Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Toast time I think...

 

"A club going into administration twice in three years would have their membership of the League withdrawn"

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/2973263.stm

 

I hope the journalists writing articles are made aware of this!

 

That article suggests this rule is an aspiration - it's described as a proposal.

 

Is there a link to the rule(s) that was created from the proposal?

Link to post
Share on other sites
"The Club" isn't in adminstration though....yet....

 

And despite the "inextricably linked" comments in this thread, I could see a case being made that Convers is different to Southampton Leisure Holdings. There isn't the same one to one relationship.

 

That said, surely the writing is on the wall for the football club.

Edited by saintbletch
typo. fall=wall=Freudian
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait for ..................

 

1) Chanrai claiming the ownership never fully passed to CSI because it was incumbent only under the terms of a promisory note from CSI or Snoras.

 

and because of that

 

2) AA announcing that as CSI never owned the football club no second Administration has occured to the club only to a company who didnt actually own it.

 

Chanrai will then walk in as the white knight again to sort it all out !!!!!!

 

And the cheats will get away with it again !

 

IMHO only of course

Link to post
Share on other sites
Toast time I think...

 

"A club going into administration twice in three years would have their membership of the League withdrawn"

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/2973263.stm

 

I hope the journalists writing articles are made aware of this!

 

That article merely states that it was a proposal 8 years ago. There is nothing to indicate that this became an FL regulation or remains an FL regulation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Toast time I think...

 

"A club going into administration twice in three years would have their membership of the League withdrawn"

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/2973263.stm

 

I hope the journalists writing articles are made aware of this!

 

It is important that we all rally together now to see this off properly.

 

David Conn is on the case thanks to BTFs magnificent whistleblowing, we need to get Matt Slater and Dan Roan from BBC sportsdesk on this one too.

 

We must expose:

Admin Andy and some more detail on 'vested interests' between administrating a business that 'owns' a business you have just administrated.

That poopey should be executed as they are insolvent twice in 3 years (well, two but they have overachieved on that).

That all the CSI concerns were known by us on here many many months ago, and also the FBI, FSA, Sweedish government, EIB et al were aware and publically stated so over the last five years.

The fact they have not even STARTED paying off the 2010 CVA, despite stering down the barrel at another administration...

 

 

Somebody get Storrie and give him a key to our city!

 

 

I keep throwing my money on a Moneyfields merger with poopey, however perhaps they would look at Gosport borough FC:

 

2007-01-16GosportBorough.jpg

 

 

What a wonderful day

 

SpongeBob_Best_Day_Ever_000.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
Toast time I think...

 

"A club going into administration twice in three years would have their membership of the League withdrawn"

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/2973263.stm

 

 

I hope the journalists writing articles are made aware of this!

 

I think the get out clause will be this. When Southampton were docked points because of the parent company's administration this was justified on the basis that the parent company was, basically, just SFC. Pompey's parent company is a real parent company with a number of commercial interests, therefore, there administration won't count and, therefore, they won't be kicked out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And despite the "inextricably linked" comments in this thread, I could see a case being made that Convers is different to Southampton Leisure Holdings. There isn't the same one to one relationship.

 

Agree, this is technically different to SLH vs SFC

 

That said, surely the writing is on the wall for the football club.

 

You'd have thought so. All "the club" has to do to avoid going into administration is prove that it is a 'going concern' in its own right....simple as that....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait for ..................

 

1) Chanrai claiming the ownership never fully passed to CSI because it was incumbent only under the terms of a promisory note from CSI or Snoras.

 

and because of that

 

2) AA announcing that as CSI never owned the football club no second Administration has occured to the club only to a company who didnt actually own it.

 

Chanrai will then walk in as the white knight again to sort it all out !!!!!!

 

And the cheats will get away with it again !

 

IMHO only of course

 

Chanrai will liquidate the thing if he has to come back.

 

Don't think he'll waste any more time running a football club he never wanted in the first place.

 

If he has a lien over all assets, my guess is he will simply sell off the component parts for what he can get and then walk off into the sunset ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

With aa just announcing on sky sports he is looking for a buyer, there is one name left to come up.

 

I predict he already has a hard on and that he has just renewed his hosting contract. All that is left for him to do, is check that the monkeys and chickens are still ok.

 

I'll bet my life that clown will turn up, before this circus has left town.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait for ..................

 

1) Chanrai claiming the ownership never fully passed to CSI because it was incumbent only under the terms of a promisory note from CSI or Snoras.

 

and because of that

 

2) AA announcing that as CSI never owned the football club no second Administration has occured to the club only to a company who didnt actually own it.

 

Chanrai will then walk in as the white knight again to sort it all out !!!!!!

 

And the cheats will get away with it again !

 

IMHO only of course

 

^My money is on this I fear

 

CSI were paying Chanrai installments, effectively buying Poertsmouth Football Club on hire purchase (?)

 

If I were to buy a car on hire purchase then right up until I pay my last installment the car is still owned by the company I bought it from, isn't it? I don't "own" it as such before then?

 

With AA coming back into the frame this has got all the hallmarks of another "getting away with it" chapter in PFC's recent history...

Link to post
Share on other sites
With aa just announcing on sky sports he is looking for a buyer, there is one name left to come up.

 

I predict he already has a hard on and that he has just renewed his hosting contract. All that is left for him to do, is check that the monkeys and chickens are still ok.

 

I'll bet my life that clown will turn up, before this circus has left town.

 

;):facepalm::toppa::suspicious:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sky saying that parent company in administration and Portsmouth football club continue to trade.....

 

Isn't this exactly the same situation that we found ourselves in? And the football league threw the book at us.

 

As has been mentioned in the thread , although circumstances may be a little different technically; there is no way on earth PFC can survive financially without the support of the parent company the number simply do not add up. Without serious investment and soon they are toast. If you had a large wedge to spend would you seriously 'invest' it there at the moment?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sky saying that parent company in administration and Portsmouth football club continue to trade.....

 

Isn't this exactly the same situation that we found ourselves in? And the football league threw the book at us.

 

I do not think it is the same. We were trading as Southampton Leisure holdings on the stock exchange. I think in the skates case they are two seperate companies with the same director/chairman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did the money for Huseklupp, Varney, Norris etc in the summer for either big fees and/or big wages come from? Plus they still have others on huge wages like Ben Haim, Kitson, Lawrence etc.

 

David Lampitt stated recently they were they were the second highest net spenders in the summer transfer window. How did they manage to fund that and continue to fund that wage bill and the CVA that is yet to start?

Link to post
Share on other sites
As has been mentioned in the thread , although circumstances may be a little different technically; there is no way on earth PFC can survive financially without the support of the parent company the number simply do not add up. Without serious investment and soon they are toast. If you had a large wedge to spend would you seriously 'invest' it there at the moment?

 

This though should and probably will be their downfall......maybe!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Where did the money for Huseklupp, Varney, Norris etc in the summer for either big fees and/or big wages come from? Plus they still have others on huge wages like Ben Haim, Kitson, Lawrence etc.

 

David Lampitt stated recently they were they were the second highest net spenders in the summer transfer window. How did they manage to fund that and continue to fund that wage bill and the CVA that is yet to start?

 

On a totally different matter - how much money went missing from Snoras?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how the wage bill will be paid this week....

 

Maybe the administrator of the parent company will loan the wages to the 'going concern' that is Portsmouth Football Club 2010 and claw it back later through either the proceeds of a sale or liquidation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It speaks volumes that there is only funding "for the short term". If PFC was trading solvently, and not reliant on their parent company, surely they could continue trading regardlessly? True, they would need investment to improve, but that is not what Lampitt is saying; they need funding to survive. And I guess it depends on what your definition of "short term" is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Potentially big, big differences with SLH. At least in theory.

 

If SLH had hit the buffers because another subsidiary it owned had collapsed (e.g. if SLH had owned Northern Rock), but Southampton FC had - in its own right - been a going concern, then we would almost certainly have avoided the points penalty.

 

In practice, however, it seems to me almost impossible to believe that Pompey are a going concern in their own right.

 

Others have crunched the numbers endlessly. There is no way the club's income covers its expenditure and liabilities - their only prayer was (and remains) a sugar daddy bailing them out.

 

I would have thought that Portsmouth FC are now trading while insolvent. Which, I believe, is illegal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Potentially big, big differences with SLH. At least in theory.

 

If SLH had hit the buffers because another subsidiary it owned had collapsed (e.g. if SLH had owned Northern Rock), but Southampton FC had - in its own right - been a going concern, then we would almost certainly have avoided the points penalty.

 

In practice, however, it seems to me almost impossible to believe that Pompey are a going concern in their own right.

 

Others have crunched the numbers endlessly. There is no way the club's income covers its expenditure and liabilities - their only prayer was (and remains) a sugar daddy bailing them out.

 

I would have thought that Portsmouth FC are now trading while insolvent. Which, I believe, is illegal.

 

That's the crux of the matter. The key question to me is how long does a 'child' company have to prove that it can trade solvently without the support of it's ailing parent company before it is put out of its misery? Days, weeks, months, years? Or is it entirely up to the administrator's discretion as to when that moment arrives?

 

And who is it that acts as judge? The Office of Fair trading? The football authorities? The administrator alone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/company-rescue/guides/insolvency-testWe're under lot's of pressure, but is our company insolvent? How can I tell and what is insolvency?"The Cashflow TestSimply - can the company pay its debts when they fall due for payment?The Balance Sheet TestSimply - do you owe more than you own as a company or are the company's assets exceeded by its liabilities? If yes, then the company could be insolvent. The Legal Action TestIf a creditor has obtained a County Court Judgment, this may demonstrate the company's insolvency and the creditor may petition to wind up the company. (See compulsory liquidation).
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the get out clause will be this. When Southampton were docked points because of the parent company's administration this was justified on the basis that the parent company was, basically, just SFC. Pompey's parent company is a real parent company with a number of commercial interests, therefore, there administration won't count and, therefore, they won't be kicked out.

 

As Steve has pointed out the question is the economic link between the parent company and PFC. If that is found to be an inextricably linked (ie the club depends on CSI), they will be in trouble.

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

Important Information

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