Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted

A story in the Times a few days ago which was posted in this thread where Mr Andronikou is accused of vote rigging an insolvency agreement so they get the 75% needed.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/portsmouth/article7069905.ece

 

With the news today that he now claims the debt is £100m and not the £78m of the Statement of Affairs by Vantis it raises the question is he up to his old tricks again?

St Jim

St Jim

Posted
Posted
He would not dare. He has already been caught out by a Judge once trying that although he said it was "boll**s"

 

Given his history and Pompey's recent history, if there were any questions mark surrounding the increase in debt, the HMRC and the courts will be all over them like a rash.

Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
A story in the Times a few days ago which was posted in this thread where Mr Andronikou is accused of vote rigging an insolvency agreement so they get the 75% needed.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/portsmouth/article7069905.ece

 

With the news today that he now claims the debt is £100m and not the £78m of the Statement of Affairs by Vantis it raises the question is he up to his old tricks again?

 

the wage bill was £120 odd million over three years and they have made a huge profit on transfers. So how on earth can they be £100m in debt unless Gaydamak did a Glazier.

Fowllyd

Fowllyd

Posted
Posted
Let me know if you need some more;);)

 

Why thank you kindly. Had I but known, I think I'd have gone for the Atlantic Mudskipper - something appropriate about that, don't you think? :D On the other hand, it wouldn't scan as well as 'alibut.

Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted
Calm down everyone!!

 

You're all forgetting that a Statement of Affairs was compiled and produced by Vantis and presented to the court!

 

That would state EXACTLY what the figure of debt was at pretty much the time of admin. So AA would be liable for any increase to that debt :D

 

CHEATS.

 

These aren't necessarily increases in debts, but rather the "uncovering" of previous debts (read Gayboy's "loans").

 

Am I right in thinking that an administrator can liquidate a company if he thinks there is no point carrying on?

 

Not if he's paid for and the lapdog of the present owner. Hypothetically of course.

 

 

If the unsecured debts are £85m then I wonder who the other creditors are apart from Gaydamak and HMRC. If we use the figures of £30m and £20m for ease then there's another £35m of unsecured debt out there?!

 

If they aren't football debts then maybe the £30m that Gaydamak claimed to have written off from his original £60m-ish was contingent on payment of the installments of the remainder being made on time? Maybe he's in fact on the books at £60m again?

 

 

 

A story in the Times a few days ago which was posted in this thread where Mr Andronikou is accused of vote rigging an insolvency agreement so they get the 75% needed.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/portsmouth/article7069905.ece

 

With the news today that he now claims the debt is £100m and not the £78m of the Statement of Affairs by Vantis it raises the question is he up to his old tricks again?

 

 

Putting all these pieces together .... a leopard doesn't change its spots.

 

CHEATS

 

The most damaging criticism of Andronikou is within a High Court ruling in December 2008. An appeal judge overturned an attempt by Shami Ahmed, the founder of Joe Bloggs, the clothing company, to avoid bankruptcy through an individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) handled by Andronikou.

 

HMRC and a spread-betting firm then known as Tradindex had opposed the IVA, which needed approval from three-quarters of Ahmed’s creditors. The fashion boss had run up more than £4m in gambling debts. But the IVA was successful because Andronikou had accepted the validity of £8m in alleged loans to Ahmed from members of his family, thereby making them creditors and giving them a vote on the IVA.

 

At an appeal by Tradindex, the judge took a different view and disallowed £5m of these family loans, thereby overturning Ahmed’s IVA, and he was forced into bankruptcy.

 

The judgment said: “Mr Andronikou’s conduct in these proceedings, particularly in relation to evidence filed by him on behalf [of Ahmed and his family], was manifestly inappropriate.” The judge also found that Andronikou “did fail to meet the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent insolvency practitioner”.

 

Andronikou told The Sunday Times that the vote-rigging allegation was “absolute bollocks” and explained he had relied on his underlings to assess the validity of the Ahmed family claims.

hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted

I had to comment on the piece in the Grauniad yesterday. It's blatantly fabricated nonsense.

 

Balram Chainrai set to stay at Portsmouth as sale options narrow

 

• Balram Chainrai the only candidate 'who ticks all the boxes'

• Administrator hopes to finalise deal within four to six weeks

 

 

Balram Chainrai, Portsmouth's fourth owner of a turbulent season, could remain in charge of the club for the long term, it has emerged, after the club's administrator said he was the only potential owner who "ticks all the boxes".

 

Andrew Andronikou, who yesterday secured agreement from the Premier League to trade outside the transfer window and is looking to raise £20m to £30m from player sales, is working on a plan that would see Chainrai remain in control of a restructured club.

 

"He definitely has the wherewithal and
I do believe
he has the club's interests at heart
[1]
," Andronikou said. "He has given us full support throughout the whole process.
At the moment he is the only one who ticks all the boxes.
[2]
" The administrator said
there were no obvious credible buyers
[3]
despite interest from a consortium fronted by the property tycoon Rob Lloyd.

 

Many fans who hoped for a fresh start will be concerned over the continued involvement of a man closely linked to the club's messy past and the cast of characters involved in it.
Chainrai, who advanced a £15m facility
[4]
to see the club through administration, has been involved since last October, when he loaned £17m to the Ali al-Faraj regime through his company Portpin Ltd. He claims he became operationally involved only in January after becoming concerned about missed payments, and later seized control.

 

"Without sounding like his PR agent, they stepped in at the right time," said Andronikou. "
Without their involvement, the club would have been in dire straits.
[5]
"

 

Andronikou said he hoped to complete a deal within four to six weeks.
Chainrai has previously said he has no interest in long-term ownership of the club
[6]
and his spokesman said this week he "wants to be repaid his loan and move on". But it has emerged that
he may feel
his only option is to retain control of the club
[7]
, with Andronikou – the joint administrator on behalf of UHY Hacker Young – preparing to put a Company Voluntary Arrangement to creditors owed about £65m.

 

Chainrai
may feel
he has no other option but to stay on as owner
[8]
if he is to recover the £13.5m he is still owed. In January, as the club battled to avoid administration, he was repaid £4m of the loan he injected in October.

 

If creditors agree the move, it could leave Chainrai in control of a club with no debt, a far lower cost base, imminent income in the form of parachute payments and TV revenues and control over Fratton Park and the land around it.

 

Such an arrangement would require Chainrai to put more money into the club
[9]
to settle with creditors, who would be offered part payment of debts, but the CVA could be structured over several years, minimising upfront investment. With parachute payments worth at least £16m, player sales of up to £30m and the possibility of raising money against future revenues, he could bring in substantial amounts in the summer.

 

The Premier League has agreed to allow Portsmouth to sell players before the transfer window opens – although those players will not be able to play for their new clubs until next season – and
Andronikou hopes to shift at least 10 first-team players, raising up to £30m
[10]
, and slash the wage bill in preparation for life in the Championship.

 

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, which raised concerns about links between the administrator and Chainrai but has since dropped its opposition to the administration, would be likely to oppose any such arrangement but could be powerless to block it.

 

The administrator has denied any links and said yesterday he was "not at all" concerned about perceptions if Chainrai remained in control.

 

"Ultimately, my responsibility is to the creditors. We have got to make a proposal to them that they feel is right. The personalities don't really come into, in terms of who the charge holder is or who they could be."

 

Andronikou would not be drawn on Chainrai's long term plans: "
I think
he just wants to do the right thing to make sure the club survives
.
[11]
As long as the club survives, his money is alive. Who knows from there? It could be a brief love affair or a long one."

 

Andronikou said yesterday that there were no obvious buyers for the club, but added that one may yet emerge. "The other option is that the company stays at it is, that the current owners stay with the company and that we exit through a CVA with a restructured overhead base," he said.He added: "My remit wasn't necessarily to go out and find a buyer, it was to restructure and get it onto a level playing field. In the last six or seven months Portsmouth has become a bit of a hot potato and passed around.
We're not going to pass a slightly cooler potato to someone who we don't think is going to be credible
[12]
. We've got a duty to make sure it stays in the right hands."

 

HMRC, owed at least £15m, would oppose any move to pay creditors anything less than the full amount they are owed but may be powerless to prevent a CVA, which would offer them a certain proportion of their debt, being agreed. A CVA needs to be supported by 75% of the total creditor base. Sacha Gaydamak, who claims to be owed more than £30m, is the biggest single creditor. If he were to agree to the CVA, he would also be likely to hand over the key pockets of land surrounding the ground.

 

"
Sacha is the largest independent creditor and will have to agree the CVA. I have to say
they
have been supportive throughout the whole process
[13]
," said Andronikou.

 

Andronikou said yesterday that it was still "early days" for his promised investigation into the club's murky finances over the past eight months and that it was too soon to comment on claims that sums of at least
£1.5m may have gone missing from the club's client account in January
[14]
.

 

[1] So he hasn't actually told you that then, Andy?

[2] You forgot the box that says "I am interested in owning the Club", Andy.

[3] No surprise there then, Andy.

[4] That would be the same facility that the Judge described as "a prospect, but no more than a prospect of funding" then, Andy?

[5] Lucky they did become involved then Andy, to make their straits now so much less dire. (What was the name of that album again, something to do with brothers?)

[6] But he was only kidding, Andy, wasn't he?

[7] So he hasn't actually told you that either then, Andy?

[8] Or that, Andy?

[9] Good luck there, Andy.

[10] Half the first team are on loan, Andy. Remember that. You're not allowed to sell those ones.

[11] He didn't actually tell you that either then, Andy?

[12] But you're trying to pass it to somebody who doesn't want it, Andy.

[13] Slip of the tongue, Andy? Sacha is plural? There's more than one of him?

[14] Illicit payments for the loanees signed in January, Andy?

 

 

It's utter nonsense. AA is trying to create Plan 'C', and force it down Chainrai's throat. I can't see that going down too well.

 

Plan 'A' is to find a mug to buy the club and pay back Chainrai's debt. That's not going too well at the moment.

 

Plan 'B' is to liquidate the Company once it has enough cash to pay back the secured creditor's in full. AA is working on that one. Player sales, advances on future income, etc.

 

And Plan 'D' is for AA to get out quick. That's why the debt is now climbing through the roof. "The true facts of the level of debt were concealed from us by the CEO and the SoA"?

 

And Her Majesty's finest are watching closely.

CB Saint

CB Saint

Posted
Posted

I wonder if the partners of Hacker Young are beginning to get a twitchy bum. After all they share the liability of any additional debts rung up. Also as this is a high profile case, any vote rigging shenannigans or other misdemeanors will damage their reputation.

CB Saint

CB Saint

Posted
Posted

 

Avram might have a close relationship with Harry but he doesn't with Levy who will ultimately have the final say.

 

Why would spurs do it? O'Hara is pompey best player by miles. If O'hara scored the winning goal and SPurs missed out on the final, I can't see their fans being so understanding. They can't understand why HR lent O'Hara to PFC in the first place.

Gravesend Saint

Gravesend Saint

Posted
Posted
Fabulous stuff - once again, you really couldn't make it up. I particularly liked the reference to 'Arry's "sense of fair play". :smt044

 

That's the bit that made me laugh. You can just picture 'Arry saying " of course we'll give you every chance to win, it's not as if it's a big game or anything". NOT!

 

Muppets...

pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
That's the bit that made me laugh. You can just picture 'Arry saying " of course we'll give you every chance to win, it's not as if it's a big game or anything". NOT!

 

Muppets...

 

Rumour has it that pompey have asked spurs to help get both teams to the same level by making crouch play on his knee's.

Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
That's the bit that made me laugh. You can just picture 'Arry saying " of course we'll give you every chance to win, it's not as if it's a big game or anything". NOT!

 

Muppets...

 

can't be long to wait for Grant to say "It would be in the spirit of football to let O'Hara play..."

tony13579

tony13579

Posted
Posted
Don't worry we are hiding in the rock pools waiting for the tide to return;)
The trouble is you can't see the oil tanker heading for the rocks from there. The thick black sticky stuff is comming but all many can see is the blue sky and a cloud formation that resembles a new stadium.
miserableoldgit

miserableoldgit

Posted
Posted
The trouble is you can't see the oil tanker heading for the rocks from there. The thick black sticky stuff is comming but all many can see is the blue sky and a cloud formation that resembles a new stadium.

Surely it`s brown sticky stuff?!:)

OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted

To my mind the administrator not sending Ohara back at this time is reckless. Pompey paly Spurs in the league and then the FA cup semi. Both games Ohara is inelegible. Therefore you are talking a couple of weeks wated wages. That is money coming out of the creditors pot.

fromdayone

fromdayone

Posted
Posted

And Plan 'D' is for AA to get out quick. That's why the debt is now climbing through the roof. "The true facts of the level of debt were concealed from us by the CEO and the SoA"?

 

Where does that quote come from?

mickn

mickn

Posted
Posted
To my mind the administrator not sending Ohara back at this time is reckless. Pompey paly Spurs in the league and then the FA cup semi. Both games Ohara is inelegible. Therefore you are talking a couple of weeks wated wages. That is money coming out of the creditors pot.

 

..and it doesn't matter anymore as they have no chance now of staying up so I really don't see the point of him staying...and on another issue Grant is proving himself to be the biggest arsehole involved in football

INFLUENCED.COM

INFLUENCED.COM

Posted
Posted
..and it doesn't matter anymore as they have no chance now of staying up so I really don't see the point of him staying...

 

You may find Spurs/Redcrap have agreed to pick up a larger percentage, if not all, of his wage in order he continues to develop through 1st team football.

rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

Funny that -I thought the O'Hara contract was so binding that even the court-approved (!) administrator can't cancel it to protect creditors - do we now discover that it can be re-written at any point?

Another drum of worms spills out across the Fratton Park lino.

 

 

Harry will say - 'they're a great club, great fans, he's a great player, I would help if I could but my hands are tied, it's with the guys upstairs, it will be a fantastic occasion, they are a very difficult team to beat, Avram's doing a tremendous job'.

Harry will mean - 'feck off, I'm manager of Spurs and I don't care what happens to anyone else, the weaker your excuse for a team is, the happier I am'.

 

And on this occasion, he will be right.

pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
Think the second comment beneath the article sums it up well:

 

Ah! But you have to remember but pompey are a special case and normal rules, like paying tax, do no apply to them.

Crab Lungs

Crab Lungs

Posted
Posted

They have no shame. They are so misguided they are even adopting a siege 'us vs the world' mentality as if they are being so hard done by.

 

Please, please... die soon, pathetic, disgusting, cheating little club.

krissyboy31

krissyboy31

Posted
Posted
Think the second comment beneath the article sums it up well:

 

Surely Andy Android can get some special dispensation? After all, they have been so hard done by and the rules of the competition (or any rules, for that matter) are so unfair to them.

Torrent Of Abuse

Torrent Of Abuse

Posted
Posted
They have no shame. They are so misguided they are even adopting a siege 'us vs the world' mentality as if they are being so hard done by.

 

Please, please... die soon, pathetic, disgusting, cheating little club.

 

They haven't just adopted that mentality. It's their natural state. Little Islanders living like little islanders. It's just a matter of time until they build a giant straw man and start casting fevered looks at strangers from out of town.

 

Royston Vasey F.C.

That's what their reformed club should name themselves.

The local club for local people.

Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted

If this is true real questions need to be asked....

 

Portsmouth paid a £500,000 loan fee when former Arsenal star Owusu-Abeyie moved to Fratton Park in January.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1260734/Portsmouth-offered-250-000-Spartak-Moscow-terminate-Quincy-Owusu-Abeyies-loan.html?ITO=1490

 

This ties in with Spartak offering £250k to get him back from loan. Pompey have paid the £500k and have a deal to keep him for the season. The £250k is their compensation for the loss of a player that they paid £500k to loan for X weeks.

 

The transfer embargo was only lifted for the last few days of January for loan or free transfers in order to stop large amounts of debt being added to an already large amount.

 

What is the point in saying we are only lifting it but you can only do frees and loans if they pay a £500,000 loan fee?

 

Two weeks after signing Tosic, Rocha and Quincy and paying their wages, Pompey ask for dispensation to sell players and make 85 staff redundant!

Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted
If this is true real questions need to be asked....

 

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1260734/Portsmouth-offered-250-000-Spartak-Moscow-terminate-Quincy-Owusu-Abeyies-loan.html?ITO=1490

 

This ties in with Spartak offering £250k to get him back from loan. Pompey have paid the £500k and have a deal to keep him for the season. The £250k is their compensation for the loss of a player that they paid £500k to loan for X weeks.

 

The transfer embargo was only lifted for the last few days of January for loan or free transfers in order to stop large amounts of debt being added to an already large amount.

 

What is the point in saying we are only lifting it but you can only do frees and loans if they pay a £500,000 loan fee?

 

Two weeks after signing Tosic, Rocha and Quincy and paying their wages, Pompey ask for dispensation to sell players and make 85 staff redundant!

 

Thats the second one They paid 500k for anothe one and willies fees were 130k.

OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
So Pompey pay £500k to a club in Russia, now where was it that Gayboy senior was hiding out?:o
not forgetting the chess tournemont
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
Utterly pointless PR move, FA rules state that a loanee cannot play against his parent club in any competition.. doesn't matter what Grant or 'Arry say...

but Avram wants an even playing field, surely that overrides any rules.

HR and Avram text each other everyday, they must have loads of things to talk about.Transfers in and out and the best they can expect to raise from each transaction

Gorgiesaint

Gorgiesaint

Posted
Posted (edited)
If this is true real questions need to be asked....

 

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1260734/Portsmouth-offered-250-000-Spartak-Moscow-terminate-Quincy-Owusu-Abeyies-loan.html?ITO=1490

 

This ties in with Spartak offering £250k to get him back from loan. Pompey have paid the £500k and have a deal to keep him for the season. The £250k is their compensation for the loss of a player that they paid £500k to loan for X weeks.

 

The transfer embargo was only lifted for the last few days of January for loan or free transfers in order to stop large amounts of debt being added to an already large amount.

 

What is the point in saying we are only lifting it but you can only do frees and loans if they pay a £500,000 loan fee?

 

Two weeks after signing Tosic, Rocha and Quincy and paying their wages, Pompey ask for dispensation to sell players and make 85 staff redundant!

 

I wonder if anyone fancies taking this up with the FA. It would be interesting if the the lifting the transfer embargo allowed them to pay a fee for a loan. Either someone at the FA has ****ed up in lifting the embargo or Pompey have breached the rules (again). I, for one, would like to know which it is. I suspect the former but if it is the latter then potentially the skates should be thrown out of the FA cup.

 

I suspect we won't find out the answer - the implications are too great whatever the answer.

 

Edit: Sorry forgot to add CHEATS

Edited by Gorgiesaint
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
Either someone at the FA has ****ed up in lifting the embargo or Pompey have breached the rules (again).

 

You have confused the FA with the Premier League like many do. They are two different governing bodies.

hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
And Plan 'D' is for AA to get out quick. That's why the debt is now climbing through the roof. "The true facts of the level of debt were concealed from us by the CEO and the SoA"?

 

Where does that quote come from?

My own speculation. Hence the question mark.

Fowllyd

Fowllyd

Posted
Posted
I wonder if anyone fancies taking this up with the FA. It would be interesting if the the lifting the transfer embargo allowed them to pay a fee for a loan. Either someone at the FA has ****ed up in lifting the embargo or Pompey have breached the rules (again). I, for one, would like to know which it is. I suspect the former but if it is the latter then potentially the skates should be thrown out of the FA cup.

 

I suspect we won't find out the answer - the implications are too great whatever the answer.

 

Edit: Sorry forgot to add CHEATS

 

The transfer embargo was imposed and subsequently lifted by the Premier League, not the FA. Therefore I doubt there's any possibility of Pompey being kicked out of the FA Cup. The PL imposed the embargo because Pompey had football debts which were unpaid and/or on which no schedule had been agreed. Once they reached agreement with the last club they owe money to, the embargo was lifted, on the condition that they could only bring in loans or free transfers. I assume that this was done to ensure that their level of football debt didn't rise; if they paid any loan and signing-on fees in full then it wouldn't have done.

 

All that said, they're still cheats!

hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
I wonder if the partners of Hacker Young are beginning to get a twitchy bum. After all they share the liability of any additional debts rung up. Also as this is a high profile case, any vote rigging shenannigans or other misdemeanors will damage their reputation.

In a "Fuglers" sort of way?

Pugwash

Pugwash

Posted
Posted
The transfer embargo was imposed and subsequently lifted by the Premier League, not the FA. Therefore I doubt there's any possibility of Pompey being kicked out of the FA Cup. The PL imposed the embargo because Pompey had football debts which were unpaid and/or on which no schedule had been agreed. Once they reached agreement with the last club they owe money to, the embargo was lifted, on the condition that they could only bring in loans or free transfers. I assume that this was done to ensure that their level of football debt didn't rise; if they paid any loan and signing-on fees in full then it wouldn't have done.

 

All that said, they're still cheats!

 

So can we assume that even now they're in administration, the schedule of repayments agreed with these clubs is being honoured, so that O'Hara's and wotsisname's loans can be considered legitimate? Thought not...

 

(cheats)

COMEONYOUREDS

COMEONYOUREDS

Posted
Posted

Copy of an email sent to the FA:

 

Dear FA

 

Recently Portsmouth FC were subject to a transfer embargo. Towards the end of the January transfer window this embargo was lifted to allow them to bring in free transfers and loan signings that did not command a fee. One particular signing was that of Quincy Owusu-Abeyie, on loan from Spartak Moscow. Today the Daily Mail is reporting that the Russian club are willing to pay a sum of £250,000 to take the player back and terminate the loan. Worryingly the article also claims that Portsmouth paid a sum of £500,000 to Spartak Moscow as a loan fee back in January. This to the average fan in the street comes across (if true) as blatant cheating and flouting of the terms agreed in lifting said transfer embargo. I would be interested to know if this article has any substance, and whether the FA are investigating these claims. As we know Portsmouth have been punished by the Premier League for their indiscretions, yet they continue to participate in the FA Cup, a competition which the player in question has made a significant contribution. If the claims in the article are true then there is an argument that the player should not have been signed and that Portsmouth should be expelled from the competition. I would again like to know the FA’s views on this.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

I doubt it will elicit a response but I'll be sure to post it on here if it does. As said above, the embargo was issued by the PL, so I'm sure that's their get out clause for not being bothered to act against the cheating bastards

Gorgiesaint

Gorgiesaint

Posted
Posted
Copy of an email sent to the FA:

 

Dear FA

 

Recently Portsmouth FC were subject to a transfer embargo. Towards the end of the January transfer window this embargo was lifted to allow them to bring in free transfers and loan signings that did not command a fee. One particular signing was that of Quincy Owusu-Abeyie, on loan from Spartak Moscow. Today the Daily Mail is reporting that the Russian club are willing to pay a sum of £250,000 to take the player back and terminate the loan. Worryingly the article also claims that Portsmouth paid a sum of £500,000 to Spartak Moscow as a loan fee back in January. This to the average fan in the street comes across (if true) as blatant cheating and flouting of the terms agreed in lifting said transfer embargo. I would be interested to know if this article has any substance, and whether the FA are investigating these claims. As we know Portsmouth have been punished by the Premier League for their indiscretions, yet they continue to participate in the FA Cup, a competition which the player in question has made a significant contribution. If the claims in the article are true then there is an argument that the player should not have been signed and that Portsmouth should be expelled from the competition. I would again like to know the FA’s views on this.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

I doubt it will elicit a response but I'll be sure to post it on here if it does. As said above, the embargo was issued by the PL, so I'm sure that's their get out clause for not being bothered to act against the cheating bastards

 

Nice one COYR.

 

Despite the ban having been put in place by the PL, it is the FA who are responsible for player registrations so I think the point still applies.

COMEONYOUREDS

COMEONYOUREDS

Posted
Posted
Nice one COYR.

 

Despite the ban having been put in place by the PL, it is the FA who are responsible for player registrations so I think the point still applies.

 

I have also sent the email to the PL as well now. Slow day at work!

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...