Gorgiesaint

You're right to pass the details on because maybe SFC didn't look at Zebra. However it is a credit agreement - payment up front in return for installment to pay back that debts is just about the definition of a credit agreement. As I said, I know the contract is between the individual & Zebra but because SFC are an introducer they are party to a raft of legalities as well - including needing to be licensed under the Consumer Credit Act. I appreciate you've taken the time to make some phone calls - I spent 16 years in the industry - your call if you want to decide if I know what I'm talking about. Edit: CCA licenses run for one year so it may be that PFC already held a valid licence prior to admin, don't read anything into that they can offer a scheme this year - try next year!

Stu, I used to work in retail finance which operates in a very similar way to how this would have operated. You are right that the contract is between you (as a customer) and the finance company. However because the club is an introducer, the club itself has to be licenced under the Consumer Credit Act. Now I don't know if they have a licence, but would need to obtain one if they don't possess one - although I would expect it wouldn't be too dificult to get one. The other issue is that the finance company will take an interest in the introducer. As it's a tripartite agreement, there may be a problem with SFC's credit rating which is stopping finance companies getting involved. Certainly a previous administration together with a new start company with no full accounts would stop some companies being able to deal. That's not to say that no-one will touch us and you & I don't know who were approached.

S-Clarke, you may well be right on this and I'm surprised this point was ignored by most posters. Can I ask where you heard that? That would fit in with no early announcement of the installment scheme as they were still trying to source a finance company to operate it. It may be because the club suffers with a poor credit rating due to the administration, or if its a new company, then this in itself will cause a poor credit rating - that will only start to be rectified when accounts are produced. Either way, a poor credit rating is not something a company wants to shout about hence no announcement. The only other option would be to run the scheme themselves, when yes the excuse of costs is a viable one given they had defaulters within last years scheme. All in all, its not an ideal situation - and I can see why people will get upset at the lack of information. But the true reasons IMO are not as cut & dried as some are making out.

Talksport have heard a rumour (and its a just a rumour) that its a serious injury. Also reported that Drogba has apparently fractured his elbow in yesterdays friendly so also now doubtful for the WC.

Don't forget though that Grant left Pompey a couple of weeks ago so technically wasn't working when he joined West Ham - hence they would have needed a new work permit for him.

It is in terms of the CVA, but when in comes to the big court case to overturn the football creditors rule it's a different matter. If they don't vote against and abstain, how will that look later in court when the PL say that they had the chance to vote against but didn't take it in the Pompey case. There is still plenty of mileage to go in this and I'm not sure how it will play out - but there is a good argument to say that HMRC will now reject the CVA. However plenty of twists & turns to come - and I wouldn't be surprised by anything!!

One question - if HMRC do not vote against the CVA, how will that be viewed by the court in the subsequent case to overturn the football creditors rule? IMO they now have to vote against the CVA or delay the vote. Either way, this is not good news for the few down the road. Wonder how long it will take them to realise the implications. So far, 3 comments in on that piece in the news & they ain't got it yet!!

Well, it looks like the skates attempts to raise £15m from player sales are off to a slow start.... ...if they get Ben Haim off the wages with a freebie to West Ham then at least this offer actually would put money in the coffers, although it's a long way to £15m Andy!! http://www.express.co.uk/football/view/178810/Pompey-dismiss-300-000-Gers-offer-for-Smith

The flipside to this is that football creditors don't get paid at 100%, they get the same as everyone else. Now at the moment, the FL would deal with that by withdrawing the clubs FL share - meaning Pompey would be out of the FL. Suppose the question that is then asked is whether that is too much of a punishment? Perhaps they may compromise and just relegate all clubs in admin by 2 divisions. Whatever happens, this should keep this fred going for a little while longer. Well played HMRC :smt038

Sad news indeed. Would agree with those calls asking fo a mark of respect from the club. RIP.

Been confirmed this morning that he has signed - undisclosed fee

Fiorentina went into bankruptcy about 8 or 9 years ago & reformed in the Italian serie C2 - equivalent of our L2.

:smt038 Reminds me of the great quote on the radio - "I don't want to sit on the fence but both" Good luck down the bookies then Charlie!!

Not sure - one thing is that Mandaric, Harry & Storrie's case is back in court tomorrow again (although they won't be there) http://www.courtserve2.net/courtlists/current/crown/sthwk_T100528.01.htm Court 4

Not all the ex-Skates are though, interesting response from Steve Claridge on the BBC site when asked about Blackpool's facilities: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8709318.stm

Hmm just thinking how this might play out. One version is AA's version - that way HMRC will possibly end up with 20% over 5 years (if Pompey survive that long given the new wage structure that they seem to be setting up for themselves) plus they get to pursue Storrie for whatever they can get. The other version see's them reject the CVA and force the issue back to court. Potentially this could see PCFC being liquidated - now we know they don't have many assets so HMRC lose out on 20% but still get to pursue Storrie. But could they also argue that UHY Hacker Young & AA are responsible for a large proportion of the debt (given the previous statment of affairs presented to the court) & pursue them. This could mean that they could recover up to, say, 50% 0f the debt from the administrator. They also take care of a dodgy administrator at the same time. Is the second scenerio a viable option from a legal standpoint and a possible course of action for HMRC?

Looks like Kasper Schmeichel has agreed to join Leeds according to BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/leeds_united/8709201.stm

A couple of names that I've come across working in the finance industry: Dr De'Ath Richard Head and Darth Vader

The trialist was, I believe, the brother of Caroline Wozniacki, the Danish tennis player - can't remember his first name though.

With HMRC having 28 days to appeal any of the dodgy dealings, I suspect this will be going back to court in mid July - and Pompey will be getting -17 points shortly afterwards.

Worth taking a look at, but he's nowhere near the USA squad for WC - a squad which lost 4-2 to the Czech's last night, who had a certain Rudi Skacel and Tomas Pekhart as unused subs. That might be demonstration of his true level.

Sadly, it's one of the benefits of them cheating their way to 2 cup finals in 3 years - their US hosts are happy to foot the bill for such a 'prestigous' team to tour pre-season. Still, we'll see what they think when a bunch of reserve, loan & youth team players pitch up for the first game. This is exactly why they should have been thrown out of the FA Cup in January.

Piece in the Times today about who will be Pompey's new manager - does confirm that Manaric & Storrie are back in court again on Friday http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/portsmouth/article7136492.ece

I think the 3rd June is when the FL meet and as such, Pompey become members of the FL as of that date. The original creditors meeting was on election day - 6th May, and as I recall the CVA was to be produced within 10 days of that meeting & confirmed by the Guardian. "The meeting was convened by Andronikou to outline how Portsmouth might emerge from administration via a Company Voluntary Arrangement, with the concrete proposals to be published in 10 working days." http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/may/06/portsmouth-debt-hmrc-taxman Well 10 working days took us to 20th May i.e. last Thursday. Now AA was pretty sure he was going to get the ok to produce the CVA so he would have already been working on it. So where is it? Why has it been delayed?

Yeah but it is only the NOTW http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/821760/SOUTHGATE-OFFERED-POMPEY-RETURN.html Although the Sunday Mirror reckons they're after Cotterill http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Portsmouth-want-Steve-Cotterill-to-replace-Avram-Grant-as-boss-Exclusive-article434373.html