Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted
We didn't play them "last year". We haven't played them in the league for at least 8 years. The limit allowed by Millwall was 1000 + an unofficial 170 who turned up without tickets and were allowed in on the night. And yes they were all top, top fans as the noise they made was constant and loud. Read the press reports if you don't believe me...

 

And now for the factual version;

 

We as in Saints played them last year and took well over 2000. pfc, were not limited to 1000 tickets last night, that is the allocation you took up, you didn't take up the option on the second allocation of tickets, (Does it still work that you have to pay the total amount for each batch? .... might explain why you didn't LOL)

The game was always going to have pay on the night unless you sold the full allocation, which you didn't.

 

Thats not what this thread is about, but a **** poor attendance yet again. top fans my arse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted
Yes we did...

 

You are so thick...... What is the capacity, then as a minimum, you get 15 % ..... Go do the maths. As it happens Millwall typically give up to 3000, but obviously not to small clubs like yours.

 

You sent the other batch of tickets back, due to lack of interest.

 

You are having a "scoring goals at this level all his life" moment

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pfc123

pfc123

Posted
Posted
You are so thick...... What is the capacity, then as a minimum, you get 15 % ..... Go do the maths. As it happens Millwall typically give up to 3000, but obviously not to small clubs like yours.

 

You sent the other batch of tickets back, due to lack of interest.

 

You are having a "scoring goals at this level all his life" moment

 

Not really. It's your inability to see the bigger picture that marks you out as the underachiever. The fact is that Millwall away in midweek is not a big draw for us- it obviously is for you. The club know this hence only took up 1000 tickets as they're not on a sale or return basis.

 

Seems a logical, dare I say it prudent use of common sense. Or would you prefer we lose money on the deal thus raping further the poor and the blind and all those afflicted by leprosy that we've condemned to an early death by our nasty, evil cheating ways? Cue Vincent Price type echoing laughter....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted
Not really. It's your inability to see the bigger picture that marks you out as the underachiever. The fact is that Millwall away in midweek is not a big draw for us- it obviously is for you. The club know this hence only took up 1000 tickets as they're not on a sale or return basis.

 

Seems a logical, dare I say it prudent use of common sense. Or would you prefer we lose money on the deal thus raping further the poor and the blind and all those afflicted by leprosy that we've condemned to an early death by our nasty, evil cheating ways? Cue Vincent Price type echoing laughter....

 

 

So you didnt sell your full allocation then :facepalm:

 

Infact what you sold was the minimum block you could take, with then a massive 170 on the night.

 

So what you were parading as a total sell out, was in fact, (As i rightly pointed out) a totally **** poor attendance from a poorly supported, small team.

 

At least we now have the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
seaempty

seaempty

Posted
Posted

I do wonder why more hasn't been made of this in the media. Dundee go into administration with debts of £8 million, Pompey with £119 million.

 

£119 million

 

And yet they're on a promotion push. And no questions are being raised outside of this forum. Dundee sensibly release several high-paid first team players. Pompey release youth players and low-wage back room staff, and bring in Premier League players. It really does beggar belief. I know this has all been said before, but I really can't get over it.

 

£119 million!

 

I spoke to a Pompey fan today, and he was completely oblivious to it all, pondering their chances of going up. Impressed with that lad Lawrence, he was. Why is it only on here that £119 million is no more than short change, that'll be found behind the sofa in the next few weeks.

 

[/RANT]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pfc123

pfc123

Posted
Posted
I do wonder why more hasn't been made of this in the media.....And no questions are being raised outside of this forum.....It really does beggar belief. I know this has all been said before, but I really can't get over it

 

You answer your own questions with your final line mate. For everyone else it's such an old story it's not just tomorrows chip paper, it's yesterday's.

 

No-one else cares outside of a few fans from clubs who perceive they got a raw deal when they went into administration, and those on here who hate us because we're your local rivals. All the mock outrage in the world will never disguise that fact...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted
You answer your own questions with your final line mate. For everyone else it's such an old story it's not just tomorrows chip paper, it's yesterday's.

 

No-one else cares outside of a few fans from clubs who perceive they got a raw deal when they went into administration, and those on here who hate us because we're your local rivals. All the mock outrage in the world will never disguise that fact...

 

 

sorry pfc the FAO post was for you not pes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PES

PES

Posted
Posted
With that PL image already badly tarnished I couldn't think of any club being a more fitting epitome to that image than quaint old Turd Town Wanderers.

 

Turd Town Wanderers. very good ESB. LOL :)

 

You answer your own questions with your final line mate. For everyone else it's such an old story it's not just tomorrows chip paper, it's yesterday's.

 

No-one else cares outside of a few fans from clubs who perceive they got a raw deal when they went into administration, and those on here who hate us because we're your local rivals. All the mock outrage in the world will never disguise that fact...

 

Absolutely Spot on! The longer it goes on the funnier it gets. :)

 

sorry pfc the FAO post was for you not pes.

 

ha ha, I'm really flattered that I should be on you mind Gemmel. ;) x

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted
We only need to get back up within the next three years. Even if we came straight back down we'd keep the parachute money coming in for another four. As you found yourselves it's mighty tough to keep a challenge going once that parachute cash ceases....

For a normal club, maybe. But for your lot you need to go up this season. BC will trouser as much of the parachute money as possible, and is gambling everything on a quick return. I'm pretty certain that you'll be liquidated if you don't go up this season.

 

Fingers crossed. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted
Not quite Mero, not quite.

 

Ive followed this story (Probably too much) and whether the dates were deliberate or fortunate for you lot, you were never going to get a points deduction from administration this year. But from day 1 of this season, your biggest threat has always been the tax case (Point deduction wise) and that is still the case. The precendent has been set and upheld and if Storrie is found guilty, its a minus 9 or 12...... (Wouldn't you lot just love him for that)

In the last two cases (Certainly Watford) they followed every rule to the letter and took their evidence to the FL and still got whacked. You lot have taken the **** out of the FL and FA and left a trail of destruction behind you, with two fingers in the air..... so I cant see any dispensation, or appetite to help you out.

My guessing is that just as you cement a play off place, you'll be thrown back down the table..... I'm sure no one will laugh too loudly.

Don't be so sure. Brown envelopes have this amazing ability to wipe out memories of past shenanigans, even the multitude of disgusting ones that Cheats Fc have committed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted
I have had a feeling that Chanrai has been hedging his bets and waiting to see what unfolds for them in the league. if they are close to the play-offs in jan he would be mad not to pump some cash in and go for the PL riches again. That squad is as good as most if not all in the CCC. It is beyond belief that a team that is in administration can field such a side.The media seem oblivious as well as the rest of football to it.

 

Yep, I've mentioned this scenario about a hundred pages back. It's looking more and more to be the case. Let's hope it all ends in tears for them. The most amusing possibility is that they finish in the top six, prepare for the playoffs, only to be hit by a points penalty at the 11th hour, which pulls the rug from under them. Oh how we'd laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JackFrost

JackFrost

Posted
Posted
still looking on sky sports news to seei f the small club have come out of admin

 

TBH I can't see them coming out for the remainder of this season, especially if the CVA payments start in March. They'd be protected from WUOs and the only reason they'd come out is if they'd guaranteed an automatic promotion spot or went up through the play-offs.

 

If they fail to do that then even AA is going to struggle to wriggle his way out of that one. You never know, in the meantime Chainrai may have swooped and stripped more out of the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

we suspected that AA was protecting the business from winding-up by staying in admin, but why keep pretending to exit?

 

It's fooling no one, his great dramatic announcements last week that one day they were facing liquidation and within 24 hours the future was secure was aimed at who exactly?

Annoyed creditors? Easily-led fans? The not so easily-fooled FL?

Pretty pointless - it would be better if he did less media and autographs and more administrating.

 

This is an acid test now, if he's serious about new ownership and solvent trading they will be out of admin and into the cva very soon BUT if the business is in as much trouble as many on here suspect, they'll carry on talking about it....but not quite get round to doing it.

 

Keep bringing in the Prem rejects, their wages are crippling the business, ripping up the cva and destroying any hope of a stable future.

I don't especially want them out of business but their continued financial suicide mission to gather points at any cost is bizarre and doesn't create friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JackFrost

JackFrost

Posted
Posted
we suspected that AA was protecting the business from winding-up by staying in admin, but why keep pretending to exit?

 

It's fooling no one, his great dramatic announcements last week that one day they were facing liquidation and within 24 hours the future was secure was aimed at who exactly?

Annoyed creditors? Easily-led fans? The not so easily-fooled FL?

Pretty pointless - it would be better if he did less media and autographs and more administrating.

 

This is an acid test now, if he's serious about new ownership and solvent trading they will be out of admin and into the cva very soon BUT if the business is in as much trouble as many on here suspect, they'll carry on talking about it....but not quite get round to doing it.

 

Keep bringing in the Prem rejects, their wages are crippling the business, ripping up the cva and destroying any hope of a stable future.

I don't especially want them out of business but their continued financial suicide mission to gather points at any cost is bizarre and doesn't create friends.

 

But this is the key thing. If they got promoted this season would this continue to be the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint_John

Saint_John

Posted
Posted

As there is little news at the moment I thought I would check Companies House for company 03747237 to see if it still in "Voluntary Arrangement".

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/c2e75d640d16cf57d28f65c5ae088c1d/compdetails

 

I did notice that they have changed their address from the "Pig Sty" to UHY's London address, so it is true there is "ONLY ONE TEAM (+ aldershot) IN HAMPSHIRE".

 

The "Insolvency History" tab also shows that when the "Admin" was registered on 26 Feb there were 3 IP on the case but by the time the "unworkable CVA" (imo) was registered on 17 June Peter Kubir was not there. Did Peter not want his name put against the cva ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted (edited)

For those of us that just couldn't get the maths to work out for the blue few, in terms of expenditure vs income, its looks like we have found the problem.

 

http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/home/Pompey-s-Educational-Rewards-1518.aspx

 

Its seems our fishy friends work in ratios of 1 - 3 and all this has been down to a miscalculation.

 

It's an easy mistake, but as a rule of thumb, if they say they are 40 million in debt, what that actually means is 120 million.

 

If they say they are a month away of exiting administration, that actually means 3 months.

 

If they say their wage cap is 10k a week, it means its actually 30k

 

If they say 10 free tickets per school, that actually means 30 and by default if they say the total is 1,500 free tickets, it is actually 4,500. Which is very noble, but what about those life long, bestest fans in the world who cue for hours, but don't get a ticket as its constantly sold out? It's not just the creditors who miss out by this basic maths error, it's the super duper fans who can't get to see thier team (Well mostly other teams players, in their kit)

Edited by Gemmel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustMike

JustMike

Posted
Posted
Quick question my little scumlettes. On the subject of Kitson and Lawrence, what's the difference between paying two decent players £20K a week each or taking on four less able players at £10K a week. What's the financial impact on the overall budget?

 

you should be doing neither, you have no money!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Micky

Micky

Posted
Posted
Quick question my little scumlettes. On the subject of Kitson and Lawrence, what's the difference between paying two decent players £20K a week each or taking on four less able players at £10K a week. What's the financial impact on the overall budget?

 

None as far as I can see - is that what you have done...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
merrimd

merrimd

Posted
Posted (edited)
Quick question my little scumlettes. On the subject of Kitson and Lawrence, what's the difference between paying two decent players £20K a week each or taking on four less able players at £10K a week. What's the financial impact on the overall budget?

 

OK, lets try to make this simple for you. You are under a transfer embargo, brought about because of enormous debts mainly obtained by paying ridiculous salaries you could not afford. You have sent out on loan some kids, on a few hundred a week, with the sole intention of reducing your squad size down to below 20 which, according to league rules, is the minimum you can have. You have then replaced those kids with premiership fringe players, on 20k per week.

 

You have therefore managed to INCREASE your wage bill by almost 2mil a year, with the same amount of staff.

 

That, my fishy friend, is the "financial impact on the overall budget".

 

Jeez.

Edited by merrimd
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anothersaintinsouthsea

anothersaintinsouthsea

Posted
Posted
OK, lets try to make this simple for you. You are under a transfer embargo, brought about because of enormous debts mainly obtained by paying ridiculous salaries you could not afford. You have sent out on loan some kids, on a few hundred a week, with the sole intention of reducing your squad size down to below 20 which, according to league rules, is the minimum you can have. You have then replaced those kids with premiership fringe players, on 20k per week.

 

You have therefore managed to INCREASE your wage bill by almost £440k a year, with the same amount of staff.

 

That, my fishy friend, is the "financial impact on the overall budget".

 

Jeez.

 

Corp Ho owned....... again

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted
Quick question my little scumlettes. On the subject of Kitson and Lawrence, what's the difference between paying two decent players £20K a week each or taking on four less able players at £10K a week. What's the financial impact on the overall budget?

 

The difference is when you have just sticthed the world up for 120 million, you do what everybody else does (Infact i don't think others would even go near 10k a week players let alone 20k) and don't get 4 less able players, you get 1 or maybe at a stretch 2. But it is a mind set that you and your folk don't get.

 

So corpy if you bing two players in under teh wgae cap that you have set then thats a 20k a week saving....a cool million pounds

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joneth

Joneth

Posted
Posted
Quick question my little scumlettes. On the subject of Kitson and Lawrence, what's the difference between paying two decent players £20K a week each or taking on four less able players at £10K a week. What's the financial impact on the overall budget?

 

So when did you release 4 less able players on £10k a week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

I think you're being harsh to Ho, he genuinely didn't understand the figures.

 

To repeat again in simple terms -

 

No money in + big money out = Bad*

 

 

 

* Bad = deliberate extended stay in administration to

A. Delay repayments that are beyond them.

B. Give protection from immediate liquidation as a result of creditor winding-up orders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Corporate Ho

Corporate Ho

Posted
Posted
You are under a transfer embargo, brought about because of enormous debts mainly obtained by paying ridiculous salaries you could not afford. You have sent out on loan some kids, on a few hundred a week, with the sole intention of reducing your squad size down to below 20 which, according to league rules, is the minimum you can have. You have then replaced those kids with premiership fringe players, on 20k per week.

 

You have therefore managed to INCREASE your wage bill by almost 2mil a year, with the same amount of staff.

 

That, my fishy friend, is the "financial impact on the overall budget".

 

Jeez.

 

Our debts were incurred mainly by paying players more than we could afford were they? I thought they were mainly incurred by having a couple of owners approved by the PL who loaned the club money at high interest rates and who didn't pay the tax man. Surely that's where most of our "debts" (I use the term advisedly because I don't believe we really owe the likes of Chainrai, Gaydamak, Fahim etc anything at all). Our "debt" of £120m that you guys refer to here includes around £20m to Chainrai. That's for the "loan" that Faraj defaulted on which saw Chainrai take the club in lieu of payment. As that happened, I'm not sure how we still owe him £20m. So that's £20m off the total. There's another £35m in "debt" that we owe Gaydamak for the land around the ground. We only owe this figure because that's what he valued it at when he sold the club to Fahim. Given how dodgy that deal was I fail to see how that "debt" can be accepted as real either. So that's already £55m off the real debt total. We still owe some money in transfer payments but those will be paid in full. The money we owe to the tax man is a very poor show admittedly but the £38m constantly quoted on here is incorrect as it included the image rights payments. Whatever your thoughts on the fact of it being an admitted tax dodge, the fact is that it was viewed as legal by the courts (and your own accountants will be exploiting loopholes to save your club paying various forms of tax so let's not get on our high horses eh?). The fact that we owed the tax money any money is very poor but they cut their own noses off to spite their face as we offered at least half of what we owed back in January which they refused to accept deciding to go to court to try and win it all - which then backfired on them. We had very little to no tax arrears when Gaydamak was in charge and the lack of payments only mounted up under two owners the PL passed as fit and proper, one of whom passed that test when his brother showed the PL his passport as proof of suitability for ownership.

 

So, please explain how our debts are mainly the fault of mainly paying ridiculous salaries we couldn't afford

Link to comment
Share on other sites
miserableoldgit

miserableoldgit

Posted
Posted
Our debts were incurred mainly by paying players more than we could afford were they? I thought they were mainly incurred by having a couple of owners approved by the PL who loaned the club money at high interest rates and who didn't pay the tax man. Surely that's where most of our "debts" (I use the term advisedly because I don't believe we really owe the likes of Chainrai, Gaydamak, Fahim etc anything at all). Our "debt" of £120m that you guys refer to here includes around £20m to Chainrai. That's for the "loan" that Faraj defaulted on which saw Chainrai take the club in lieu of payment. As that happened, I'm not sure how we still owe him £20m. So that's £20m off the total. There's another £35m in "debt" that we owe Gaydamak for the land around the ground. We only owe this figure because that's what he valued it at when he sold the club to Fahim. Given how dodgy that deal was I fail to see how that "debt" can be accepted as real either. So that's already £55m off the real debt total. We still owe some money in transfer payments but those will be paid in full. The money we owe to the tax man is a very poor show admittedly but the £38m constantly quoted on here is incorrect as it included the image rights payments. Whatever your thoughts on the fact of it being an admitted tax dodge, the fact is that it was viewed as legal by the courts (and your own accountants will be exploiting loopholes to save your club paying various forms of tax so let's not get on our high horses eh?). The fact that we owed the tax money any money is very poor but they cut their own noses off to spite their face as we offered at least half of what we owed back in January which they refused to accept deciding to go to court to try and win it all - which then backfired on them. We had very little to no tax arrears when Gaydamak was in charge and the lack of payments only mounted up under two owners the PL passed as fit and proper, one of whom passed that test when his brother showed the PL his passport as proof of suitability for ownership.

 

So, please explain how our debts are mainly the fault of mainly paying ridiculous salaries we couldn't afford

 

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tony13579

tony13579

Posted
Posted

I thought Pompey were going to claim compensation from the nasty HMRC delayed the CVA as they were ready to exit admin immidiatly. Well they won the court case and swiftly exited admin -not....

 

Are the tumbleweeds still waiting outside the press office.... I might get sorry for them and send Dominoes roud with a pizza seeing as pompey cant provide any gratis catering any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
merrimd

merrimd

Posted
Posted
Our debts were incurred mainly by paying players more than we could afford were they? I thought they were mainly incurred by having a couple of owners approved by the PL who loaned the club money at high interest rates and who didn't pay the tax man. Surely that's where most of our "debts" (I use the term advisedly because I don't believe we really owe the likes of Chainrai, Gaydamak, Fahim etc anything at all). Our "debt" of £120m that you guys refer to here includes around £20m to Chainrai. That's for the "loan" that Faraj defaulted on which saw Chainrai take the club in lieu of payment. As that happened, I'm not sure how we still owe him £20m. So that's £20m off the total. There's another £35m in "debt" that we owe Gaydamak for the land around the ground. We only owe this figure because that's what he valued it at when he sold the club to Fahim. Given how dodgy that deal was I fail to see how that "debt" can be accepted as real either. So that's already £55m off the real debt total. We still owe some money in transfer payments but those will be paid in full. The money we owe to the tax man is a very poor show admittedly but the £38m constantly quoted on here is incorrect as it included the image rights payments. Whatever your thoughts on the fact of it being an admitted tax dodge, the fact is that it was viewed as legal by the courts (and your own accountants will be exploiting loopholes to save your club paying various forms of tax so let's not get on our high horses eh?). The fact that we owed the tax money any money is very poor but they cut their own noses off to spite their face as we offered at least half of what we owed back in January which they refused to accept deciding to go to court to try and win it all - which then backfired on them. We had very little to no tax arrears when Gaydamak was in charge and the lack of payments only mounted up under two owners the PL passed as fit and proper, one of whom passed that test when his brother showed the PL his passport as proof of suitability for ownership.

 

So, please explain how our debts are mainly the fault of mainly paying ridiculous salaries we couldn't afford

 

Seriously! You really need it explaining some more???

 

Yes, most of the debt is in terms of loans. Of course it is!!!!!!! But why did you need the loans in the first place for gods sake? To buy Crouch, Defoe etc. To pay the salaries of Campbell, Utaka etc. The debt has arisen purely because you were buying players you could not afford, and then paying them wages you could not afford. Maybe if the salaries were less, you could have made the tax and loan repayments, but you could not, could you?

 

Therefore, your debt, by and large, is due to your extravagance in the transfer market! Surely you can see that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Micky

Micky

Posted
Posted
Our debts were incurred mainly by paying players more than we could afford were they? I thought they were mainly incurred by having a couple of owners approved by the PL who loaned the club money at high interest rates and who didn't pay the tax man. Surely that's where most of our "debts" (I use the term advisedly because I don't believe we really owe the likes of Chainrai, Gaydamak, Fahim etc anything at all). Our "debt" of £120m that you guys refer to here includes around £20m to Chainrai. That's for the "loan" that Faraj defaulted on which saw Chainrai take the club in lieu of payment. As that happened, I'm not sure how we still owe him £20m. So that's £20m off the total. There's another £35m in "debt" that we owe Gaydamak for the land around the ground. We only owe this figure because that's what he valued it at when he sold the club to Fahim. Given how dodgy that deal was I fail to see how that "debt" can be accepted as real either. So that's already £55m off the real debt total. We still owe some money in transfer payments but those will be paid in full. The money we owe to the tax man is a very poor show admittedly but the £38m constantly quoted on here is incorrect as it included the image rights payments. Whatever your thoughts on the fact of it being an admitted tax dodge, the fact is that it was viewed as legal by the courts (and your own accountants will be exploiting loopholes to save your club paying various forms of tax so let's not get on our high horses eh?). The fact that we owed the tax money any money is very poor but they cut their own noses off to spite their face as we offered at least half of what we owed back in January which they refused to accept deciding to go to court to try and win it all - which then backfired on them. We had very little to no tax arrears when Gaydamak was in charge and the lack of payments only mounted up under two owners the PL passed as fit and proper, one of whom passed that test when his brother showed the PL his passport as proof of suitability for ownership.

 

So, please explain how our debts are mainly the fault of mainly paying ridiculous salaries we couldn't afford

 

Ahhhh right - that explains it all, so none of this was in fact PFC's fault in the first place. BTW, you really should think about a career in Insolvency or Finance, the way you 'manipulated the figures' and 'slanted the reasoning' was, frankly, stunning.

 

Personally now, having read your account of this whole sorry debacle, I would like to offer my unreserved apology to all of your supporters for any distress that you may have suffered. The FL should look favourably about re-imbursing the 9 points that they took from you last season - I believe they should be added to this seasons total, so as not to disadvantage you any further. Hopefully as well, the FA will be looking to cancelling this years cup competition, which I hope will be awarded to PFC as a token of all fans appreciation of your loss.

 

Furthermore, the transfer embargo needs to be lifted now. Any debt figures should be wiped from the history books and the FL should reimburse you for all of the star players that you were forced to sell in order to try to survive.

 

On behalf of fans everywhere - I really would like to say sorry for getting this so so wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept