt they will all start following this up now.

 

Matt Slater ‏@mattslaterbbc If u want 2 know why football, despite glorious simplicity of game, isn't quite right, on number of levels, try http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/portsmouth/fb_news.php?storyid=18346 …

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of holes in that and some errors. Perhaps the biggest holes being that Storrie Lampitt & Roberts were all officers of the Company and yet appear to have done nothing to report misconduct to any authorities

 

At the moment it is a story, to have published it they need to have one hell of a lot of actual evidence. Which begs the question who gave it to them.

 

But the thing is, it had all pretty much been speculated on and discussed on here.

 

As the article stands it is a clear attempt to destroy Chanrai's chances of taking control.

 

Unfortunately it could also deliver a clear opportunity for legal action - which, as we all know could kill any chance the trust have

 

So as Pearce says - good investigative work. But possibly something that they should have sent to the Press and not published themselves...

 

Which again shows either egos at work or naivety

 

Unless of course the Press wouldn't publish it because of lack of evidence and holes in which case Mr Hall may be receiving a knock on the door very soon

 

The real interesting part will be "How does this evidence impact upon submissions given at the High Court with respect to the original HMRC Winding Up Petition?"

 

If this turns out to show "falsehoods" were stated in a court action involving the previous company which meant that it WOULD have been liquidated....

 

Hmmmmmmmmm

 

It is a very interesting read, and far more detailed and authoritative than anything that has appeared on here. I urge anyone interested to read the whole thing, and not rely on Phil's reaction as that doesn't do it justice. Clearly a lot of work has gone into that piece and it disperses a lot of the confusion over that period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a very interesting read, and far more detailed and authoritative than anything that has appeared on here. I urge anyone interested to read the whole thing, and not rely on Phil's reaction as that doesn't do it justice. Clearly a lot of work has gone into that piece and it disperses a lot of the confusion over that period.

 

I wasn't intending to knock it at all. It is obviously good work - it raises so many more questions though...

 

There are enough new angles to allow everyone to look back and also to allow this to debate into another 200 pages

 

My one liner reaction would really be.

 

SURELY, now, SOMEBODY has to go to Jail for all of what happened down there

 

(Which is kinda what we and the more intelligent few have been saying for 3 years)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of holes in that and some errors. Perhaps the biggest holes being that Storrie Lampitt & Roberts were all officers of the Company and yet appear to have done nothing to report misconduct to any authorities

 

At the moment it is a story, to have published it they need to have one hell of a lot of actual evidence. Which begs the question who gave it to them.

 

But the thing is, it had all pretty much been speculated on and discussed on here.

 

As the article stands it is a clear attempt to destroy Chanrai's chances of taking control.

 

Unfortunately it could also deliver a clear opportunity for legal action - which, as we all know could kill any chance the trust have

 

So as Pearce says - good investigative work. But possibly something that they should have sent to the Press and not published themselves...

 

Which again shows either egos at work or naivety

 

Unless of course the Press wouldn't publish it because of lack of evidence and holes in which case Mr Hall may be receiving a knock on the door very soon

 

The real interesting part will be "How does this evidence impact upon submissions given at the High Court with respect to the original HMRC Winding Up Petition?"

 

If this turns out to show "falsehoods" were stated in a court action involving the previous company which meant that it WOULD have been liquidated....

 

Hmmmmmmmmm

 

And I can't see the article so has it been pulled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baker Tilly nearing the end of their forensic investigation....the majority of which seems to be paraphrased in advance on a Pompey fan blog....coincidently at the same time that the FL are supposedly ratifying the Portpin bid...during which time Birch has gone silent...

 

Hmmmm....

 

Carlsberg don't do big fat coincidences, but if they did...

 

P.s. where was this Pompey blogger chap 3 years ago...?

Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a very interesting read, and far more detailed and authoritative than anything that has appeared on here. I urge anyone interested to read the whole thing, and not rely on Phil's reaction as that doesn't do it justice. Clearly a lot of work has gone into that piece and it disperses a lot of the confusion over that period.

Not sure I agree. Pretty much all of it has been available here as it happened, although, being more circumspect, most of our posters have rather posted links to other articles rather than repeat potentially dodgy allegations on here.

 

The only new material that I didn't know relates to the earlier, pre-Pompey attempts by Azougy & Narkis to get their money back from Gaydamak in early 2009. And I hadn't seen the linked allegedly forged letter from Al Faraj to Storrie & Jacobs.

 

If you had read all the articles on here, and followed all the links, then you knew the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I agree. Pretty much all of it has been available here as it happened, although, being more circumspect, most of our posters have rather posted links to other articles rather than repeat potentially dodgy allegations on here.

 

The only new material that I didn't know relates to the earlier, pre-Pompey attempts by Azougy & Narkis to get their money back from Gaydamak in early 2009. And I hadn't seen the linked allegedly forged letter from Al Faraj to Storrie & Jacobs.

 

If you had read all the articles on here, and followed all the links, then you knew the rest.

 

Yes, a lot of the ground has been covered on here, but it's messed up with tens of thousands of posts of rubbish and speculation. Nobody has pulled together all the strands of the story and presented a clear, chronological and detailed account of the time period referenced... that article reads authoritatively and they obvious have good links to the professionals on the case and enough confidence in the evidence to go into print with what they know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so that explains the one pompey fan not celebrating when their illegally-assembled team and corruptly-run club came to SMS for the cup game - he knew the truth and no one else would listen....

 

 

Nice to have some support for Nutjob conspiracy theories but we have been banging on about most of that for years while they've ignored it and carried on regardless.

They have played ONE game on a level playing field in the last decade.

ONE!

They fielded a team against Plymouth that they could afford, and then went on another spending spree.

So I don't see a reformed character trying to leave all the cheating behind.

 

 

 

 

While Mr Hall has done a fine job and I applaud his research, you have to think it is three years too late, that it's only published for one reason - and we didn't hear a peep out of them when things were okay on the pitch.

It amounts to denying any wrongdoing and then admitting guilt after it's been proven, just to get a lesser sentence - I note that senior figures whose conduct could lead to club sanctions are deemed entirely innocent in his investigation.

Yeah right.

 

But maybe I'm being a little harsh, I'm sure he's been busy exposing the blatant criminality for the last three years, and not just this week, when it suits a pro-Trust/anti-Chanrai agenda.

 

So IMO it is basically a press release for the Trust that throws some interesting light on the criminal offences of portmouth fc.

If FIFA and the FL were serious about corruption and could see evidence to support this blog, they would shut the club down this morning.

 

They have been tipped off enough times in the past and done nothing, or perhaps were just too afraid to tackle organised crime.

Nothing has changed - other than a pompey fan admitting that the club has been cheating.

I guess that is progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob Beech ‏@bobbeech @tSKeysandGray@talkSPORTDrive Still think Pompey lived beyond their means & cheated? http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/portsmouth/fb_news.php?storyid=18346#.UHJ9axyoObh.twitter …

 

 

Erm..... how does unearthing what 'really' happened suddenly erase all the cheating? Cheating is cheating whether you've got dubious people at the helm or not. The real 'crime' is that you (the fans) chose to turn a blind eye at the time it was happening...

Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BBC Solent Sport ‏@solentsport #saintsfc Southampton's St Mary's Stadium confirmed as one of 17 potential match venues for the 2015 Rugby World Cup: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19868520 …

 

I see Fratton Park hasn't made the shortlist.....must have been a close run thing....if only they'd spent the money they didn't have on a new stadium rather than building a "competitive" team they couldn't afford....

Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Football is so subjective though - if it had of been Saints in the same position then the Pompey fans would probably have been saying the same thing. The accusations started from 'wanting' something to be wrong rather than actually thinking or having evidence.

 

Had this been another club would there have been this amount of interest on this site - of course not! Would the CVI loans have been questioned at all if this had not of happened down the road - of course not! We are all football fans and not forensic accountents (well most of us aren't anyhow.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob Beech ‏@bobbeech @tSKeysandGray@talkSPORTDrive Still think Pompey lived beyond their means & cheated? http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/portsmouth/fb_news.php?storyid=18346#.UHJ9axyoObh.twitter …

 

 

Erm..... how does unearthing what 'really' happened suddenly erase all the cheating? Cheating is cheating whether you've got dubious people at the helm or not. The real 'crime' is that you (the fans) chose to turn a blind eye at the time it was happening...

 

Ridiculous, no one turned a blind eye, there were suspicions, but no more, we knew something was not right and fand DID angrily confronted Jacobs etc on a number of occassions, but like every club, most fans want to believe the best case scenario, it's not a doom and gloom business. I'm sure NC is completely above board, but most Saints fans are content to give the benefit of the doubt over the 'contradictions' on loans etc, only a few question and your all none the wiser. There may be some clever types on here, but there aren't any Mike Halls thats for sure. How much is Ramirez on including bonuses etc? I mean really? Does anyone know? Or are you gonna get upset when it's too late?

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})