Dark Munster

It appears they are already in a position to block the CVA, but appear not to be willing to lose 20% of 34 million. I hope you're right. But if they have a CVA agreed upon in time, can the FL punish them for crimes committed in the PL? Hopefully it'll be case of the FL telling the skates: you take the X point punishment, or we won't accept you into our club. It's called blackmail. AA could tell them that yes, we can flog everything of value, but if we do that we will liquidate and won't get the parachute money, and so instead of 20p in the £1 we are offering now you'll get 1p. It's one thing to sacrifice a few hundred thousand to send a message, which they've done in the past, and another to sacrifice 20% of 34 million. I think the alleged demand of liquidation of PCFC next year is their means of "sending a message", while still recovering about 40% of the original 18 million or so owed. Note that this liquidation could occur in the middle of next season, making it more difficult for the Fl to kick them out. The worst case for us haters of the cheats, is that they will start next season on 0 points, and only suffer a name change. CHEATING BASTARDS.

But if they get away with it, then wouldn't that would make him a very successful CEO? I hope you're right. But maybe HMRC are now willing to settle for 20% of 35m (in effect, about 40% of the original 18m), rather than getting S.F.A. There's no way they're going to get anything close to 100% of the original 18m. See above. CHEATING BASTARDS.

Could well be. That would explain his thumbs up to Mad Milan after the Krap Nottarf capitulation. :mad:

Indeed. And if the unthinkable happens, and the cheating bastards somehow manage to win, the winnings will make it slightly more palatable.

If we add back the lost 10 points, then Saints are above Huddersfield (on g.d.). But Swindon would still be above us, and they did the double over us to boot. So, to answer your question, ummm, yes and no?

Nice one. One quibble though: The football authorities, notably the Premier League, bent over backwards to help Portsmouth — indeed were far too lenient with successive owners — and for Grant to imply that “they” were in any way to blame for the supporters’ travails was an insult to his audience’s intelligence. Doesn't he realise that it's impossible to insult the intelligence of the skate audience found in Krap Nottarf? :cool:

It would appear that Baloo will buy them, paying unsecured creditors pennies on the pound, to avoid liquidation, so that he can get his grubby hands on the parachute money. After that he'll toss away the rotten corpse. I've added the missing word. :cool: They've previously refused much smaller amounts. It's one thing to set an example when a club only owes a million or two, but it's another matter when the club owes 18 million (or more). HRMC can afford to set an example by refusing 23% of a million or two, but can they afford to give up 23% of 18+ million out of principle? CHEATING BASTARDS.

Originally Posted by Frank's cousin See Grant is still bleating on about how 'unfair' it all is - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...th/8642368.stm does he not have an ounce of self awareness? Cant believe he has the cheek, considering the players he is using should not be on the park... No, but he thinks everyone else is. (TBF that is partly understandable given that he is in close contact with skate fans).

We deserved a points penalty last season. The spiteful rosy-cheeked one made sure it carried over to this season, which we did not deserve.

Yes, and no. It's easy because most of the other teams are crap. It's hard because most of the refs are crap (and seem to have it in for Saints). :cool:

But the Lowe luvvies were telling us that this was an easy league to get out of, when Nigel Pearson's Leicester walked the league last season. :smt017

If P****y go bust after the playoffs have started, that is true. But if they go bust before the playoffs, it is conceivable that there would be 3 automatically promoted teams, with 4-7 in the playoffs. But I did say that it was unlikely! Worth finishing 7th just to avoid being sick if the unlikely event occurred. :cool:

Actually they should try to finish 7th, in the unlikely case of P****y getting thrown out of the league and the FL giving one extra promotion spot for L1 to make up for the missing spot in CCC. :cool:

Simon said... Pompey don't deserve the success they've had this year - they're a small town club, and should be looking forward to another season in league 2 rather than the UEFA Cup. The team is full of mercenary players that have come for the high wages they can get, and the whole thing is going to fall apart. The chairman is clearly going to pull the plug any day now, leaving them £100 million or whatever in debt, and unless they get the next Abramovich in, the descent to the Conference will be a speedy one. Nothing against the team, just think it's unfair on the other clubs who really try properly hard. Reply April 17, 2008 at 04:30 PM Look at the date. Wow!!! :smt038

You're back to try to nab the 25,000th post aren't you? :cool: A delightful thought (although weren't you convinced they'd get away with it? Now entertaining more optimistic thoughts, I see ) Anyway, if P****y get liquidated or not get admitted into CCC, unfortunately the FL would probably take the easiest path by having one less team relegated in each of CCC-L2.

I don't think so. I think they just used that as an excuse to back out. The sticking point was that they didn't have a pot to piss in. :smt041 Thank you. That's what I've been trying to get some to understand.

Great thread! Source, please? If this was true, are you saying Barclays lied to them? Or that the board didn't bother to contact Barclays just before the deadline to clarify Barclays' position? Interesting! Thursday March 26th was the crucial deadline day. We went into administration on Wednesday April 1st (how appropriate). So according to Gemmel, Lowe knew administration was inevitable by at least by Saturday March 28th. Here are the possibilities: A) On or shortly before Thursday March 26th Lowe, knowing full well that SFC needed further loans to continue running (salaries coming up., etc.), contacted Barclays to discuss in detail that the March 26th deadline was approaching, and whether they (Barclays) would be able to support them. Barclays responded by saying yes, and a few days later in effect said "Nyah, nyah, we lied" and "pulled the plug" by bouncing a small cheque. B) On or shortly before Thursday March 26th Lowe, knowing full well that SFC needed further loans to continue running (salaries coming up., etc.), contacted Barclays to discuss in detail that the March 26th deadline was approaching, and whether they (Barclays) would be able to support them. Barclays responded by saying no, but Lowe ignored this (for whatever reason), and a few days later Barclays "pulled the plug" by bouncing a small cheque. C) Before Thursday March 26th Lowe, even knowing full well that SFC needed further loans to continue running (salaries coming up., etc.), didn't bother to contact Barclays, crossed his fingers, hoping, or arrogantly assuming, that Barclays wouldn't pull the plug. He was wrong and a few days later Barclays "pulled the plug" by bouncing a small cheque. D) Before Thursday March 26th, Lowe knew full well that administration was shortly inevitable, knew Barclays wouldn't continue to extend the loan, but deliberately waited until just after the deadline to write a bounced cheque (giving him a scapegoat for the disgraceful timing). The attempt to use the parent company loophole was probably a genuine attempt, but was no excuse for not going into admin a few days earlier (as an insurance). Lowe luvvies are telling us A). I believe D). Considering the -10 may cost us promotion, a hell of a lot of us give a flying **** actually.

Call me greedy, but I'd be much happier with losing no points and gaining a billionaire.

If someone hid a bomb under your house, with a timer to blow up one year later, would it be an obsession to be pissed off at the time it blows up, even though the bomb was planted a year earlier? Our "obsession" will officially be over if Saints: a) finish more than 10 points behind 6th, or b) make the playoffs and get promoted, or c) make the playoffs and fail to get promoted, provided they had finished more than 10 points from 2nd.

It's conceivable we'll just miss out on the playoffs, and be within 10 points of 2nd at the end of the season. If that happens one person at least will be laughing his head off.

If that **** had been replaced by a half-decent centre back we wouldn't have been relegated imho. So he is near the top of my list. Crouchy scored the penalty that knocked the skates out of the cup. He was given a lot of stick by Saints fans before he even played a game, but I thought he had a good season (when Saggy Chops finally picked him): 16 goals in 33 matches for Saints. Why is he picked for England? Maybe it's 20 goals in 37 internationals (many as sub)? :cool: On the other hand, this lot are worthy of contempt: Delap: Saints' record transfer fee for a pile of crap, who went on a free transfer. His long throws were crap for us, but infuriatingly they have now turned into lethal weapons for Stoke. Dixon and Speedie: Br*****t's disastrous signings, and the worst possible replacements for Shearer.

Brilliant blog.

Others have already pointed out the little hole in your argument. But to be fair, if Millwall didn't have a chance of automatic promotion, I think there is a good chance that they would be happy to lose to Huddersfield for the reason you mention. So it's a good job they do have a chance of automatic promotion, isn't it? :cool: