gaz Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12040_5907400,00.html ''Begovic was close to joining Tottenham as part of a deal involving Younes Kaboul but, according to sources, he turned down a move to Spurs "for footballing reasons" and would prefer regular first-team football. '' So 'Arry wanted him for the kickback.
saint lard Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 Isn't a few million needed to pay Gaydamark today too? I believe he wants 9m,and that happens to be tomorrow.
sidthesquid Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 I believe he wants 9m,and that happens to be tomorrow. It will be interesting to see if he genuinely expects it or whether it's another part of the convoluted Gaydamak conspiracy
Saint_John Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 And unfortunately for one person, someone to pay their debts http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/31/portsmouth-fan-told-pay-club-debts I hope the Skates do not try to use this to confuse the Judge on Feb 10th. "e.g. This bill / form was not sent to company 03747237 (City Football Club Ltd) http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/da708cec55a055867a1b317fa2d44468/compdetails We can only think it must have been sent to company 06567232 (Football Club Ltd) http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/342391a8a7b399c35f3dc730db08d6fa/compdetails or the DISSOLVED company 05763080 (...F.C Ltd) http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/b1cef7377129ea9419d2c2e6e251febf/compdetails I would hate for them to escape on a technical issue.
Sheaf Saint Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 I've been away since saturday morning and don't have time to trawl through the seemingly hundreds of new posts since I was last online. Can anyone summarise the weekends goings-on for me?
ALWAYS_SFC Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 I've been away since saturday morning and don't have time to trawl through the seemingly hundreds of new posts since I was last online. Can anyone summarise the weekends goings-on for me? They are hanging on by the skin of their teeth but only because the PL and FA don`t have the balls to do right thing and admit they are insolvent.
gaz Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 And they are (slowly) getting rid of players Begovic and Kaboul out, but bizarrely, O'Hara in.
saint-luco Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 I've been away since saturday morning and don't have time to trawl through the seemingly hundreds of new posts since I was last online. Can anyone summarise the weekends goings-on for me? nothings happened
Daren W Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 Storrie says: "Now we've sold Kaboul, this is no longer an issue." Been reading the figures So they couldnt pay the staff on Friday which means no money in the bank. They sell Kaboul for £6.5m, so the reported £3m wages takes that down too £3.5m £2.7m to other clubs means they have £800k in the bank which isnt gonna help them!!!! I would love to know how they can't can't pay their staff on time and owe money left right and centre and yet they can afford to fly to Manchester and overnight at a five star hotel? Again, how can the authorities allow them to carry like this? They are blatantly taking the ****....
Crab Lungs Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 I would love to know how they can't can't pay their staff on time and owe money left right and centre and yet they can afford to fly to Manchester and overnight at a five star hotel? Again, how can the authorities allow them to carry like this? They are blatantly taking the ****.... It's an absolute **** take, I agree. Their staff at 'working class' level must be bloody ****ed off. If I were Storrie, I'd be paying them all myself. Irrespective of that, since the enbargo was laughably lifted (probably assurances but no real evidence from Storrie and co that they have money coming in) they sign two loan players probably on £20,000 per week. Disgusting.
Give it to Ron Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 Stoke have bid 3m for Begovic so thats more money in the coffers....they will get out of this and wriggle away scot free.
Weston Super Saint Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 It's an absolute **** take, I agree. Their staff at 'working class' level must be bloody ****ed off. If I were Storrie, I'd be paying them all myself. Irrespective of that, since the enbargo was laughably lifted (probably assurances but no real evidence from Storrie and co that they have money coming in) they sign two loan players probably on £20,000 per week. Disgusting. LOL. I can't see why people get so worked up over this. It's quite simple, either they have the £7m to pay HMRC on the 10th of Feb or they don't. If they do, then fair play to them for raising the funds and not trading illegally, and if not, then they will cease to exist On another note, does anyone remember the dates of Peter - I live overseas on Hayling Island - Storrie, and Twitchy's court dates??
Give it to Ron Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 LOL. I can't see why people get so worked up over this. It's quite simple, either they have the £7m to pay HMRC on the 10th of Feb or they don't. If they do, then fair play to them for raising the funds and not trading illegally, and if not, then they will cease to exist On another note, does anyone remember the dates of Peter - I live overseas on Hayling Island - Storrie, and Twitchy's court dates?? For me it's because I think its a bloody disgrace clubs like Luton, Rotherham and even Bournemouth were severely punished for being half in the sh1te compared to the Skates. Bournemouth never failed to pay players or staff yet are still unable to sign anyone - only relaxed last week to allow 1 player in as emergency.
exit2 Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 For me it's because I think its a bloody disgrace clubs like Luton, Rotherham and even Bournemouth were severely punished for being half in the sh1te compared to the Skates. Bournemouth never failed to pay players or staff yet are still unable to sign anyone - only relaxed last week to allow 1 player in as emergency. This what I have said all along, it is because the Premier League is a brand and they want to protect it self. If Pompey were in the FL they would have been ****ed over by now!
Winchester Red Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 It's not £7m to HMRC, it's £11.5m. They were arguing that they were being over-charged by £7.5m I don't think the HMRC are in the mood to let them off the hook
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 It's not £7m to HMRC, it's £11.5m. They were arguing that they were being over-charged by £7.5m I don't think the HMRC are in the mood to let them off the hook Bloody right too!
Third Division South Days Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 Stoke have bid 3m for Begovic so thats more money in the coffers....they will get out of this and wriggle away scot free. I can't believe it would be 3M up front as he can't kick a ball for Stoke until next season. I thought Stoke needed a GK for the rest of this season. Perhaps the deal is to loan Bergovic back to Poopey with James going the other way.
gary r Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 we all know the pl will not let them go bust , so with all the thats going on they will get out of this and survive.
Matthew Le God Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 we all know the pl will not let them go bust , so with all the thats going on they will get out of this and survive. The Premier League have no power to stop them going bust.
sidthesquid Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 I can't believe it would be 3M up front as he can't kick a ball for Stoke until next season. I thought Stoke needed a GK for the rest of this season. Perhaps the deal is to loan Bergovic back to Poopey with James going the other way. They were trying to get it overturned as he only played a couple of games for Ipswich on an 'emergency' loan
Whitey Grandad Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 A bit about Storrie here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1247386/Patrick-Collins-Salute-power-glory-golden-sporting-era.html In 2008-2009 he was on £1,320,000 a year!
Gigersaint Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 Even if Portsmouth survive this season and are relegated, it looks a possibilty that they may not be allowed to play in the FL either. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/31/premier-league-debts-panel Portsmouth have really exposed the failures of the system, and almost regardless of what happens to them now it just shows that the Premier League's fit-and-proper-person test does not work. Even if Portsmouth survive until the end of the season, if they are in anything like the current financial state, it will be very hard for the Football League to accept them or a team facing those kinds of problems. The football authorities – whether it's the FA or the Premier League – have either got to demonstrate palpably that the FAPPT can work (and it palpably hasn't) or they have to set up a genuinely effective test of ownership, almost certainly in collaboration with the Football League. That should then be implemented rigorously, by a third party – an objective, external panel, probably involving a lawyer, somebody who knows the game, and another party. As it is, the FAPPT is discredited and the Premier League is becoming a source of ridicule.
gary r Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 The Premier League have no power to stop them going bust. what i mean is that the pl is giving them so much time to get out off the mess that they probably will
View From The Top Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 what i mean is that the pl is giving them so much time to get out off the mess that they probably will No, the EPL have washed their hands of them, are doing nothing to help and are allowing them to go bust. What the EPL want is the skates to get relegated and then go pop. HMRC have force the pop beforehand!
Saints foreva Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 I can't believe it would be 3M up front as he can't kick a ball for Stoke until next season. I thought Stoke needed a GK for the rest of this season. Perhaps the deal is to loan Bergovic back to Poopey with James going the other way. Bergovic will be allowed to play for Stoke. Loans don't count. Neal Trotman for example played a couple of games for PNE and was loaned to us. He has now been loaned to Huddersfield.
pedg Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 Though we all expect more sales I wonder if they will bother as with their main assets gone there is little left they can sell and still field a team (there is a limit I believe on loans and not that many free's around unlike end of season when players are released). If they are hoping for some white knight to step in then selling more players may buy then a very short period of extra time to find him but any player sale income now is not going to make a dent in the money needed for the HMRC and gady and not having a decent team at the end of the transfer window is not going to make them attractive to a buyer who could then do little to help them avoid relegation.
View From The Top Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 If they don't bring in money tomorrow they really are f*cked. The really telling thing, IMHO, is the lack of appeal regarding the HMRC case.
Matthew Le God Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 what i mean is that the pl is giving them so much time to get out off the mess that they probably will The Premier League can't give them time. It is in the hands of the courts.
pedg Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 (edited) If they don't bring in money tomorrow they really are f*cked. The really telling thing, IMHO, is the lack of appeal regarding the HMRC case. You can imagine the conversation... "PFC" Can you put in an appeal for us on the VAT case please. "Lawyer" But you don't have much of a case, given client confidentiality can you explain more? "PFC" Okay, actually we are dead broke and can't pay any of our bills till we find someone stupid enough to buy the club "Lawyer" Would that include paying Lawyers fee's? "PFC" Yes "Lawyer" Um, I get back to you later shall I Edited 31 January, 2010 by pedg
Matthew Le God Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 If they don't bring in money tomorrow they really are f*cked. The really telling thing, IMHO, is the lack of appeal regarding the HMRC case. They aren't allowed to appeal unless it is on a "point of law". They have no "point of law", so the case will be a formality.
View From The Top Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 They aren't allowed to appeal unless it is on a point of law. They have no point of law. They were given leave to appeal as the presiding judge deemed the decision "difficult" and the skates, or at least Jacobs, were adamant that they would be appealing. They didn't.
RedAndWhite91 Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 If they don't bring in money tomorrow they really are f*cked. The really telling thing, IMHO, is the lack of appeal regarding the HMRC case. Why tomorrow, specifically?
pedg Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 They were given leave to appeal as the presiding judge deemed the decision "difficult" and the skates, or at least Jacobs, were adamant that they would be appealing. They didn't. I wonder if the judge used "difficult" in terms of doing something he knew to be correct but would condemn the club which he did not want to do (like having an old faithful dog put to sleep because it was suffering sort of difficult decision) rather than a difficult point of law?
Matthew Le God Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 Why tomorrow, specifically? Because it is transfer deadline day tomorrow.
pedg Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 Why tomorrow, specifically? gadys 9M is due tomorrow is the main reason I believe. --- Sorry I think that's actually today???
Matthew Le God Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 Yep, it is today. I don't think he is going to get his £9m today nor the other £20m in 2012.
View From The Top Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 Why tomorrow, specifically? The window slams shut and unless someone gives them millions they have no way of bringing in any ££.
View From The Top Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 I wonder if the judge used "difficult" in terms of doing something he knew to be correct but would condemn the club which he did not want to do (like having an old faithful dog put to sleep because it was suffering sort of difficult decision) rather than a difficult point of law? An interesting slant.
RedAndWhite91 Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 Ah yes, sound. In other words: They are f*cked.
m735 Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 Lets face it, the fishy few are fooked, be it today, tomorrow the 10th and even more so on the 13th!
bridge too far Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 I wonder if the judge used "difficult" in terms of doing something he knew to be correct but would condemn the club which he did not want to do (like having an old faithful dog put to sleep because it was suffering sort of difficult decision) rather than a difficult point of law? I don't think judges take emotion into account when judging. I think it's more likely to be an interpretation of the law that's proving difficult. Or - as someone said earlier - the judge is waiting for an appeal.
pedg Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 Yep, it is today. I don't think he is going to get his £9m today nor the other £20m in 2012. Still at least there is a winding up order he can add his name to to join the queue.
Matthew Le God Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 Still at least there is a winding up order he can add his name to to join the queue. About four parties on it now I think.
pedg Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 I don't think judges take emotion into account when judging. I think it's more likely to be an interpretation of the law that's proving difficult. Or - as someone said earlier - the judge is waiting for an appeal. Possibly but its interesting they just chose to take the one word out of his judgement (that I assume has not been released) and base their idea of appealing on that? no clarification of what area he thought was difficult or what there argument against it was. You wonder if its like when a critic says "I wanted it to be brilliant but it was crap" and they just put "brilliant" on the poster. anyway the bottom line is there is no documented evidence they have appealed and with extra names on the winding up order who want their money and are not subject to the appeal as they are more clear cut.
Toomer Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 Even Storrie teller has said they could go bust in a couple of weeks.
Um Bongo Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 They could sell all their players tomorrow and they still won't have enough to pay everyone off.
Whitey Grandad Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 gadys 9M is due tomorrow is the main reason I believe. --- Sorry I think that's actually today??? 5pm Monday 1st February is what is always quoted. It's because of the Bank Holiday on the 1st January, I suppose.
pedg Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 5pm Monday 1st February is what is always quoted. It's because of the Bank Holiday on the 1st January, I suppose. I guess the question is, given he is not likely to get his money, is the only recourse open to him to add his name to the winding up order? I believe he could attempt to put them into administration?
Gigersaint Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 Possibly but its interesting they just chose to take the one word out of his judgement (that I assume has not been released) and base their idea of appealing on that? no clarification of what area he thought was difficult or what there argument against it was. You wonder if its like when a critic says "I wanted it to be brilliant but it was crap" and they just put "brilliant" on the poster. anyway the bottom line is there is no documented evidence they have appealed and with extra names on the winding up order who want their money and are not subject to the appeal as they are more clear cut. Is the Winding up petition heard in court as a whole, or on a creditor by creditor basis that have joined the petition? How does this work and what happens on the hearing date on Feb 10th with the additional creditors joining?
hamster Posted 31 January, 2010 Posted 31 January, 2010 People could do worse than to read Dr John Beech's slant on all this stuff, a very knowledgeable man and sadly for him a Pompey supporter to boot. Finger very much 'on the pulse' I'd say.
Recommended Posts