pfc123

It's funny that all these thicko know-nothing media types keep on saying how fantastic our fans are. Why would they do that? Why do other teams fans also say things like that? It's all just one big conspiracy isn't it? Everyones been fooled, haven't they? Oh yes, for sure

Corp, you're wasting your time mate. This lot have all whipped each other into such a mouth foaming frenzy that it's pointless attempting to outline a few facts to them. They're simply beyond listening now...

Yep, fair point. This style of forum is one the best in terms of usability. Ours is a bit old fashioned and unreliable. Bit like the club really

That's the problem with this thread. It's become a monster now and for quite a few on here it's become a big part of their lives. Someone was even complaining that he couldn't sleep over it the other night FFs!

R4 is the best place to go for a proper, almost always balanced view of what's going in the world. The comedy shows are a real bonus. The Now Show is brilliant. Struggle with The Archers though. It's a bit twee, and I really don't give a stuff what percentage of the cider Joe Grundy is going to get from the orchard. Zzzzzzz.....

Don't see why I should give any of you ****s a laugh, but this is good stuff. Listen from 14:58 onwards, although the whole half hour is pretty good every week.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01bmq35/The_News_Quiz_Series_76_Episode_8/

Yeah, right.

LOL! Wrong yet again. How desperate you all are. Sad, truly sad....

Well for a start the insolvency act that first contained the phrase 'company administration' didnt come into being until 1986 FFs!! And in 1988 the club was merely sold by scummer Deacon to Jim Gregory. No administration at all..

*sigh* wrong again as usual. 1976 & 1988- pure fantasyland....

They will get paid....

Well if it is the case that HR didn't receive 5% after he left then the balance on player ins and outs is actually even better than I previously stated. Add to that the mistaken belief by many of you on here that a player gets his contract paid up in full if he doesnt ask for a move, and it's no wonder so few of you believe the figures that Corp has been posting in support of the assertion that we were never trading insolvently at the time of the cup win. The rot started in October 2008 when Gaydamak starting sucking money out of the club. Up until that point, we were fine. Bearing in mind that our gate recipets + tv money was at least covering the wages being paid out, i.e. our wages to turnover ratio was nowhere near 100%. If all of the transfer money subsequently recieved in the fire sale post October 2008 had been ploughed back into the club as it should have, we would never have suddenly found ourselves in 100+ millions worth of debt. So the only 'cheating' was that of the owner taking money out of the club.....

To be fair, if a player doesn't ask for a transfer and is sold there IS a payment due but usually it's around 10% of the fee he's beeing sold for, not the value of the contract that's being terminated by the selling club.

Absolute rubbish. When the player under contract is sold to another club, his existing contract is terminated and he negoatiates a new one with the new club....

Yes, but many of the players he signed departed at various points AFTER he left. They were still signed by him! That's what we were talking about- the fees paid and received for players signed by HR....

No. See Corps reply above....

Hmmm, agree. The sobering thing for Pompey fans is the fact that if the Gaydamaks had been straight and not allegedly plundered the cash, there's a good chance that Redknapp would never have walked and that we''d be still in the Premiership now. Whatever. We'll survive in one way or another.....

Actually, if a manager wants an incentive clause in his contract, a better way of doing it would be for the football club to propose something llike 'As long as the club is financially sound, you can use any net profit made on player sales to add to our existing player purchase budget.' You then add a personal financial incentive to the manager of a bonus depending on finishing position in the league and progress in the various cup competitions. The bottom line is that these clauses CAN work if drafted carefully, e.g. Dario Gradi at Crewe. He knows he's never likely to get Crewe much above Championship level at best, but at least he has financial inventive in developing youth to be sold on. It's probably the only way Crewe have managed to tempt him to stay for so long, as they almost certainly couldn't compete with some basic salaries he must have been offered over the years by other clubs....

It only cost the club because the guy who owned the club started sucking money out and allowing the debt to get higher and higher. How can Redknapp be blamed for that? How many managers get anywhere NEAR balancing the ins and outs? Very, very few...

Oh right, so you want the manager to pay a fee every time he sells a player? Interesting idea. Can't see it catching on somehow....

Yes, Pony fiddler, I agree. The tax should be paid.

How the hell can you insert a clause that renders a manager liable for transfer losses? On that basis you buy player 'A' at the age of 29 for say £1m. Three years later at the age of 32 he leaves for a lower league club because his career is winding down for say, £200k. He's given you three very good years, but you're going to penalise the manager because age has caught up with the player are you? If clauses like that were in place, no manager would ever be brave enough to buy anyone for fear that it's going to cost him a fortune if the players worth less when he leaves!

No. We're not talking about wages, we're talking about is it justifiable for a manager to take a cut on transfers....

Exactly. So, a) Redknapp is not guilty of tax evasion, and b) he's not unique in football for negotiatiing a commission on player transfer profits. And to show how 'reckless' Redknapp's purchases were, here are some profit/loss figures on player transfers in and out of FP since Gaydamak arrived until 2009-10: 2005/2006: £6,007,500 (transfers in) - £0 (transfers out) = LOSS £6,007,500* 2006/2007: £7,609,500 (transfers in) - £6,497,000 (transfers out) = LOSS £1,112,500 2007/2008: £46,929,700 (transfers in) - £20,470,000 (transfers out) = LOSS £26,459,700 2008/2009: £25,098,000 (transfers in) - £49,083,500 (transfers out) = PROFIT £23,985,500 2009/2010: £8,277,000 (transfers in) - £36,757,000 (transfers out) = PROFIT £28,480,000 Total Transfer Activity Profit between 2005/06 & 2009/10 = £13,501,300 Now, to be fair, from that £13m profit figure we have to take agents fee's on purchases (usually between 5%-10% but we'll say 10%) = £9.3m, + Redknapps commission on sales which we now know was @ 5% = £5.65m. So £14.95m goes out on commission, which leaves the sell on clauses, a lot of which, but not all will equal out as players have moved on again since, i.e. Crouch to Stoke. This is a guess, but the probable overall loss is somewhere between £1.5m and I don't know, £10m? depending on what other fee's were paid to whom. It's pretty clear that there are quite a few people who take a cut on the in's and out's, but even allowing for that and sell on clauses, it's a not a bad record. Very few Premiership clubs make money on players, and it's even more remarkable the fee's we got considering the whole football world knew we were in trouble and had to sell. Where it's gone wrong is that a large chunk of this money, presumably along with a large slice of the Sky tv money was sucked out of the club thus leaving us with a massive hole in the finances. Overall, whether you agree with Redknapp earning a commission or not (and agreed, there is always going to be a temptation to buy rather than bring youth through) his record of buy low, sell high is pretty good.....

Utter ********. The kit man was on 40k a year. Nice work if you can get it, but not six figures....