edsaint

I know Fraser. He would be the first to admit he knows absolutely nothing about football and it is not the first time it has got him into trouble. I think there might be a lesson there somewhere.

Telegraph review does seem to know what it is talking about - not a fragile defence in general but "occasional" defensive lapses will get punished more often. Conclusion "Will beat some superb teams, but also lose to some abject ones." Sounds like Saints. Also they have West Ham at 5th, so aren't simply buying the transfer spending and celeb manager line. In sum, press think our promoted side will finish comfortably mid-table (12th,13th, 16th). Seems reasonable enough to me.

3 possibilities: 1. NC got cold feet and has a late better offer arise and is using the compensation offer as a way out - just like the Elliott Ward transfer last year. 2. Adkins got cold feet and is using the compensation issue as a way to save face with Scunny fans. 3. It is just an almighty c*ck-up. Whatever, NC really can't want him that much.

Thanks this was the clearest explanation we have had on this thread on the mechanics from here on. But the explanation of the CVA is still a bit ambiguous. Do only unsecured creditors get to vote on the CVA, in which case -15 seems a certainty as HMRC is bound to be the biggest unsecured or do all creditors including the secured?

OK, after today the maths are quite simple. Win our two games in hand and beat Huddersfield, the team occupying 6th and we are 8 points off the playoffs and have a chance. Fail in any of these and we can't make it.

Ah thanks for the reminder - was mentioned that the PL had been totally clueless through the whole affair. Not that surprising to readers of the thread though.

OK, I an avid reader of this thread and occasional poster. I had dinner tonight with an advisor close to one of the main protagonists. I'll leave you to work out who... I am afraid he no better idea about the final outcome but he did plausibly fill in some gaps while also in good advisor fashon leaving plenty of spaces. Enjoy. 1. Gaydmark was close to selling in 2008 but baulked at the price and now somewhat regrets it! This makes perfect sense in light of below. Mandaric sold him a pup in the first place. 2. Gaydmark was busy with his other businesses and let Storrie run the show too much - something he also regrets. All the inflated contacts, badly structured deals et al are Storrie. 3. Arsenal invented the image rights wheeze but paid up when the revenue challenged them. They also didn't guarantee the gross amounts to the players concerned. Storrie did the same deals with two former Arsenal players: Campbell and Kanu but guaranteed them. The revenue were not impressed from this moment on. 4. Utaka may well now be on £27k but only because the club bought out the bulk of the contract to write it down. This is not the only case of this happening and explains where large sums of money went. 5. Al Fahim did have backing lined up but Storrie, who was working on his own deal, stalled the due diligence info and the bank took fright leaving our fake sheik friend to his own stupidity. 6. Thaksin Sinatawara was a potential Storrie consortium not Al Fahim backer. 7. As this thread has just picked up - the key player in all this is not Gaydmark senior but Pini Zahavi. He is the one who has put all the key players together including Azougy and the rest. He takes a cut on everything. 8. Al Faraj minor drove the deal but needed Al Faraj senior to provide the funds (or not). Al Faraj senior doesn't have a passport so it is not surprising he has never come to FP. 9. Chainrai was turned over completely.

I am not sure the Premier League has thought this through (big surprise). Apart from the problem of getting all the teams including relegation rivals to agree, this is the worst case of (for the economists) moral hazard imaginable. Now any team that finds itself in trouble could still go on a spending splurge and then ask the premier league to bail it out using the Portsmouth precedent. The only possible way this could be justified is to couple the money with a points penalty. But I would say -9 is not enough to act as a deterrent. It would have to be -25 to stop clubs taking the gamble.

Brilliant - its nothing apart from the £25 million debt to service. Oh and the £30 odd million due to Gaydmark but you are welcome to go to court on that one. And did I mention that we still don't cover our operating costs so you'll have to subsidise that? And if you want to get back to/stay in the premiership you have going to find an extra £20 million a year or so for transfer fees to restore the depleted squad plus subsidise the bloated wages. And say £75 million for a new gound and training ground. But its great value.

Where has Gaydmark had gone. A month ago he was only too happy to give his version of events and make clear he wanted his money back. Now it has gone very, very quiet. Anything to do with a certain Mr Azougy effectively being in charge so he doesn't need to use the press?

Whoops sorry for another repeat - its moving too fast!

Nope - the deal is agreed with Lens who get the money. It just means Pompey won't have to pay the remaining transfer fee - which they weren't paying anyway. This is why Lens dropped the threat of action against Pompey and part of the reason they got their transfer ban overturned.

Please, please tell us. Like all the best thrillers we could do with a few more twists yet.

#7448 Today, 12:30 PM hutch Full Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Worldcup2010land Posts: 236 This is the really interesting bit - the first time they have admitted the loan to pay December's wages was secured against the tv cash. But who would have lent on this basis given it was well known that Premier league was going to withold the money?

So where are we now? Liabilities: * We think that this month's salaries are paid but not clear how the money was acquired and what it was secured against. * The PML will pay off the immediate English club fees but overseas liabilities such as Lens still looming * Sacha wants his £9 million at the end of the month * Taxman has to have money before court hearing * Presumably the agents are desperate to get theirs but so far have not hit the club with a demand. Assets: * There is a short window to do some player sales but options are limited by Fifa restrictions etc * Pimpey are bandying around an accounting value of their squad presumably because otherwise someone might work out they have net negative assets. IN any case sales will mean certain relegation. * They can probably raise some money from sponsorship and early bird season ticket sales but this amount will be diminished by the threat of relegation. It also creates a great cashflow danger in the summer when have no other revenues imminent. Verdict: So presuming can make sales they might just get through to the end of the season. But then what? A white knight or administration seem to remain the only way out.