Micky Posted 23 July, 2010 Share Posted 23 July, 2010 The rules as you say are not being broken. You must have squad of 20 players. We havent got it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 23 July, 2010 Share Posted 23 July, 2010 Why would anyone join a sinking ship like them ? Esp when its going to be 50/50 on being paid every month ! Well yeah, it would be loans and desperate freebies. With respect to Prem loans, surely there are better second division clubs than that turd basket to send your players to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 23 July, 2010 Share Posted 23 July, 2010 (edited) As I understand the situation, and this is "off the cuff" without proper research, Pompey have 18 players on tour Stateside, including England's U19 'keeper, who is on their books. But 3 of those are trialists. They also have a Youth/Academy team playing pre-season around Hampshire (they beat Havant & Waterlooville - our kids didn't). Pompey have stated that the FL have given them a dispensation not to include this years 4 new Academy scholars (16/17 y.o.) in the squad. If that's true, I personally think that's fair enough. But that leaves at least 7 other squad members still at home. So they have at least 15+7=22 "recognised" squad members at the moment, including a 'keeper. They have plenty. The fact that they don't put all of their pictures on the club's own "First Team Squad" webpage is no reason for the FL to relax the rules. The rules say you must have a squad of at least 20. They don't say it's up to the club to separate them into a "First Team Squad" and "others". Edited 23 July, 2010 by hutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 23 July, 2010 Share Posted 23 July, 2010 (edited) The rules as you say are not being broken. You must have squad of 20 players. We havent got it And who's fault is that? Taking a minimum standard and abusing it as a right. F••king cheating filth. Edited 23 July, 2010 by Colinjb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merovingian Posted 23 July, 2010 Share Posted 23 July, 2010 And those deluded little island dwellers lapped it all up - probably still do :lol::lol: I don't think you will find alot of us lapped it up - most of us found out what AA did at Swindon within hours As for league 1 - thats a given I reckon, would be surprised if we have long odds at the bookies for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 23 July, 2010 Share Posted 23 July, 2010 As for league 1 - thats a given I reckon, would be surprised if we have long odds at the bookies for sure Most bookies at the moment have odds for Pompey suggesting a mid table finish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carljack Posted 23 July, 2010 Share Posted 23 July, 2010 Most bookies at the moment have odds for Pompey suggesting a mid table finish. Which Table? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 23 July, 2010 Share Posted 23 July, 2010 I'm surprised there's so much support here for the FL "relaxing" the embargo to let them bring in new players to replace current players on "inflated" contracts, on a one-in one-out basis. Rules are rules, and should be applied equally to everybody. Once you start "relaxing" them in "special" cases, you get the Pompeys of this world continually pushing the limits to see how far they'll be allowed to go. Remember, the parachute payments were specifically introduced for just that reason, to allow relegated clubs to progressively replace expensive players with cheaper alternatives as their contracts expire. Pompey are already receiving £48m over 4 years to do that. An example of them wanting to have their cake & eat it too. No favours. Let them sort themselves out within the rules, or go to the wall. They created their own problems. Agreed. If they don't have enough players to fulfill a fixture, -3 points and -3 g.d., with an automatic 3 points to the other team. If it happens more than 3 times, toss the buggers out of the league. That'll make them think twice about cancelling contracts to bring their squad below 20. CHEATING BASTARDS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 23 July, 2010 Share Posted 23 July, 2010 Which Table? :lol::lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 23 July, 2010 Share Posted 23 July, 2010 Now don't laugh. http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/squad/first-team.aspx Propaganda for the benefit of the FL to let them sign better players. Anyway, including the ladies they have plenty of players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 The rules as you say are not being broken. You must have squad of 20 players. We havent got it Most here don't have a problem with the 'rules' it's you trying to manipulate them for your own purposes, like, getting rid of players deemed not good enough, them crying to the FL, that you don't have enough. That is once again, blatent cheating by your club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 As I understand the situation, and this is "off the cuff" without proper research, Pompey have 18 players on tour Stateside, including England's U19 'keeper, who is on their books. But 3 of those are trialists. They also have a Youth/Academy team playing pre-season around Hampshire (they beat Havant & Waterlooville - our kids didn't). Pompey have stated that the FL have given them a dispensation not to include this years 4 new Academy scholars (16/17 y.o.) in the squad. If that's true, I personally think that's fair enough. But that leaves at least 7 other squad members still at home. So they have at least 15+7=22 "recognised" squad members at the moment, including a 'keeper. They have plenty. The fact that they don't put all of their pictures on the club's own "First Team Squad" webpage is no reason for the FL to relax the rules. The rules say you must have a squad of at least 20. They don't say it's up to the club to separate them into a "First Team Squad" and "others". This just shows how the skates are just trying it on again... will they ever learn? To put the names to the player count he they are. "First team": 1. Mokoena 2. Hreidarsson 3. TBH 4. Wilson 5. Ward 6. Mullins 7. Brown 8. Hughes 9. Boateng 10 Ritchie 11 Nugent 12 Utaka 13 Webber 14 Smith 15 Belhadj (sold?) others playing on tour: 16 O'Brien 17 Kilbey 18 Ciftci 19 Ryan 20 Gregory 21 Martin 22 Pack Others somewhere: 23 Cowan-Hall 24 Hurst (loaned out) 25 Goddard Players trying to get rid of: 26 Nlundulu 27 Subotic 28 Hughes (j) Trialists Ashdown Jordan Stewart So thats 28 players but reports that Billy Goddard, Perry Ryan, Ellis Martin and Peter Gregory will not be counted as well as Hurst who is loaned out to an icelandic team for the season brings in down to 23 with belhadj in limbo as to whether he has been sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West End Saint Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 The rules as you say are not being broken. You must have squad of 20 players. We havent got it If you are getting rid of players getting contracts terminated so you can get below 20 players and bring in better players you are cheating. I hope the FL dont put up with any of your ducking & diving if you have 20 sh1t players you still have 20 players deal with it we did and got relegated I hope you do to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 If you are getting rid of players getting contracts terminated so you can get below 20 players and bring in better players you are cheating. I hope the FL dont put up with any of your ducking & diving if you have 20 sh1t players you still have 20 players deal with it we did and got relegated I hope you do to. Surely they can round up 20 kids with a pair of football boots in the Eastern extremities of the PO post code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 If you are getting rid of players getting contracts terminated so you can get below 20 players and bring in better players you are cheating. I hope the FL dont put up with any of your ducking & diving if you have 20 sh1t players you still have 20 players deal with it we did and got relegated I hope you do to. Here's what I want the FL to do... They should take a look at the skate squad as it stood at the end of last season - and then review how many players they need now to make up the 20. If they need say 3 players - then yhey should take the wages of the 3 lowest plaid players released during the summer and that beocmes the ceiling for the FL signing off that signing. So for example, if the wages of the 3 lowest paid players were £500pw, £500pw & £700pw then that is the max they can spend. Oh - and no image rights either!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katalinic Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Cotterill-We-should-have-been.6437651.jp? I am beginning to wonder how long Cotterill will last before he walks.....lol at the "This may be a culture shock to people because this competition is meant to be fair – but we have been really, really put through the wringer to try to get some players" quote - grossly overspending on players you couldn't afford to stay in the PL and to win the FA Cup wasn't fair either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Cotterill-We-should-have-been.6437651.jp? I am beginning to wonder how long Cotterill will last before he walks.....lol at the "This may be a culture shock to people because this competition is meant to be fair – but we have been really, really put through the wringer to try to get some players" quote - grossly overspending on players you couldn't afford to stay in the PL and to win the FA Cup wasn't fair either. LOL that they actually believe that they are in a position to sign Benjanii on a freebie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katalinic Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 LOL that they actually believe that they are in a position to sign Benjanii on a freebie. There still seems to be a significant number of them that are either thick or simply in denial of the situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 It really does seem that the taxman is going to offer no leniency to football. I bet there are football clubs all over the country frantically trying to get their VAT & PAYE in order at this news. Does anyone really think hat HMRC are going to let Poopey off? They have scented football blood and they are in for the kill. http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/434789943?-11205 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 "First team": 1. Mokoena 2. Hreidarsson 3. TBH 4. Wilson 5. Ward 6. Mullins 7. Brown 8. Hughes 9. Boateng 10 Ritchie 11 Nugent 12 Utaka 13 Webber 14 Smith 15 Belhadj (sold?) others playing on tour: 16 O'Brien 17 Kilbey 18 Ciftci 19 Ryan 20 Gregory 21 Martin 22 Pack Others somewhere: 23 Cowan-Hall 24 Hurst (loaned out) 25 Goddard Players trying to get rid of: 26 Nlundulu 27 Subotic 28 Hughes (j) Trialists Ashdown Jordan Stewart Might be worth forwarding that list in an email to the Football League. Steve Cotteril would do well to either: resign or shut up and get on with it otherwise he's going to make a right tit of himself a la Grant. Anyone could've told him it was a stupid job to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaMarlin Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 "It has been a frustrating tour for Cotterill, despite winning two of their three games so far. His squad has boasted no fewer than seven teenagers, all of who he is eager to send out on loan to improve their footballing education." Seven teenagers, all of whom he is eager to send out on loan, so he can bring others in. Surely there is no better place for those teenagers to improve their footballing education than in the toughest school of all; the Championship with a team with a squad that ensures they should get plenty of first-team action. You can have no sympathy for Cotterill's bleatings when he is plainly trying to bend the rules by loaning out registered players that he should be using. It is not fair on those other clubs who find themselves in financial straits and have to use their youth team players. But when did p****y ever try and play by the rules. And I find it very hard to believe that Cotterill was unaware of the situation at the club. It's not as if he was coccooned from the news, miles away. He lives in Christchurch, so it's always been on his bloody doorstep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Cotterill-We-should-have-been.6437651.jp? I am beginning to wonder how long Cotterill will last before he walks.....lol at the "This may be a culture shock to people because this competition is meant to be fair – but we have been really, really put through the wringer to try to get some players" quote - grossly overspending on players you couldn't afford to stay in the PL and to win the FA Cup wasn't fair either. Im sick of hearing about how hard done they have been. Is it all Pompey football managers who dont understand basic housekeeping. It says that Utaka and Moekwana are back to training. They are both top level players on massive wages. The FL are making a rod for their own back and it is a shame Malwhinney is not still there, as he would have told them to walk. The new chairman from Leicester was under MM's pay and no doubt still has his ear. I dont get the fact that they also say they only have youth players, well there has been a lot of clubs who have fielded youth players.In our relegation season from the PL Wigley had all our forwards injured and had to play 2 17 year old forwards, we got no help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 the football league have not done anything...lets see how it all plays out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 the football league have not done anything...lets see how it all plays out Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 So lets put to bed, this thought that Poopey will appear in Europe, now that Villarreal have been awarded Real Mallorca's place. Yes AA, Real Mallorca have been chucked out due to financial irregularities, after going into administration. So how the hell do you expect to get a berth in that competition, it beyond reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Under Weststand Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Cotterill-We-should-have-been.6437651.jp? I am beginning to wonder how long Cotterill will last before he walks.....lol at the "This may be a culture shock to people because this competition is meant to be fair – but we have been really, really put through the wringer to try to get some players" quote - grossly overspending on players you couldn't afford to stay in the PL and to win the FA Cup wasn't fair either. Oh god Just read this and yet another one drawn into the we are hard done by brigade COMPETITION & FAIR in Poopey talk is allow them to have better players they cant afford so they can win more games. Fair competition is for your disgusting cheating club, to just for once try & abide by the rules. Play a squad you can afford, which like Saints did with the Dutch experiment means playing their youth team. Is it in new employees contracts at Poopey to come out in the press & talk complete B0LL0CKS?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 Im sick of hearing about how hard done they have been. Is it all Pompey football managers who dont understand basic housekeeping. It says that Utaka and Moekwana are back to training. They are both top level players on massive wages. The FL are making a rod for their own back and it is a shame Malwhinney is not still there, as he would have told them to walk. The new chairman from Leicester was under MM's pay and no doubt still has his ear. I dont get the fact that they also say they only have youth players, well there has been a lot of clubs who have fielded youth players.In our relegation season from the PL Wigley had all our forwards injured and had to play 2 17 year old forwards, we got no help. You spout some serious deluded cr@p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 You spout some serious deluded cr@p. and you dont have the decency to apologise when you have got it wrong. You said something on the same lines yesterday and were corrected immediately, so who's deluded????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 and you dont have the decency to apologise when you have got it wrong. You said something on the same lines yesterday and were corrected immediately, so who's deluded????? You are. Your old and addled mind somehow thinks the the FL is not doing anything, in fact, activity helping pompey because the chairman used to be at Leicester and knows MM. You also seem to think that their "dispensation" means that they are about to sign Messi ignoring the "case by case" basis. You also mentioned that you hope that the HMRC law team are as sharp as Hutch, who happened to read the rules that, guess what, HMRC use every single day. You're an idiot who simply wants pompey to get away with it so you can be Billy big b o l l o xs and actually fails to read or lacks the capacity to actually understand what it going on. You're "got away with it" mantra is tedious beyond belief and is evidence of a tired mind or a person so negative Alpine looks like a Butlins Red Coat in comparison. Now STFU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 I can't understand PFC. They are whinging about not being competitive when really they should be bl**dy grateful that they are still in existence. I think that they really should view the situation as fighting for survival rather than fighting for promotion (that is unless an idiot with more money than sense walks through the door). If they don't think that they can be competitive, then perhaps they should consider pulling out of the Championship and entering a competition that they feel that their situation can cope with. I just wish they would stop bleating on about how hard done they are. As for the signing of new players, I have said before that a rule to the temporary lifting of the embargo should allow them only to sign players from a lower English league team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_John Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 Following various comments over the last few days about how much money Chainrai is in for and how Comical Andy's CVA clearly shows that the Football Creditors are being paid by the money from TV & the PL, I thought I should revisit the original 2004 High Court ruling of HMRC v Wimbledon case by Justice Lightman. When comparing with the Cheats remember :- (1) there is NO Buyer or Sale Agreement, (2) the TV money + PL payments are assets of "OldCo" and is not "new money", however we all know we are dealing with a bunch of Cheats here so when reading it assume they will not play by the rules. I have attempted to cut and paste what I consider the important points in the ruling. Point 17 is the judgement but I have also given the others to show the buildup to the ruling. Having read it again I can only see HMRC winning the appeal against the Cheats, and I think Paul Greenwood was right it did create a "rogue's charter". http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2004/1020.html 8. The terms of the Sale Agreement had to reflect ....for the transfer of the assets and business of the Club (including the Share) to the Buyer. The requirements included the payment in full of the sums due to the Football and other creditors specified, which the Club did not have the means to discharge, and the choice of a voluntary arrangement as the exit route for administration. 10. .... The consideration for the sale is: ... (4) the assumption by the Buyer of the obligation to pay and discharge to the aggregate maximum of £642,096.32: (a) all debts transferred to the Buyer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (which total some £245,259.96) ("the TUR Debts"); and (b) all Football Creditors and other debts non-payment of which entitles the League to require a transfer to its nominee of the Share for 5 pence or to refuse to withdraw the notice of withdrawal of membership ("the Priority Debts"); and (5) additional consideration payable if the football club under its new ownership is promoted to the Premier Division before or at the end of the 2006-7 season. By Clause 12.1 the Buyer agreed to pay or otherwise discharge (by way of compromise or otherwise) after completion the Priority Debts to the same maximum figure, so far as they are not paid or discharged prior to completion. 11.By a Share Sale Agreement of the same date and forming part of the same transaction the Club agreed to sell the entire shareholding in the Buyer to IMKL for £1. 12.Two weeks after execution of the Sale Agreement, on the 18th March 2004 the Administrators convened a meeting of creditors ("the Meeting") to approve the Arrangement, the chosen exit route from administration. 13. Under the Arrangement the funds and assets retained by the Club, ...., will all be applied in payment of a dividend of 30 pence in the pound to the preferential creditors (and in particular the Revenue) ..... 17. In my judgment section 4(4)(a) of the Act lays down the rule that in an administration the assets of the company shall be applied in payment in full of the preferential creditors ahead of any payment to the non-preferential creditors. ... Neither section precludes payment of non-preferential creditors by third parties ahead of preferential creditors out of their own free money, and accordingly there can be no objection to payment by the Buyer of the Priority Debts in full. It does not matter that the non-preferential debts are paid (as they are paid in this case) to discharge the debts of the company and accordingly "on behalf of" or "at the instance of" or "for the benefit of" the company by a third party if they are paid out of his free money and at his own cost and not at the cost of the company. It would of course be different if the company put the third party in funds to do so. It would be different if the Sale Agreement were a sham or device adopted to disguise payments by the company to non-preferential creditors ahead of preferential creditors e.g. by agreeing an artificially low purchase price payable to the company for its undertaking in return for the assumption by the purchaser of an obligation to pay non-preferential creditors. That is not the case here nor has it ever been suggested to be so. The provision for payment of the Priority Debts by the Buyer is a commercial necessity for the Buyer as well as a fully disclosed ingredient of the Sale Agreement. This limitation on the application of section 4(4)(a), that it only applies where the payments are made out of the company's assets, is in no way calculated to create a rogue's charter, as Mr Greenwood suggests. Any arrangement of the kind in question in this case requires careful scrutiny as to its propriety and conformity with section 4(4)(a) (and indeed with fairness), but in this case the Arrangement satisfies that scrutiny. 26. ....It is under the terms of the Sale Agreement that the responsibility to pay the Priority Debts was passed to the Buyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 Following various comments over the last few days about how much money Chainrai is in for and how Comical Andy's CVA clearly shows that the Football Creditors are being paid by the money from TV & the PL, I thought I should revisit the original 2004 High Court ruling of HMRC v Wimbledon case by Justice Lightman. When comparing with the Cheats remember :- (1) there is NO Buyer or Sale Agreement, (2) the TV money + PL payments are assets of "OldCo" and is not "new money", however we all know we are dealing with a bunch of Cheats here so when reading it assume they will not play by the rules. I have attempted to cut and paste what I consider the important points in the ruling. Point 17 is the judgement but I have also given the others to show the buildup to the ruling. Having read it again I can only see HMRC winning the appeal against the Cheats, and I think Paul Greenwood was right it did create a "rogue's charter". http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2004/1020.html Sometimes I wish I wasn't so thick - what does all this mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpb Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 Sometimes I wish I wasn't so thick - what does all this mean? I'm with Sid - I am in total admiration of those who seem to understand it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_John Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 Sometimes I wish I wasn't so thick - what does all this mean? IMO It means their CVA is rubbish and the Judge should throw it out when it gets to Court. The ruling in 2004 said that "Priority Debts" (Football Creditors) can be paid in full if the Buyer pays with his "free money and at his own cost and not at the cost of the company". However the CVA shows the money be paid from TV + PL payments which I believe are assets of the OldCo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Cotterill-We-should-have-been.6437651.jp? I am beginning to wonder how long Cotterill will last before he walks.....lol at the "This may be a culture shock to people because this competition is meant to be fair – but we have been really, really put through the wringer to try to get some players" quote - grossly overspending on players you couldn't afford to stay in the PL and to win the FA Cup wasn't fair either. 'There isn't anybody out there free- transfer wise for me to bring in at this moment in time because they have all been signed so there are no players available on frees at all?! Or there are no free transfers who are better then the players who we are releasing to get under the 20 player limit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 'There isn't anybody out there free- transfer wise for me to bring in at this moment in time because they have all been signed so there are no players available on frees at all?! Or there are no free transfers who are better then the players who we are releasing to get under the 20 player limit... Apologies if you've been asked before, but how do you rate HMRC's chances of winning their appeal, and if successful what would happen next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 I'd not read the Wimbledon ruling before however having now see the post above it does look as though handy andy may have royally f%#^ed this up oops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 Ok, this is lifted word for word from Matthew Dunn's column in the Express yesterday.... ---------- David James may not have been offered a new contract by Portsmouth, but the cash-strapped club are recruiting at some levels at least. Successful applicants for the position of ticket seller for their new matchday 50/50 draw will be : good communicators, confident with numbers, able to deliver excellent customer service, used to dealing with money and able to maintain a professional image at all times. It is just a shame that the same stringent criteria were not applied to some of the club's recent owners. --------- I'm not making this up. BTW, if the FL have backtracked quickly on allowing the Skates to sign players, well that makes a mockery of that email they sent me earlier in the week.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 (edited) They have had loads of flights across the US and Canada and delays galore and missing out on training. Took them 42 hours to get there in the first place. Far better to stay at one training base rather than continuously traveling on inter continental flights. Fatigued already in late July. http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/More-Travel-Disruption-For-Blues-1164.aspx Bet they wish they went to Switzerland now... Edited 24 July, 2010 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 I'd not read the Wimbledon ruling before however having now see the post above it does look as though handy andy may have royally f%#^ed this up oops Now that's the kind of expert opinion I really like to see! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 IMO It means their CVA is rubbish and the Judge should throw it out when it gets to Court. The ruling in 2004 said that "Priority Debts" (Football Creditors) can be paid in full if the Buyer pays with his "free money and at his own cost and not at the cost of the company". However the CVA shows the money be paid from TV + PL payments which I believe are assets of the OldCo. The question is whether it is their money until the PL hand it over. Although I think AAs CVA shows the funds coming and being paid out to football creditors IIRC, which would be righ royal **** up on his part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 Here's what I want the FL to do... They should take a look at the skate squad as it stood at the end of last season - and then review how many players they need now to make up the 20. If they need say 3 players - then yhey should take the wages of the 3 lowest plaid players released during the summer and that beocmes the ceiling for the FL signing off that signing. So for example, if the wages of the 3 lowest paid players were £500pw, £500pw & £700pw then that is the max they can spend. Oh - and no image rights either!! Imagine if the FL looked at them and said, no you are cheating, then made them play with 10 players That would be funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 24 July, 2010 Share Posted 24 July, 2010 (edited) Pompey now playing DC United in a friendly, but don't have a kit as it didn't turn up. Pompey playing in DC United's away kit. Hardly any fans in the stadium so not exactly building the Pompey brand in the States. Losing 4-0 and two players sent off. Edited 25 July, 2010 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red and White Army Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 IMO It means their CVA is rubbish and the Judge should throw it out when it gets to Court. The ruling in 2004 said that "Priority Debts" (Football Creditors) can be paid in full if the Buyer pays with his "free money and at his own cost and not at the cost of the company". However the CVA shows the money be paid from TV + PL payments which I believe are assets of the OldCo. Actually I was thinking about this the other night. Do the creditors of PFC have any recourse to suing the Premier League? The parachute payments are effectively an asset of PFC, and the Premier League has arbitrarily decided to redirect those assets away from the grasp of the Administrator who (nominally at least) is working in the interest of the creditors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 (edited) Actually I was thinking about this the other night. Do the creditors of PFC have any recourse to suing the Premier League? The parachute payments are effectively an asset of PFC, and the Premier League has arbitrarily decided to redirect those assets away from the grasp of the Administrator who (nominally at least) is working in the interest of the creditors? No, it's within the rules of the FA and the EPL but is one of the things that HMRC is challenging. Edited 25 July, 2010 by View From The Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Bates Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/887430/PORTSMOUTHrsquoS-financial-meltdown-killed-hopes-that-football-and-the-taxman-could-reach-a-deal-over-players-image-rights.html http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/football/match_reports/championship/887122/FINAL-CHAPTER-IN-POMPEY-STORRIE.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Neil Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/24/AR2010072402309.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 Gordon Taylor is a proper wonker, isn't he? "But we oppose the scrapping of the football creditors rule. It is necessary to stop clubs achieving success by promising wages and transfer fees which they are then unable to pay." Mmmmm!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/24/AR2010072402309.html That is a fantastic read: "It began with Portsmouth's utter lack of appeal beyond England's southern shores, resulting in an announced crowd of just 8,987" " Portsmouth got stuck in Chicago because of a flight cancellation and didn't arrive in Washington until Saturday morning. The players made it; their uniforms did not." "Australian forward Danny Allsopp needed just 30 minutes to equal his scoring total in 12 MLS appearances (two goals) and finished with a hat trick. " "Once we found our rhythm and started going at them, they decided to foul us on every other play." "After David Nugent missed a sure equalizer from six yards, Quaranta squared the ball to Allsopp, whose first touch was too heavy. He recovered possession, however, carved some space and neatly side-footed a 10-yarder into the lower right corner." "It was hot," United defender Carey Talley said, "and they were grumpy." LOL - It looks like this summer is just a mere break in the ongoing pompey comedy show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 25 July, 2010 Share Posted 25 July, 2010 That is a fantastic read: "It began with Portsmouth's utter lack of appeal beyond England's southern shores, resulting in an announced crowd of just 8,987" Shouldn't that read "beyond Portsea Island"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts