Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Oh, and some basic (and highly innaccurate) Charlton related maths for FMPR.

 

TV income c. £300k

Matchday income c. 350k (average gate * £20).

Total Season income c. £8.5 million

 

Now if Charlton spend a maximum of 66% of their income on that would leave c. £5.6 million wage budget. or c. £4300 per player per week (based on a squad of 25 players)

 

For Charlton to be paying £15,000 for a 'squad' player would be financial madness, and that's assuming Charlton don't have debts to repay (which they do!).

Edited by Joensuu
Link to post
Share on other sites
But 9k is a Top League One wage its not a championship budget. Cannot remember who it was but remember reading when Charlton went to sign someone in the Championship (forward from Crewe iirc) there opening gambit was 15k a week and that was just a squad player.

 

TBF I don't think you can compare us to even the other top L1 teams. We happen to be in the luxurious position of having a very wealthy backer. I think our wage bill would be comparable with a mid to higher Championship team.

 

Re the Crewe example, there will always be some players / agents that ask ridiculous money. I think if you look at the recent facts on wage budgets in the CCC, £10m p.a. would be top end. Based on Pompey's likely gate receipts and other income that is a completely unworkable figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet Lambert who has played League One and below his entire career is on £9k a week plus goal bonus I suspect. Most normal people would be happy with that however football is a different beast. How much do you think Fonte is on or has he only come down the coast for the view?

 

Irrelevant really.

 

Go back and see how much we were paying the 'kids' in our relegation season, and we still went into admin for spending more than we earnt....

Link to post
Share on other sites
The new penalties that the FL are talking about will miss Pompey as they are already in admin.

 

The Football League didn't stop applying an aspirational rule to our situation a year ago that has only just been ratified this week.....I thus venture that logic and chronology doesn't always come into their decision making criteria.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

about as relevant as the old 'but Chelsea have bigger debts than us, why haven't they been docked points?' argument - an idiotic observation that keeps on spilling out of dim people's mouths.

Perhaps we need to put together a leaflet explaining in simple terms what has occured.

 

And on that one - pompey were docked points for going into administration, they have been punished for that (though it didn't cost them anything as they were hilariously proven to be the worst team in the division by quite a margin)

 

There is no comparison with our situation, our penalty was imposed because Rupert missed the date.

It's black and white and both offences are now history.

 

However, the further penalties they face concern any irregularities, insolvent trading, use of illegal agents, tax evasion - plus anything else that a proper adminstrator stumbles across when he is eventually appointed.

Plenty of laughs to come.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But 9k is a Top League One wage its not a championship budget. Cannot remember who it was but remember reading when Charlton went to sign someone in the Championship (forward from Crewe iirc) there opening gambit was 15k a week and that was just a squad player.

 

Nah.

 

In 2006 the average wage of a CCC player was just under £200k p.a. So under £4k per week. It's probably more now but not a lot more. It will also be skewed hugely by players from teams like Newcastle, West Brom etc.. who will pay a lot more to their top earners than the likes of Blackpool and Barnsley do.

 

£10k per week would put you in the top-earner bracket in the CCC easily. £15k per wek for an average squad player is utter rubbish.

Edited by benjii
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like AA is setting up to keep as much value/potential value in the club so that when Chenrai takes it over he is getting a decent CCC team debt free to add to the stadium which he practically owns. He is then in a position to recoup his outlay and sell it on at a profit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems like AA is setting up to keep as much value/potential value in the club so that when Chenrai takes it over he is getting a decent CCC team debt free to add to the stadium which he practically owns. He is then in a position to recoup his outlay and sell it on at a profit.

 

But (shock, horror)....that wouldn't be acting in the interests of all creditors....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nah.

 

In 2006 the average wage of a CCC player was just under £200k p.a. So under £4k per week. It's probably more now but not a lot more. It will also be skewed hugely by players from teams like Newcastle, West Brom etc.. who will pay a lot more to their top earners than the likes of Blackpool and Barnsley do.

 

£10k per week would put you in the top-earner bracket in the CCC easily. £15k per wek for an average squad player is utter rubbish.

 

A pal of my son is a top player/club & team captain in the CCC and his three year contract is worth about £1.5m.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

****'s sake. ******s.

 

They can still get a points deduction in 2010/11.

 

'If they exit administration but it is without a CVA, our board would meet to discuss the possibility of letting them carry on in the Football League and accept a points deduction, as long as they can show how they will repay their creditors.'
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nothing really new in this article. It was unlikely they would be docked more points as in theory they had a 'punishment' for entering administration last season. The penalty might not have counted in the end, but the fact it was levied would have impacted the performances of the players in games subsequent to the penalty.

 

Of more interest is this bit:

 

"If they exit administration but it is without a CVA, our board would meet to discuss the possibility of letting them carry on in the Football League and accept a points deduction, as long as they can show how they will repay their creditors"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah. I'm just fed up of everyone kissing Pompey's collective arse.

 

I see now - I have the poster of that link on ignore so didn't realise until someone quoted it.

 

This is not news though. Stockport were in admin when last season started weren't they? In fact, are they still? They will be due a deduction this season if that's the case. Ouch - non-league time for them!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I see now - I have the poster of that link on ignore so didn't realise until someone quoted it.

 

This is not news though. Stockport were in admin when last season started weren't they? In fact, are they still? They will be due a deduction this season if that's the case. Ouch - non-league time for them!

 

I have Benjii on ignore so can only read his posts when I quote them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's always been the case so why do all the skates seem surprised?

 

+1.

 

What would have been annoying is if they had escaped a points deduciotn and come out of this witha compromise which allows them to maintain a decent playing squad.

 

This intervention by Griffins and HMRC confirming that AA's CVA is unaaceptable should hopefully ensure that the well-deserved reality of their predicament bites: years of being run on a shoestring and existing primarily to service debt rather than seek footballing success.

Link to post
Share on other sites
about as relevant as the old 'but Chelsea have bigger debts than us, why haven't they been docked points?' argument - an idiotic observation that keeps on spilling out of dim people's mouths.

Perhaps we need to put together a leaflet explaining in simple terms what has occured.

 

And on that one - pompey were docked points for going into administration, they have been punished for that (though it didn't cost them anything as they were hilariously proven to be the worst team in the division by quite a margin)

 

There is no comparison with our situation, our penalty was imposed because Rupert missed the date.

It's black and white and both offences are now history.

 

However, the further penalties they face concern any irregularities, insolvent trading, use of illegal agents, tax evasion - plus anything else that a proper adminstrator stumbles across when he is eventually appointed.

Plenty of laughs to come.

 

We were docked points in our relegation season, we were also not actually in administration as it was our parent company that was. It didnt stop us getting docked points the following season and if Poopy went into admin after the FL cut off date I can see no reason why they should be treated in the same way as us. The FL set an example with us and now they should follow suit with Poopy. If they went into admin after what ever the cut off date was in the FL then there points should be carried over to this season. Any other outcome would mean they have gained an advantage from going into admin that other teams around them didnt have.

 

I dont really care if we argue the toss to improve our situation as given time we will be back on top anyway. But I doubt the rest of the FL will be too happy that a so called Prem team gets preferential treatment if nothing more is done.

 

EDIT: Just looked up the dates that they went into Admin and it was the end of Feb. The cut off date for the FL is the 3rd Thursday in March I think so by that rule they served there punnishment in the Prem. Im gutted! lol

Edited by saintjay77
Link to post
Share on other sites
The delusion continues....

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Recruitment-drive-begins-despite-uncertain.6349342.jp

 

I particularly liked this last sentence.....

 

'I will say, however, we will not be paying £15,000 a week in salaries. We have reduced our pay levels to a maximum of £10,000 a week. Anyone not wishing to meet that ceiling will not be considered.'

 

Wasn't having half a dozen players on £10k/week the root of our downfall?

 

In the end, yes. We also had high earners we were unable to shift as the skates do now.

 

I too find this ceiling of £10,000 per week risible.

 

THEY HAVE NO MONEY.

 

Maybe the ceiling should be £5000 per week or even £2500 per week. I think that you would be able to get a lot of professional football players playing for your team for that amount. Whether they can be competitive in the CCC is immaterial. AA has a duty to pay the creditors rather than making sure that PFC can compete in CCC.

 

£10k a week is £520,000 a year. Not a bad wage!! £5k is £260,000 a year. £2.5k a week is £130,000 a year. I imagine that most people on here would be happy with £2.5k a week, let alone £10k a week. If I was a creditor, I would be mighty ****ed off with AA saying that he is prepared to still pay ridiculous wages - frankly £10k a week for most/all players is far too much, especially when THERE IS NO MONEY and huge debts still outstanding. I know some get paid £125k a week but that is the insanity that is modern football.

 

It would be harsh if the skates built a squad on AA's 25 1st team players @ 10k pw = £13m

 

HMRC and Griffins creditors suggest a wage cap of £2.5m

 

Yet Lambert who has played League One and below his entire career is on £9k a week plus goal bonus I suspect. Most normal people would be happy with that however football is a different beast. How much do you think Fonte is on or has he only come down the coast for the view?

 

Before worrying about the football leagues top scorer's wage, the more pressing issue of the £100k you owe hayden mullins, or Sol's image rights suit.

 

Nah.

 

In 2006 the average wage of a CCC player was just under £200k p.a. So under £4k per week. It's probably more now but not a lot more. It will also be skewed hugely by players from teams like Newcastle, West Brom etc.. who will pay a lot more to their top earners than the likes of Blackpool and Barnsley do.

 

£10k per week would put you in the top-earner bracket in the CCC easily. £15k per wek for an average squad player is utter rubbish.

 

I remember hearing once when Scunny came to St.Marys, that there entire squad was valued at £200k, when we had the likes of BWP strolling offside.

 

Pompey should benchmark the S****horpe FC 2006/7 model for the coming season

 

What a finely put explanation of the circus going on down the road. I suspect the post was composed by one of our own on this thread, being so well informed.

 

Reading the Griffins document, HMRC are holding firm and refusing to be mugged off by the skates, regardless of the outcome of challenging the footy creditors rule in court.

 

If Griffins and HMRC get there way, the club will go on, it wont be toast, it will be bread slowly turning moldy.

 

Regardless of points deductions, liquidation investigations, arry and storrie due in court... consider this with me...

 

 

The final page of the document outlines playing staff expenditure at £2.5m p.a. or around £200k a month, for a proposed 25 man squad (2.5m / 25 players = £100 p.a or £2k a week)

 

This may suggest the club may not be able to afford the likes of John Utaka on £80k a week any more!

 

How much did Jermaine Wright earn at Saints?

 

 

Having studied football league finance in the past, I can confirm (circa 2006/7/8) the mean wage expenditure in the championship league falls between £9-10m p.a. which would give you a realistic chance of maintaining a mid-table side.

 

This mean figure includes managing and coaching staff, so you could discount the mean to around £7.5m in player wages, or three times more competitive than the moldy toast.

 

It is also worth noting nPc clubs have a couple more £m from broadcasting royalties to play with from this year on.

 

Remember when we were going broke, and were relegated, admin'ed etc...

 

Our wage bill at the time was £500k a month, £6m p.a. in which we were unable remain competitive, how the skates are gonna manage on £2.5m p.a is delightfully beyond me.

 

In summary

 

COY Griffins Insolvency Practitioners and HMRC

 

as for the skates... they are molding bread.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

"We are particularly surprised that the Administrators, despite their statutory duties, can find no link between the losses incurred and the management of the club. We feel it would be unwise for any responsible insolvency practitioner to make such a public declaration of support for the former management before a full investigation has taken place.."

Link to post
Share on other sites
But 9k is a Top League One wage its not a championship budget. Cannot remember who it was but remember reading when Charlton went to sign someone in the Championship (forward from Crewe iirc) there opening gambit was 15k a week and that was just a squad player.

 

Fwiw Charlton are currently in big financial trouble caused by signing players on £15k/week, just as we were having taken on too many on £10k in CCC. We can afford one or two (not a teamful) of £10k/week players now because we get twenty thousand attendances and are living debt free. Poopey on 12k crowds and a huge debt to service cannot, just like most of the CCC. It's simply more of the Android's fantasies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Pompey-will-not-be-docked.6349310.jp

 

I really don't understand why they have run this story. It is not new "news". It just means they can't get a deduction for going into admin when they already are.

 

It still however states they can get a points deduction in 2010/11.

 

'If they exit administration but it is without a CVA, our board would meet to discuss the possibility of letting them carry on in the Football League and accept a points deduction, as long as they can show how they will repay their creditors.'

 

Yet all the comments from Pompey fans have ignored this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They can still get a points deduction in 2010/11.

 

Or............

 

The club has already faced a points deduction last season for going in to administration - we can't punish them twice for the same offence.'

 

The FL hasn't said they won't get a points deduction for any other indiscretions;)

Edited by Gingeletiss
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I see it, they can still be penalised in the coming season for:

  • A financial irregularity
  • Any other irregularity
  • Exiting administration the wrong way

and the one after if they are still in admin.

 

And they still have no squad and no money. AND I think they're still under a registration embargo. Nothing's changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It also takes a very "flexible" imagination to get from the anonymous League spokesman's quote:

 

'The suggestion we will deduct points from Portsmouth if they do not get a CVA in place before next season is categorically not true. The club has already faced a points deduction last season for going in to administration - we can't punish them twice for the same offence.'

to the News journalist's interpretation:

League sources say the club will not be docked points at the start of the coming Championship season whatever happens.

But I don't speak Skate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Or............

 

The club has already faced a points deduction last season for going in to administration - we can't punish them twice for the same offence.'

 

The FL hasn't said they won't get a points deduction for any other indiscretions;)

 

I wouldnt be suprised if they do get some as the CVA looks a bit shakey right now for a start. They may just buy more time and not exit admin for the rest of the season and re-attempt at a CVA later on to try to get round that one but the financial irregularitys look to be there biggest threat right now.

 

That prob wont do anything until the liquidation takes place and the former owners are investigated via that process.

 

With Redcrap and Milan and Storieteller no longer with the club, any punnishments they recieve may well just effect them and Poopy might be left alone again.

 

In years to come it seems they will become the model of how to run a club badly and get away with it!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who is right? Griffins or UHY Hacker Young...

 

There's only one way to find out....

 

Fight, fight...

Am I missing something from UHY's quotes?

 

I am not sure whether advancing a proposal to win business from creditors, which could destroy the club in the process, is a responsible position for an insolvency practitioner to be taking.

I would have thought advancing a proposal that would obtain more money for the creditors is EXACTLY the sort of responsible position an insolvency practitioner should be taking...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I missing something from UHY's quotes?

 

 

I would have thought advancing a proposal that would obtain more money for the creditors is EXACTLY the sort of responsible position an insolvency practitioner should be taking...

 

I think the only thing missing from UHY's response is the term 'absolute b**locks'....

 

Such a professional term which has been used and reported in the past....haha

Link to post
Share on other sites
It also takes a very "flexible" imagination to get from the anonymous League spokesman's quote:

 

'The suggestion we will deduct points from Portsmouth if they do not get a CVA in place before next season is categorically not true. The club has already faced a points deduction last season for going in to administration - we can't punish them twice for the same offence.'

to the News journalist's interpretation:

League sources say the club will not be docked points at the start of the coming Championship season whatever happens.

But I don't speak Skate.

 

They're being incredibly thick (have commented on the article to help them along). This has always been the case. The issue is how they exit admin. The alternative is for them to stay in admin and not be able to register any players. Come out with no agreed cva, points deduction.

 

Jeez, they're stoopid](*,)

Link to post
Share on other sites
"We are particularly surprised that the Administrators, despite their statutory duties, can find no link between the losses incurred and the management of the club. We feel it would be unwise for any responsible insolvency practitioner to make such a public declaration of support for the former management before a full investigation has taken place.."

 

Where did you find this Guided

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldnt be suprised if they do get some as the CVA looks a bit shakey right now for a start. They may just buy more time and not exit admin for the rest of the season and re-attempt at a CVA later on to try to get round that one but the financial irregularitys look to be there biggest threat right now.

 

That prob wont do anything until the liquidation takes place and the former owners are investigated via that process.

 

With Redcrap and Milan and Storieteller no longer with the club, any punnishments they recieve may well just effect them and Poopy might be left alone again.

 

In years to come it seems they will become the model of how to run a club badly and get away with it!!!

I don't think that helps them much either. They've got about 10 players left, and half of them want to leave. They can't sign any new ones while they are still in admin (AFAIK). All AA's talk about signing up his wonderful new team

of "frees" that nobody else has noticed is all scheduled to happen AFTER the CVA is approved :p.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that helps them much either. They've got about 10 players left, and half of them want to leave. They can't sign any new ones while they are still in admin (AFAIK). All AA's talk about signing up his wonderful new team

of "frees" that nobody else has noticed is all scheduled to happen AFTER the CVA is approved :p.

 

 

But where as any normal Administrator would be doing there upmost to come out of admin sooner rather than later whilst getting the best deal possible for the creditors AA is playing fantasy football with a no mark club on the south coast.

 

Whats the bets he keeps them in admin while arguing its still everyone else's fault?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Where did you find this?

 

It is in the bottom link.

 

____________________________

 

It is turning into a fight of press releases and CVA proposals/amendments! :D

 

28th May 2010- UHY's CVA proposal

 

http://www.uhy-uk.com/media/download/turnaround-and-recovery/PFC%20CVA%2028th%20May%20Final2.pdf

 

4th June 2010 - Griffin's report

 

http://www.griffins.net/client/portsmouthcva.pdf

 

9th June 2010 - The response from AA to Griffin's report...

 

http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2264400/pompey-administrators-hit-back

 

9th June 2010 - The response from Griffin to the responce from AA to Griffins report...

 

http://www.griffins.net/client/ResponseUHY.pdf

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure whether advancing a proposal to win business from creditors, which could destroy the club in the process, is a responsible position for an insolvency practitioner to be taking.

 

 

As opposed to stiffing creditors and destroying the company in 9 months (via a liquidation) so that it can be like a phoenix and rise from the ashes all new and sparkly (except for the creditors that is)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

AA's position is increasingly bizarre. I cant work out if he is incompetent or corrupt or both. Either way I find it hard to see him having a career after this. Perhaps someone has deposited £1m in a Virgin Islands account for him to break his fall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It was the only play aa could have made and it's pretty ******* woolly, I wonder if HMRC helped pen the Griffin response.

 

Griffins' response is very nicely worded, I have to say - they've coolly and calmly poured a vat of agricultural slurry all over UHY and their statement. I love that first sentence:

 

"We are surprised to read that the Administrators of Portsmouth FC have, with the assistance of a public relations agency, issued a press release attacking our firm."

 

If it were a boxing match it would be stopped in the first round.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If I remember correctly a FL official told the Echo that we would not be deducted points because SFC had not gone into admin. If other FL clubs consider the Skates are getting some sort of preferential treatment to their detriment things may change. Remember the FL make the rules up as they go along. Certainly legality will not come into it.

 

I was thinking the same thing but the only way they could carry the points from last season over to this IMO was by using the FL's cut off date in much the same way as our situation.

 

We missed the cut off date rightly or wrongly and it was down to the FL changing its rules on parent company's and all that. Had we taken the hit before the 3rd Thursday in March then we would have taken the points in the same season and it would have been done with.

 

Poopy went into admin at the end of Feb I think although I think there was some wavering on what was going on for some time. I thought that they didnt officially go into admin until later but I cant find anything that says it happened past the end of Feb.

 

With that in mind and going by the FL rules they did it before the cut of date and there points deduction onoly gets to happen once and ours twice.

 

It sucks but thats the rules they follow.

 

Financial irregularitys and failed CVA's will carry points deductions though so they are not clear. They just escape an automatic -10 at the start of the season for going into admin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The original proposal always troubled me. The club will get parachute payments over 4 years yet not all of that is passed on to the creditors.

 

The parachute payments give them an advantage over other clubs in the league who do not receive such pyments. They were set up to ease a clubs reduction in income/high expenses whilst they "downsized" Well PFC are downsizing now and are supposed to be able to live within their means in the CCC. If they are allowed to keep any of this "bonus" it makes a mockery of those clubs who are struggling to make ends meet but achieving it by not paying high wages/transfer fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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