Pompey Takeover Saga

[miserableoldgit]

Dictators find a place in Harry’s game

 

 

Vivid imagination: Redknapp

 

Harry Redknapp was asked to comment on Manchester City’s transfer spending, which may well surpass £100million this summer.

A man of vivid imagination, Redknapp came up with a gem of an answer. ‘There’s nothing you can do,’ he said. ‘They’re bringing good players into the Premier League.

‘Football fans don’t care. Saddam Hussein could own their football club and, if he’s putting millions into it, then they’ll be quite happy.

'They’ll be singing, “There’s only one Saddam”. I’ve seen it all before. They don’t care if you’re putting the money in.’

 

He is right, of course. And for ‘Saddam’ you could read Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin or Kim Il Sung. If they could guarantee a top-four placing — with perhaps a Carling Cup thrown in — then their character flaws would be swiftly overlooked by the chaps in the cheap seats.

And something Harry forgot to mention: those blood-stained, tyrannical owners would never run short of football managers ready and willing to work for them.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1297356/Patrick-Collins-Muttiah-Muralitharan-magician-puts-critics-spin.html#ixzz0ugRlfwNF

[Wes Tender]

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

 

"The Premier League have long insisted that the football creditors rule, which says all players, coaching staff and rival clubs must be paid in full when a club goes bust, is essential to the crediblity of the competition.

 

Without it, Watford would have followed Portsmouth into administration last year; the rule allowing the Premier League to withhold TV money from Portsmouth in order to meet payments they owed to Watford on the transfers of Tommy Smith and Mike Williamson.

 

A Premier League spokesman said: "We will robustly defend our position."

 

It obviously hasn't credited Taylor's cranium that without the Football Creditors' rule, clubs would have to be a lot more circumspect in their dealings and that if clubs like the Skates couldn't afford to pay for a player up front, then they wouldn't get them. Any club that wished to buy players effectively on hire purchase, some now and some more when the player had a certain number of matches under their belts, would have to think twice about the gamble they would be taking if that buyer club went under. Quite why he cannot understand that clubs living within their means can only be a good thing is beyond me.

[View From The Top]

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

 

I see that Saints fans have posted their thanks to Storrie.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/24/AR2010072402309.html

 

Right at the outset this made me laugh:

 

As each day and hour passed, D.C. United's ill-conceived friendly with English club Portsmouth at RFK Stadium seemed to take a new and farcical turn.

[tony13579]

Cotterill clears players of blame after hammering

 

 

 

Steve Cotterill refused to point the finger of blame at his exhausted players after tonight's beating at the hands of DC United.

 

The Blues were sent crashing to a 4-0 loss at the RFK Stadium in Washington, on a horrendous finale to their North American tour.

Cotterill's side had to endure a nightmare 28 hour journey from Edmonton to Washington after a connecting flight was cancelled in Chicago following a lightning storm.

That just added to a lengthy tale of woe on tour which has seen travelling time already break the 80 hour mark.

The players also had just a few hours sleep going into the game as they grabbed an early flight to the US capital, arriving on Saturday afternoon.

To add insult to injury, crucial kit and medical equipment was lost en-route with most of the other luggage arriving drenched after being left in the storm.

Pompey then faced temperatures of 115 degrees pitchside for the game.

It was a sequence of events which led to Cotterill clearing his players of any blame for the result.

He said: 'I am happy with the players. I'm not happy with the result, but their performance in the circumstances was good.

'They have been through an horrendous journey and tour and played in ridiculous conditions.

'We played well for 20 minutes and then it was sporadic after that.

'I've never travelled for 28 hours to get to a game before, that's for sure.

'They were great in the circumstances. I don't have a bad word to say about them.'

 

comment no 10

The club's former travel advisor, Samantha Curry, was awarded £6,387 for unfair dismissal and £3,692 in protective awards. Maybe AA should have looked at the club diary before he sacked the travel organizer !! ???

 

Love it!

[sidthesquid]

Danny Allsopp, football legend!!!

read on

 

From the Skate News match post

Blue cheese,

Melbourne, australia 25/07/2010 04:18:26

not a great result, but in the circumstances.....

Danny Allsopp used to play in the A league for Melbourne Victory, quite a handy player like John Aloisi used to be. His Dad's from Southampton though..!

[Nadia Sllim]

I am sure those ****s down the road will ensure this thread will run and run with all the misery coming their way!!! loving it

[sidthesquid]

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

 

I read somewhere & I can't find it again (maybe on this very thread) that one of the issues HMRC had was that the Skates were paying huge image rights payments to players (hence £13mill in liabilities) but only had £3million in revenue for merchandising etc.

Apparently HMRC first shied away from taking this one on over David Beckham because they feared they might lose because of his huge global brand - allegedly Real Madrid made back his transfer fee on shirt sales alone in the first year.

Maybe Hayden Mullins and Richard Hughes have a slightly lower global profile.

Sounds like another one of Peter- trust me I'm a football contract genius - Storrie's little scams

[Mouldy Coat]

I can't see HMRC winning the appeal about image rights. Portsmuff paid inflated wages to players that they couldn't afford and therefore they could argue that the image rights were based on the FORECASTED revenues only.

 

The fact that these players did not generate the additional revenues forecasted is very difficult to quantify in terms of an actual monetray value. Therefore, I think the likely outcome is that there may be more stringent measures on how image rights are taxed moving forward.

 

I do think that the HMRC have a solid foundation to argue that due to the football creditors ruling, any football debt should be considered as a SECURED debt and therefore the HMRC should have had the 25% needed to stop the CVA. - It is on these grounds that I think the courts will vote in favour of HMRC and those skate fish sh*gging ****s will be toast.

Edited 25 July, 2010 by Mouldy Coat

[benjii]

This is one of my favourite pages yet. Pure comedy gold from all sorts of places.

[Faz]

I can't see HMRC winning the appeal about mage rights. Portsmuff payed inflated wages to players that they couldn't afford and therefore they could argue that the image rights were based on the FORECASTED revenues only.

 

The fact that these players did not generate the additional revenues forecasted is very difficult to quantify in terms of actual monetray value. Therefore, I think the likely outcome is that there may be more stringent measures on how image rights are taxed moving forward.

 

I do think that the HMRC have a solid foundation to argue that due to the football creditors ruling, any football debt should be considered as a SECURED debt and therefore the HMRC should have had the 25% needed to stop the CVA. - It is on these grounds that I think the courts will vote in favour of HMRC and those skate fish sh*gging ****s will be toast.

 

The image rights thing is not just about Pompey, although there are strong grounds for seeing this as tax evasion. Even if they don't win, the ground ruules will be set.

 

The issue of footbal creditors effectively being secured - in this case by revues due to the club, rather than third party funds, is entirely relevent. Surely any right thinking court would claim it to be inequitable for those who will receive 100% to be able to vote in the CVA. Even if Pompey win, I can see the HMRC taking it higher.

[sidthesquid]

I can't see HMRC winning the appeal about mage rights. Portsmuff payed inflated wages to players that they couldn't afford and therefore they could argue that the image rights were based on the FORECASTED revenues only.

 

The fact that these players did not generate the additional revenues forecasted is very difficult to quantify in terms of actual monetray value. Therefore, I think the likely outcome is that there may be more stringent measures on how image rights are taxed moving forward.

 

I do think that the HMRC have a solid foundation to argue that due to the football creditors ruling, any football debt should be considered as a SECURED debt and therefore the HMRC should have had the 25% needed to stop the CVA. - It is on these grounds that I think the courts will vote in favour of HMRC and those skate fish sh*gging ****s will be toast.

 

I think what will do for the Cod-botherers is all of AAs creative accounting. But like everything else they have taken the P on the image rights and that is why HMRC are after them for it

[Faz]

I think what will do for the Cod-botherers is all of AAs creative accounting. But like everything else they have taken the P on the image rights and that is why HMRC are after them for it

 

It's interesting that HMRC voted against the crystal palace cva, but have not appealed it. That surely shows the two circumstances are different. The football creditors rule still applies to palace, but the football creditors will be paid from third party monies to get the Golden Share.

 

Goodbye Pompey.

[Crab Lungs]

Brilliant. Love it.

[Matthew Le God]

The tour has done lots to boost the clubs profile in North America. Stadium packed to the rafters as MLS fans flock to see the stars of Portsmouth last night.

 

(Pompey playing in white as they didn't have a kit, so borrowed DC United's away kit)

 

Edited 25 July, 2010 by Matthew Le God

[benjii]

What a funny little video.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

What were all those thousands of Dutch fans doing there? . . .

 

Oh! those orange things are empty seats, not shirts!

[latter day saint]

i see that TCWTB is still there,doing his bit to bridge the gap in the "special relationship" that has occurred recently.

also is it correct that DC has one of the the highest murder rates in the USA?

[aintforever]

5.25/1 at William Hill for Skates to go down and Saints to go up - might be worth a flutter.

 

I think it will be tough for them even if they don't get a points deduction.

[View From The Top]

5.25/1 at William Hill for Skates to go down and Saints to go up - might be worth a flutter.

 

I think it will be tough for them even if they don't get a points deduction.

 

5-1 with Paddypower along with 7-1 for us to go up & Lambert to win the L1 golden boot.

[angelman]

Oh not sure about the Skates going down. With defending like that (especially for the 2nd goal) they should be safe............

[tony13579]

I can't see HMRC winning the appeal about image rights. Portsmuff paid inflated wages to players that they couldn't afford and therefore they could argue that the image rights were based on the FORECASTED revenues only.

 

The fact that these players did not generate the additional revenues forecasted is very difficult to quantify in terms of an actual monetray value. Therefore, I think the likely outcome is that there may be more stringent measures on how image rights are taxed moving forward.

 

I do think that the HMRC have a solid foundation to argue that due to the football creditors ruling, any football debt should be considered as a SECURED debt and therefore the HMRC should have had the 25% needed to stop the CVA. - It is on these grounds that I think the courts will vote in favour of HMRC and those skate fish sh*gging ****s will be toast.

 

The HMRC can see the monies generated from image rights.. TV money and advertising monies from thier sponser and sales of shirts were if I remember correctly only 20% of income, yet 50% of wages. (or in those proportions) A blatent tax dodge in my opinion....

[sidthesquid]

The HMRC can see the monies generated from image rights.. TV money and advertising monies from thier sponser and sales of shirts were if I remember correctly only 20% of income, yet 50% of wages. (or in those proportions) A blatent tax dodge in my opinion....

 

And that is exactly why HMRC are after them. Go after a p1ss-taker and establish the principle to go after some of the others. Another classic bit of Storrie dodgy dealing coming home to roost.

[suewhistle]

I'm with Sid - I am in total admiration of those who seem to understand it all.

 

Basically you have to sit down and read it slowly. Can't say I've bothered either, seeing as there is so much more entertaining stuff on this thread, along with the occasional management summary to help me digest it. Basically they are fregati, foutu, in the deep...

[Mouldy Coat]

The HMRC can see the monies generated from image rights.. TV money and advertising monies from thier sponser and sales of shirts were if I remember correctly only 20% of income, yet 50% of wages. (or in those proportions) A blatent tax dodge in my opinion....

 

yes they can see the money generated, but how do you attribute the revenue contribution by player? the answer is, you can't do it easilly and therefore it is very difficult to police. I think more stringent measures will see an annual review of revenues generated and then clubs paying annual image rights 'bonuses' based on revenues, rather than form part of the players weekly/monthly income - but who knows? that's just an idea.

 

What the skates can't escape is that they prevented HMRC from being able to vote and they did this by counting all football creditors to make up the 76% they needed to come out of admin. Football creditors were assured a 100% dividend. Therefore anyone who is gauranteed a 100% divided is a SECURED debtor. A CVA can only consider UNSECURED debtors and hence why I think Skates will lose. This is the gripe HMRC have with skates, the image rights thing is with football in general.

 

Rivalry aside, footballers get paid a fortune, they should pay their f*cking taxes, it's always middle britain or mr average that gets collared by the tax man. So good luck HMRC, I hope you win for more reasons than one.

Edited 25 July, 2010 by Mouldy Coat

[aintforever]

yes they can see the money generated, but how do you attribute the revenue contribution by player? the answer is, you can't do it easilly and therefore it is very difficult to police.

 

It's difficult to measure accurately but it's not hard to see when someone's taking the ****. They were paying people who had little or no image millions, a crystal clear tax fiddle.

[Thedelldays]

ffs, just threw up in my mouth after seeing w******d in his glory

[Tamesaint]

I wonder how W******d got through immigration when he arrived in the States. Normally the yanks are very fussy about who they allow into their country.

[Bobbyboy]

5-1 with Paddypower along with 7-1 for us to go up & Lambert to win the L1 golden boot.

Thing is, Pompey would have to survive liquidation for the next 12 months without being liquidated. That might be more of a long shot.

[St Chalet]

It's difficult to measure accurately but it's not hard to see when someone's taking the ****. They were paying people who had little or no image millions, a crystal clear tax fiddle.

 

I hear TCWTB pays himself national minimum wage and remainder in Image rights now.

[Mouldy Coat]

agreed but then how do the courts punish what they can't quantify in monetary terms? Or do they give Skates a blanket £13m fine? If so, I think we might find BC call it a day and walk, leaving Rob Lloydd the chance to come in and save them with his billions! ha ha I think they are ****ed, big time

[pedg]

I hear TCWTB pays himself national minimum wage and remainder in Image rights now.

 

Which, to be fair, is quite valid as he is now far more recognizable than just about anyone else associated with them.

[Dark Munster]

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.

 

http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/DC-United-4-Pompey-0-1165.aspx

 

A cancelled flight – blame a lightning storm – left the Blues stranded at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport on Friday night.

 

 

 

The players got just four hours sleep and were unable to train in preparation for the game.

 

 

 

 

It took the Blues 27 hours to get from Edmonton to Washington, wrecking training plans.

 

 

 

And then 14 bags went missing en route, including the ones containing Pompey’s kit.

 

 

 

 

Pompey, backed by about 100 fans, tried as hard as they could in the sweltering heat – at 105 degrees Fahrenheit, Washington’s hottest day of the year.

 

 

 

 

But they looked exhausted from the kick-off and were carved open by a side currently bottom of the MLS with three wins in 17.

 

 

 

 

Both sides were reduced to 10 men early in the second half when Mullins and Santino Quaranta saw straight red for an off-the-ball incident that no-one in the stadium except the referee appeared to see.

 

 

Attendance: 8,987

 

 

:lol:

[Dark Munster]

yes they can see the money generated, but how do you attribute the revenue contribution by player? the answer is, you can't do it easilly and therefore it is very difficult to police. I think more stringent measures will see an annual review of revenues generated and then clubs paying annual image rights 'bonuses' based on revenues, rather than form part of the players weekly/monthly income - but who knows? that's just an idea.

 

What the skates can't escape is that they prevented HMRC from being able to vote and they did this by counting all football creditors to make up the 76% they needed to come out of admin. Football creditors were assured a 100% dividend. Therefore anyone who is gauranteed a 100% divided is a SECURED debtor. A CVA can only consider UNSECURED debtors and hence why I think Skates will lose. This is the gripe HMRC have with skates, the image rights thing is with football in general.

 

Rivalry aside, footballers get paid a fortune, they should pay their f*cking taxes, it's always middle britain or mr average that gets collared by the tax man. So good luck HMRC, I hope you win for more reasons than one.

Very true. And in addition AA counted any Tom, Dick and Harry's claim in full when computing the unsecured votes, but as soon as the CVA was approved he is demanding that Tom, Dick and Harry must now prove their claims, or get nowt. And there are reports of some debts being included in the CVA vote which had already been paid off. Hopefully all of this will come up in court.

 

CHEATING BASTARDS.

[Wes Tender]

ffs, just threw up in my mouth after seeing w******d in his glory

 

I can tell you four nothing, he wouldn't have enjoyed that.

[Pugwash]

I can tell you four nothing, he wouldn't have enjoyed that.

 

Four sure!

[Saint_clark]

What on earth did they go on that trip four? It achieved nothing.

[ericofarabia]

Attendance below 9000 .... good pre season acclimatisation for the season ahead, although in far more salubrious surroundings than normal!!

 

Presumably Mullin's sending off will mean he'll miss the 1st 3 games of the season.

 

LOL

[ericofarabia]

What on earth did they go on that trip four? It achieved nothing.

 

Should have stayed locally, (saved money that they don't have) and played Thornhill ... with probably the same result!!

[Doctoroncall]

Could the court case be bogged down in discussing the issue of image right payments? Just a quick search on the interent brought up various articles of HMRC in dialog with PL clubs regarding payment to image companies and tax liabilities:

 

http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/topic/tax/tax-and-football-image-rights-issue/399432

 

http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/anyanswers/manchester-united-image-rights

 

image rights explained

[hutch]

Very true. And in addition AA counted any Tom, Dick and Harry's claim in full when computing the unsecured votes, but as soon as the CVA was approved he is demanding that Tom, Dick and Harry must now prove their claims, or get nowt. And there are reports of some debts being included in the CVA vote which had already been paid off. Hopefully all of this will come up in court.

 

CHEATING BASTARDS.

That bit's not strictly true. In the report of the meeting filed by AA at the Court, he recorded total unsecured creditor claims of £162m, and he admitted for voting purposes £131m, so he reduced the claims by £31m in total for voting. In the proposal he sent out to creditors the total was £83m. So he effectively inflated the unsecured creditors from £83m to £131m for voting purposes between sending out his proposal, finding out that HMRC intended to vote against and having the vote.

 

Of the £31m reduction which he made to the total claims, £13m of that was knocked off the HMRC vote, and the rest mainly from the player's claims. So, in reality, I suppose the only "unsecured" unsecured creditor whose vote was reduced was HMRC. The others were "secured" unsecured creditors, if you see what I mean.

Edited 26 July, 2010 by hutch
grammar

[rallyboy]

could proving these misdemeanours be a problem?

It looks quite simple when analysed, but is this a normal situation for an administrator or is his style of operating quite 'unique'?

 

I would hope that he looks completely out of step with usual practice as it does seem to border on criminal/inept.

 

I recall having concerns about Mr Fry's abilities (apologies to him, he delivered BigTime, whether by luck or whatever) but looking at AA, Fry now looks like a financial genius and Storrie has made Rupert look like a perfect gentleman who had a little hiccup and dealt with it honourably (ish).

[sidthesquid]

I was talking to an accountant friend the other day & he reckoned all administrators were a bit dodgy. (No offence to any of our learned friends on here who have supplied us with so much info.) Basically they are meant to be working for the creditors, but they are appointed by the person or company whose money, or lack of it, is the problem. So, at best they have divided loyalties, but at worst the more corrupted and incompetent they are the more attractive they seem to the person appointing them. A funny old system, I would have said.

[hutch]

could proving these misdemeanours be a problem?

It looks quite simple when analysed, but is this a normal situation for an administrator or is his style of operating quite 'unique'?

 

I would hope that he looks completely out of step with usual practice as it does seem to border on criminal/inept.

 

I recall having concerns about Mr Fry's abilities (apologies to him, he delivered BigTime, whether by luck or whatever) but looking at AA, Fry now looks like a financial genius and Storrie has made Rupert look like a perfect gentleman who had a little hiccup and dealt with it honourably (ish).

As misdemeanours, in my view, probably yes. Andy is likely if/when called upon to explain in Court, to blame it on "mistakes" by his underlings. He's done that before in Court.

 

The likely outcome, again in my view, is that the Court will nullify the previous vote, and order Andy, if he wants a CVA, to go back and do it again, properly this time.

[OldNick]

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.

 

Lol, you just show yourself up as someone who can't put your hand up and apologise when you made a mistake. No shame in admitting a mistake you know.

I think the majority on here would feel that the FL have been assisting Pompey more than they did other clubs. The way that Pompey have reduced their squad to below 20 seems to be an obvious dodge.

I will be delighted when justice is properly served and they get their full penalty.

Hutch made a post and listed things that no-one else had noticed, as far as i recall it was not lifted from any HMRC documents and so perhaps you should not be so confident that they are on the ball. Afterall this is not their only case and so resources may be less than we would like.

I suggest you keep your frustrations to yourself and stop the abuse.

[hutch]

Lol, you just show yourself up as someone who can't put your hand up and apologise when you made a mistake. No shame in admitting a mistake you know.

I think the majority on here would feel that the FL have been assisting Pompey more than they did other clubs. The way that Pompey have reduced their squad to below 20 seems to be an obvious dodge.

I will be delighted when justice is properly served and they get their full penalty.

Hutch made a post and listed things that no-one else had noticed, as far as i recall it was not lifted from any HMRC documents and so perhaps you should not be so confident that they are on the ball. Afterall this is not their only case and so resources may be less than we would like.

I suggest you keep your frustrations to yourself and stop the abuse.

OldNick, if it helps, I'm certain that HMRC were already aware of everything I posted, and a lot more besides. All I did was read the available documents. I'm sure they did the same, before making their appeal.

[Saint in Paradise]

OldNick, if it helps, I'm certain that HMRC were already aware of everything I posted, and a lot more besides. All I did was read the available documents. I'm sure they did the same, before making their appeal.

 

Let us hope the Judge agrees with HMRC and doesn't give Pompey yet more breathing space, they have had far too much already

[View From The Top]

Lol, you just show yourself up as someone who can't put your hand up and apologise when you made a mistake. No shame in admitting a mistake you know.

I think the majority on here would feel that the FL have been assisting Pompey more than they did other clubs. The way that Pompey have reduced their squad to below 20 seems to be an obvious dodge.

I will be delighted when justice is properly served and they get their full penalty.

Hutch made a post and listed things that no-one else had noticed, as far as i recall it was not lifted from any HMRC documents and so perhaps you should not be so confident that they are on the ball. Afterall this is not their only case and so resources may be less than we would like.

I suggest you keep your frustrations to yourself and stop the abuse.

 

You mean like the one I made to Mervo when he posted?

 

Still, you keep pottering along in your confused world where everyone is helping pompey and the HMRC's own legal team haven't got a clue about the laws and regulations that they use everyday and are clearly going to let pompey get away with it.

[Joensuu]

Interesting article about image rights & tax from last April. http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/features/2260593/tax-image-rights-face-money

It seems like any case challenging image rights will study individual cases, and assess:

• whether the image rights agreements had a value – such value was dependent on the players’ value, not as footballers, but as recognisable personalities;
  
• whether the payments made under such agreements were excessive when compared with the players’ value for wider commercial exploitation;
  
• what evidence there was that the football club intended to exploit the players’ image rights;
  
• whether there was any other commercial reason why part of the players’ remuneration might have been paid under the image rights agreements, eg. a pay ceiling.
  

According to the article the last time HMRC challenged this the case focussed on Bergkamp ('Evelyn') and Platt ('Jocelyn') - both of whom I can see passing the litmus test of whether their image had a value to Arsenal.

 

According to the Pompey 'Report to Creditors' the following players are owed a share of image rights to the value of £3.044 million:

 

Nugent ('Marigold'); Kranjcar ('Daisy'); Utaka ('Poppy'); Kanu ('Lilly'); Ben Haim ('Florence'); Diarra ('Helena'); Lauren ('Lucy'); Muntari ('Laura'); Campbell ('Katoy')*

 

Question is, will each of these players pass the four rules (in the bullet points) above?

 

* Obviously fake names, appart from Sol, who really likes being a Katoy.

[angelman]

How do image rights work (apart from the obvious of subsidising a player's wage)? Are Poopey saying that by using the image rights of the players that they have received some income from it? Who from? Or is it just using a player's picture in the match day programme and other advertising schemes? I presume that Poopey will have a detailed breakdown of when a player's image is used/"sold" so that would be quite interesting.