Pompey Takeover Saga

[dronskisaint]

THis is the MOST annoying aspect of the whole sage that anyone connected to the club fails to understand time and time again. IT IS teh club who have got tehmeselves in this mess, by agreeing to contracts and signing players that were ONLY susptainable from a third party - a third party who they KNEW did not have a huge amount of liquidity, otherwise they would have paid chinney in full when they bought the club and been rid of at least one of the characters they now like to hate. NO ONE forced the club to make those contracts in an effort to try and gain a footballing competitive advnatage, THEY CHOSE to. The clubs directors (not owners) made those contracts knowing exactly the background to CSI and its owners. It is encumbant on teh directors of any business to do due diligence on the sources of any funding before making such committments. The ignorance and stupidity of teh cpouncil, that MP and the club's directors and fans and media who lap it up as part of the 'poor old plucky pompey' sheidt we are inundated with is breathtaking. Jeez...

 

This is a football club, that borrowed money from its owners tio buy a competitive advantage, thus entering big contracts - the owners stop giving them cash on account of their own admin and suddenly we are meant to feel sorry for them? after walkinga way only 2 years ago from 100mil of debt? WTF....

 

Yes Corps, if you look at our figures, Liebherr (RIP) placed the monies for the purchase (clearing the debts to an agreed amount with the 2 creditors) on the books of the club as a loan to be repaid in not less than 5 years. BUT and its a big but, where we differ is in a) that the source of this cash is totaly transparent, b) it was used to clear the debt, and c) the investment was in part in infrastructure d) since then there has been a fair bit or revenue in in terms of sales - e) there is a robust and ethical business plan in place...

 

An excellent summary of all that is different between the acquisitions(s)(s etc..)

[tony13579]

Before break judge told jury he was more than halfway through summing up. Looks like jury will start considering verdicts at around 1230

Judge: "One of first questions you'll need to ask yourselves is - what was the Monaco payment for?"

Judge says both Redknapp and Mandaric are of 'good character' and tells jury that might mean more likely they should believe their evidence

Judge tells jury there's scenario where they can find Redknapp not guilty and Mandaric guilty. They must not find R guilty and M not guilty

Judge hands jury document titled 'Steps to Verdict'. Jury asked to follow it. For example, can only find guilty if believe tax was avoided

Judge tells jury they may have sympathy with defendants' long wait for this trial, but verdicts must be decided on evidence not sympathy

[Brussels Saint]

If PFC2010 is liquidated, the market value of the land increases significantly. Any protection or designated use the land has is much more likely to apply while the club exists than while it doesn't.

 

Why not let the club die, sell whatever assets he can and pocket the cash, petition to get the right to build on the land, and then sell it as such?

 

Anyone think this might be Chinny's end game? Maybe he realises it's unlikely someone will buy and he does not want to keep throwing millions at them, to keep them alive until the parachute money arrives.

If he liquidates now, his exposure ceases and he can work on realising value from Fratton. If I was him I would have already been working on a plan B for sometime.

Liquidating them puts him back in control. Some options:

1, The council lifts the sports use restrictions and he sells or rents (could he have this lined up already?)

2, The council maintains the sports restrictions and he rents Fratton long term to a pheonix club (which has no debts and could afford this on 8-10k gates)

 

If he sells now, it seems unlikely any buyer will have enough to pay him off in one go and if he gets another CSI the same situation could return.

Of course a buyer could be there now and have enough to offer him an immediate attractive way out. I don't think there is one however, so if I was him it makes more sense to liquidate (or rather allow HMRC to do their stuff) and at least with what comes next he is back in control.

[pedg]

#redknapp Judge: NewsOfWorld used mix of inside info, gossip and kidology in interview with Redknapp. You may despise such behaviour.

#redknapp Judge: Its not up to jurors to decide rights and wrongs of NewsOfWorld tactics. There is a current inquiry to resolve such issues

#redknapp Judge: NewsofWorld reporter had an unchallenged record of his interviews with Redknapp and Mandaric

[tony13579]

If you ask yes no questions it is a clear guily verdict

was tax avoided? yes

Would you move money to an off shore account with a code name other than to avoid tax. No

Did harry lead this project.

Did Milan lead this project.

 

If found guilty, Sentencing. The judge does the sentencing, not the jury

was this a large scale tax evasion. over a prelonged time,

single event or multiple events

or was this a small percentage of H's income and tax.

should he be treated equally or as an example

[pedg]

Judge: Redknapp told NewsofWorld payment was his bonus for sale of Peter Crouch. .andarich said it was for investments

 

 

Starting to swing more towards a guilty verdict for me if Judge pointing out redknapp never disputed saying it was a bonus till he got to the stand.

[pedg]

Jury sent out apparently. This link might be of interest:

 

http://www.international-adviser.com/tax---technical/redknapp-what-the-jury-will-consider

[stevegrant]

Starting to swing more towards a guilty verdict for me if Judge pointing out redknapp never disputed saying it was a bonus till he got to the stand.

"You may harm your defence if you do not mention something which you later rely on in court"

[Corporate Ho]

its that denial again - the club is where it is because of the management in the last year!!

 

It was obvious to a retarded chimp with extra special learning difficulties that quality over quantity was a recipe for insolvency - even us nutjobs on here pointed that out when it started - the kitman's son knew that, even Ho's ITK who he sees every few weeks socially must have had reservations about the policy!

But not the boss, with the full support of the fans he brought in loads of overpaid players, outbidding proper businesses and annoying other managers along the way.

 

Lampitt sanctioned crazy contracts that the business couldn't sustain, so no one should pretend that this is history catching up, it's the present.

 

It was also very clear that if someone serves a winding up petition they are serious about getting their money, so not attempting to raise any last week was an aggressive act likely to harden the resolve of the taxman - one might suggest that it looks like Lampitt flicked the Vs at HMRC.

 

1. Antonov agreed a business plan with the FL based on him paying the difference between income and expenditure. Antonov was the owner, he could do what he wanted regarding signing players and spending the money. If he had the money and wanted to outbid other teams for players then why shouldn't he - that's what you've been doing, isn't it? All the deals were sanctioned by the FL so why shoudl Lampitt say no? Even if he did, what would happen? He'd probably be sacked. The deals were sustainable all the time Antonov funded it. Just like you, Man City, Chelsea, Wigan, Bolton, Sunderland, Villa (shall I go on?). As for the quality over quantity argument, you're just being stupid. We chose to buy less players of a higher quality rather than a bigger squad of poorer standard. That's not "stupid" that's a strategy. Might go right, might go wrong.

2. No selling players wasn't an "aggressive act". We actually tried to sell players but the players refused to go. Personally I'm glad because even if they had gone we'd have been in the same situation next month, it would have just given AA and Chainrai more time to try and come up with a plan. As it is, it's properly brought things to a head

 

Yes Corps' date=' if you look at our figures, Liebherr (RIP) placed the monies for the purchase (clearing the debts to an agreed amount with the 2 creditors) on the books of the club as a loan to be repaid in not less than 5 years. BUT and its a big but, where we differ is in a) that the source of this cash is totaly transparent, b) it was used to clear the debt, and c) the investment was in part in infrastructure d) since then there has been a fair bit or revenue in in terms of sales - e) there is a robust and ethical business plan in place...[/quote']

 

Which doesn't address my argument in the slightest. What I said was that if the Liebherr's pulled their investment out of the club now you'd be in trouble. i se nothing in your post to change that view. A loan repayable in not less than 5 years becomes payable now? Wages being subsidised no longer subsidised? Would you be in trouble? Yes, you would. Of course the circumstances are different, they always are because no two cases are the same but both clubs were being funded above their natural means by owners. I fail to see the essential difference

[hypochondriac]

He will get off and become the next England manager. Not sure I will be able to stand that...

[do i not like fizzy pop]

Can't see this anywhere

 

Is this the key phrase? 'The Hong Kong-based businessman, who owned the club with Israeli Levi Kushnir through a company called Portpin, is still owed £17m.

 

"I'm still in a good position," he added.

 

"I still have a debenture over the club as security on the club's full assets, so one way or another I'm going to get my money back.'

[Channon's Sideburns]

Just a thought.

 

If Charles Dickens were alive today, the Skates would be tapping him up for 'more'.

[Winchester Red]

1. Antonov agreed a business plan with the FL based on him paying the difference between income and expenditure. Antonov was the owner, he could do what he wanted regarding signing players and spending the money. If he had the money and wanted to outbid other teams for players then why shouldn't he - that's what you've been doing, isn't it? All the deals were sanctioned by the FL so why shoudl Lampitt say no? Even if he did, what would happen? He'd probably be sacked. The deals were sustainable all the time Antonov funded it. Just like you, Man City, Chelsea, Wigan, Bolton, Sunderland, Villa (shall I go on?). As for the quality over quantity argument, you're just being stupid. We chose to buy less players of a higher quality rather than a bigger squad of poorer standard. That's not "stupid" that's a strategy. Might go right, might go wrong.

2. No selling players wasn't an "aggressive act". We actually tried to sell players but the players refused to go. Personally I'm glad because even if they had gone we'd have been in the same situation next month, it would have just given AA and Chainrai more time to try and come up with a plan. As it is, it's properly brought things to a head

 

 

 

Which doesn't address my argument in the slightest. What I said was that if the Liebherr's pulled their investment out of the club now you'd be in trouble. i se nothing in your post to change that view. A loan repayable in not less than 5 years becomes payable now? Wages being subsidised no longer subsidised? Would you be in trouble? Yes, you would. Of course the circumstances are different, they always are because no two cases are the same but both clubs were being funded above their natural means by owners. I fail to see the essential difference

 

Ho, you've ignored both my posts from yesterday ....yyyyyaaaaawwwnnnnn

 

Wages are not subsidised at SFC. Our overheads are covered by our revenue. ML only invested in transfer fees, infrastructure, etc, but insists the club can 'wash it's own face' on day to day costs. Otherwise known as sensible business practise

 

Stop ignoring posts to suit your arguement

[Hatch]

I might be sick if he gets off.

[hypochondriac]

I might be sick if he gets off.

 

Not that bothered as I can still ignore him. It's if he gets the England job that I won't know what to do. That would be awful.

[trousers]

Redknapp will be found not guilty IMO.

 

If they find him guilty I'll eat his dog.

[Pedro]

Here is todays list, its beggars belief one club should ask for special treatment , poor old Kettering town FC, think we will have a whip round for them instead

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/hearing-lists/list-companies-winding-up.htm

 

See John Salako Enterprises in the court list.

[stevegrant]

Which doesn't address my argument in the slightest. What I said was that if the Liebherr's pulled their investment out of the club now you'd be in trouble. i se nothing in your post to change that view. A loan repayable in not less than 5 years becomes payable now? Wages being subsidised no longer subsidised? Would you be in trouble? Yes, you would. Of course the circumstances are different, they always are because no two cases are the same but both clubs were being funded above their natural means by owners. I fail to see the essential difference

This assumes that the wages are being subsidised. Fortunately, we're averaging crowds of nearly 26,000 this season, have increased broadcast revenue by around £4-5m compared to last season, and had the small matter of a £12m injection of funds from Arsenal in August.

[aintforever]

2. No selling players wasn't an "aggressive act". We actually tried to sell players but the players refused to go. Personally I'm glad because even if they had gone we'd have been in the same situation next month

 

Nice, who gives a sh!t if taxes gets paid or not.

[Trader]

Redknapp will be found not guilty IMO.

 

If they find him guilty I'll eat his dog.

 

She might be a bit off by now.

[Wurzel]

 

Clever photo. Accompanied by a Police Office AND up before the beak

[Kingsland Red]

Jury sent out apparently. This link might be of interest:

 

http://www.international-adviser.com/tax---technical/redknapp-what-the-jury-will-consider

 

"The mystery is why this dispute is being heard by a criminal court and not a tax tribunal" and unless we are told something after the verdict is delivered , we still will be none the wiser.

[tony13579]

Another question

Was this payment of commision or bonuses earned in the UK

or was this a personal investment passed between friends?

 

I believe the CPS proved this was a commission or bonus earned in the uk.

Harry told the NOTW it was a bonus for work in the UK.

 

I think the jury will have to follow the directions

payment was taxable, tax is not optional, paying 99% of your tax is not good enough,

the defence is just noise.

Guilty

Edited 7 February, 2012 by tony13579

[saint1977]

I've very rarely posted on this thread but those idiotic comments by Vernon-Jackson are beyond belief. It was bad enough when their moron Tory MP from Skatemouth North opened their un-educated trap and cornered the PM but now we've got their Lib-Dem Leader at it as well. Why doesn't one of the Labour councillors spout some rubbish about how unfair HMRC are being and we'll have a hat-trick? No wonder some people don't bother voting at elections!

 

I saw someone posted Penny Mordaunt's view on here that 'not all of Portsmouth's problems can be solved by the state'. By the way Penny: a) the state is £20m+ less able to help people in one of the UK's most deprived seats as a result of blatant tax avoidance and b) It isn't your state anyway, it belongs to HM The Queen and her subjects, you are part of a Government which is different as like all elected Governments, you are merely a tenant until us citizens get fed up and chuck a Government out.

 

As for Vernon-Jackson, is my memory failing me or is he the plank that demanded the BBC add Portsmouth to the UK weather broadcasts map instead of Southampton? If David Cameron did why what V-J asks, and I don't believe he will for a moment, the other 91 clubs are going to not bother paying as well. As for saying that the current regime didn't cause this, what planet is he on? It's a bit like saying Gordon Brown had no responsibility for the credit crunch, therefore we don't have to reduce the PSBR or reform our wrecked banking system.

[Kingsland Codger]

Why have a new account for this payment? Why Monaco? If the payment was not a bonus, was not work related and was therefore not liable for tax, why not pay it into an existing account?

[saint1977]

He will get off and become the next England manager. Not sure I will be able to stand that...

 

Well, I won't be following England any more whilst he's in charge if that happens!

[saintjay77]

1. Antonov agreed a business plan with the FL based on him paying the difference between income and expenditure. Antonov was the owner, he could do what he wanted regarding signing players and spending the money. If he had the money and wanted to outbid other teams for players then why shouldn't he - that's what you've been doing, isn't it? All the deals were sanctioned by the FL so why shoudl Lampitt say no? Even if he did, what would happen? He'd probably be sacked. The deals were sustainable all the time Antonov funded it. Just like you, Man City, Chelsea, Wigan, Bolton, Sunderland, Villa (shall I go on?). As for the quality over quantity argument, you're just being stupid. We chose to buy less players of a higher quality rather than a bigger squad of poorer standard. That's not "stupid" that's a strategy. Might go right, might go wrong.

2. No selling players wasn't an "aggressive act". We actually tried to sell players but the players refused to go. Personally I'm glad because even if they had gone we'd have been in the same situation next month, it would have just given AA and Chainrai more time to try and come up with a plan. As it is, it's properly brought things to a head

 

 

 

Which doesn't address my argument in the slightest. What I said was that if the Liebherr's pulled their investment out of the club now you'd be in trouble. i se nothing in your post to change that view. A loan repayable in not less than 5 years becomes payable now? Wages being subsidised no longer subsidised? Would you be in trouble? Yes, you would. Of course the circumstances are different, they always are because no two cases are the same but both clubs were being funded above their natural means by owners. I fail to see the essential difference

 

The quality over quantity argument falls down when the quality costs more than a club pompey's size can viably sustain.

 

On paper we are 4th or 4th richest club in England. Our owners could afford to bring in messi, ronaldo and several other top quality players. Should our owners then go busy or leave or stop finding us we would be around 50k short of paying supporters week in week out and short of the benifit of champions league football by a whole league which is where any club would need to be to be able to keep that quality.

 

Never mind debt that may be loaded onto a club or what you may of won once. Paying the cost of a higher level team at a lower level club is a fast track route to insolvency.

 

If our owners walked away right now the training facility upgrades would be binned and we would sell ricky, lallana, fonte and sharpe pretty quickly I would guess. Replacing them with kids from the academy to bring us back to living within the means a club our size in this league could afford.

 

It's the same thing we did when we were in admin before. Or in fact, it's what we did prior to going into admin as it was financially the correct and only thing to do.

 

What did Pompey do again????

 

[Wes Tender]

Originally Posted by Corporate Ho:

I didn’t say you were in trouble Gormless, I said IF they pulled out. And for those who have told me you’d be OK because you have assets to sell

1. By selling your best players wouldn’t that leave you in trouble anyway

2. Just how much do you currently owe?

3. What is your current wages to turnover ratio

4. How long will the Liebherr’s continue to finance you?

You all seem confident you have no worries, so I assume you can answer the above questions

Wes Tender:

Because you're the one making the assumptions that we would be in trouble if the Liebherrs were to pull out, the onus is on you to answer those questions. Because unless you do, your contention that we would be in trouble, is based on nothing concrete at all. So come on, Ho, we await your response with bated breath.

 

Ho, you're usually so diligent in answering questions asked of you, but you seem to have missed this one. As you're so full of how much trouble we'd be if the Liebherrs pulled out, perhaps you'd care to furnish us all with the benefit of your knowledge regarding our financial situation. Or failing that, a simple admission that you have no idea will suffice.

[Torres]

The deals were sustainable all the time Antonov funded it.

 

Yep, and now he's not funding it, the deals aren't sustainable and you have to pay the price. Just take your punishments and deal with it rather than squealing "it's just not fair, it's not our fault" like a bunch of spoilt little children.

 

It's no different to any other club's financial issues. All the outgoings looked "sustainable" at one point - ours, Plymouth's, Rushden's, Kettering's, Wigan's, Bolton's, Forest's - but then circumstances change. Some of those clubs have taken their punishments, others probably have them to come. None of them have pleaded to the Prime Minister to be let off their tax bills. You're no different to any of them.

 

Just accept that you're in the **** due to the deals your club signed and take the whack that's due to you.

[Truckasaurus]

there isn't going to be "a next season":scared:

[Puddings and Monkeys]

Yep, and now he's not funding it, the deals aren't sustainable and you have to pay the price. Just take your punishments and deal with it rather than squealing "it's just not fair, it's not our fault" like a bunch of spoilt little children.

 

It's no different to any other club's financial issues. All the outgoings looked "sustainable" at one point - ours, Plymouth's, Rushden's, Kettering's, Wigan's, Bolton's, Forest's - but then circumstances change. Some of those clubs have taken their punishments, others probably have them to come. None of them have pleaded to the Prime Minister to be let off their tax bills. You're no different to any of them.

 

Just accept that you're in the **** due to the deals your club signed and take the whack that's due to you.

And that's what annoys me most of all about those t@ssers - they really think they are different and should be afforded some sort of special treatment. The sooner they are extinct the better.

[Gemmel]

Judge has instructed the jury, he will only accept a unanimous verdict, which means redknapp will walk free.

 

Just not the England job........... please

[hutch]

Antonov was the owner, he could do what he wanted regarding signing players and spending the money. If he had the money and wanted to outbid other teams for players then why shouldn't he -

That's the point right there. He didn't have the money, did he?

 

If somebody came to me with a business proposition, and promised to pay later, and backed that up with a Bank Guarantee which they had typed themselves, from a foreign bank which they own, and which had already been refused a banking licence, I would send them away and ask them to come back when they can put the money up front.

 

Nobody should ever have relied on Bank Guarantees from Snoras, neither Lampitt nor the FL.

[Pugwash]

Judge has instructed the jury, he will only accept a unanimous verdict, which means redknapp will walk free.

 

Just not the England job........... please

 

They always start off by saying that though. If the jury's hung, with no prospect of a unanimous verdict, he'll probably take a 10-2.

[Gemmel]

Nobody should ever have relied on Bank Guarantees from Snoras, neither Lampitt nor the FL.

 

I think you are being a little harsh hutch. There was plenty of money in snoras....... it just wasn't his

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Not that bothered as I can still ignore him. It's if he gets the England job that I won't know what to do. That would be awful.

 

If he gets the England job then it will infer to me that English Football is totally corrupt. As to what I'd do? Carry on as now, finding very little time to walk across the room and turn the TV on for an England game.

[The Cat]

They always start off by saying that though. If the jury's hung, with no prospect of a unanimous verdict, he'll probably take a 10-2.

 

True. When I was on a jury the judge said the same. We deliberated for ages before he said he'd accept a majority verdict.

 

Redknapp will be found not guilty in this trial, but he's guilty in life of being a ****.

[hutch]

I think you are being a little harsh hutch. There was plenty of money in snoras....... it just wasn't his

To be just a little pedantic, if I may, but there wasn't plenty of money in Snoras.

 

There were plenty of assets on Snoras's Balance Sheet. But many of those assets bore a striking resemblance to Ali Al Faraj.

[moonraker]

Corpy you make the unstated assumption that if the Libherrs's decided to sell a new owner would not cover the debt. NC's links to football and very rich people gives us a head start on finding a new owner with the finnacial clout to at the very least maintain stabilty. The history of SFC is one of good finnacial mangement, our single failure finnacaially like many before and many to come was because of the gulf in incomes between the preimieship and the rest, unlike PFC who all but the most blinkered of you can see that your problems are self inflicted due to decades of inprudent finnacial management, youve got more winidng up orders in your trophy cabinet than trophies. If historically SFC are the club that existed (and will continue to exist) PFC are the club that never paid its way.

[Viking Warrior]

I wonder if the jury are singing

 

How much is that doggy in the window

the one with the monaco account

[COMEONYOUREDS]

1. Antonov agreed a business plan with the FL based on him paying the difference between income and expenditure. Antonov was the owner, he could do what he wanted regarding signing players and spending the money. If he had the money and wanted to outbid other teams for players then why shouldn't he - that's what you've been doing, isn't it? All the deals were sanctioned by the FL so why shoudl Lampitt say no? Even if he did, what would happen? He'd probably be sacked. The deals were sustainable all the time Antonov funded it. Just like you, Man City, Chelsea, Wigan, Bolton, Sunderland, Villa (shall I go on?). As for the quality over quantity argument, you're just being stupid. We chose to buy less players of a higher quality rather than a bigger squad of poorer standard. That's not "stupid" that's a strategy. Might go right, might go wrong.

2. No selling players wasn't an "aggressive act". We actually tried to sell players but the players refused to go. Personally I'm glad because even if they had gone we'd have been in the same situation next month, it would have just given AA and Chainrai more time to try and come up with a plan. As it is, it's properly brought things to a head

 

 

 

Which doesn't address my argument in the slightest. What I said was that if the Liebherr's pulled their investment out of the club now you'd be in trouble. i se nothing in your post to change that view. A loan repayable in not less than 5 years becomes payable now? Wages being subsidised no longer subsidised? Would you be in trouble? Yes, you would. Of course the circumstances are different, they always are because no two cases are the same but both clubs were being funded above their natural means by owners. I fail to see the essential difference

 

But the difference is Liebherr was an stute businessman and Antonov is (alledgedly) a member of organised crime. Thats why even after his sad passing we are still a stable football club.

 

You say we'd be in trouble, do you have any reasons for this? Do you know how much money goes in or out of SFC? No you don't. One thing you can be sure of is more money comes in and less goes out than your ****heap of a football team. Plus we have a modern stadium and top of the range training facilities that obviously helped attract Markus in the first place. Lets some up what you have:

 

A **** ground (which you don't own)

A **** training ground (which you don't own)

A load of crap overpaid players on massive wages (which once you take the debture into account, you don't own either)

A FL golden share (soon to be gone)

-£17m to the CVA

-£20m Gayboy/chinny

-£18m CSI

-£1.6m (and counting) to the taxman

-£1.6m in unpaid wages

12,000 die hard fans to pack the krap

 

Somehow I don't think saints would be in quite as much trouble if Liebherr decided to sell

 

And you still don't see the difference

[JackFrost]

Judge has instructed the jury, he will only accept a unanimous verdict, which means redknapp will walk free.

 

Just not the England job........... please

 

Course he'll get it.

[Appy]

But the difference is Liebherr was an stute businessman and Antonov is (alledgedly) a member of organised crime. Thats why even after his sad passing we are still a stable football club.

 

You say we'd be in trouble, do you have any reasons for this? Do you know how much money goes in or out of SFC? No you don't. One thing you can be sure of is more money comes in and less goes out than your ****heap of a football team. Plus we have a modern stadium and top of the range training facilities that obviously helped attract Markus in the first place. Lets some up what you have:

 

A **** ground (which you don't own)

A **** training ground (which you don't own)

A load of crap overpaid players on massive wages (which once you take the debture into account, you don't own either)

A FL golden share (soon to be gone)

-£17m to the CVA

-£20m Gayboy/chinny

-£18m CSI

-£1.6m (and counting) to the taxman

-£1.6m in unpaid wages

12,000 die hard fans to pack the krap

 

Somehow I don't think saints would be in quite as much trouble if Liebherr decided to sell

 

And you still don't see the difference

 

Judging from this, they really don't have much do they?

[JackFrost]

If he gets the England job then it will infer to me that English Football is totally corrupt. As to what I'd do? Carry on as now, finding very little time to walk across the room and turn the TV on for an England game.

 

Yep.

 

It's probably getting on 10 years since I last supported the England team

[Wes Tender]

But the difference is Liebherr was an stute businessman and Antonov is (alledgedly) a member of organised crime. Thats why even after his sad passing we are still a stable football club.

 

You say we'd be in trouble, do you have any reasons for this? Do you know how much money goes in or out of SFC? No you don't. One thing you can be sure of is more money comes in and less goes out than your ****heap of a football team. Plus we have a modern stadium and top of the range training facilities that obviously helped attract Markus in the first place. Lets some up what you have:

 

A **** ground (which you don't own)

A **** training ground (which you don't own)

A load of crap overpaid players on massive wages (which once you take the debture into account, you don't own either)

A FL golden share (soon to be gone)

-£17m to the CVA

-£20m Gayboy/chinny

-£18m CSI

-£1.6m (and counting) to the taxman

-£1.6m in unpaid wages

12,000 die hard fans to pack the krap

 

Somehow I don't think saints would be in quite as much trouble if Liebherr decided to sell

 

And you still don't see the difference

 

I've already asked the Ho (twice) to provide us all with the factual evidence that he would need to have in order to conclude that we would be in trouble if the Liebherr family pulled out. This info that would be required has been listed by him earlier, such as our current debt levels, percentage of wages to turnover ratio, etc. Perhaps he'll address this with his last remaining post of the day. But I'm not holding my breath. I don't think that he has any idea.

[100%Red&White]

If he gets the England job then it will infer to me that English Football is totally corrupt. As to what I'd do? Carry on as now, finding very little time to walk across the room and turn the TV on for an England game.

 

I just can't see how they could give him the job now, even if he's found not guilty it's only a matter of time before the next bit of dirt surfaces. If he did become England boss (if he was squeaky clean I'd say he'd be suited to it - iff!!!) then, as a fervant follower of my national team, I'd just have to do the same as when those corrupt skates were representing my country a few years back and temporarily withdraw my support.

[trousers]

@pn_neil_allen: RT @FootballNotices: According to http://t.co/ Kettering Town FC granted payment extension by HMRC

[Wade Garrett]

1. Antonov agreed a business plan with the FL based on him paying the difference between income and expenditure. Antonov was the owner, he could do what he wanted regarding signing players and spending the money. If he had the money and wanted to outbid other teams for players then why shouldn't he - that's what you've been doing, isn't it? All the deals were sanctioned by the FL so why shoudl Lampitt say no? Even if he did, what would happen? He'd probably be sacked. The deals were sustainable all the time Antonov funded it. Just like you, Man City, Chelsea, Wigan, Bolton, Sunderland, Villa (shall I go on?). As for the quality over quantity argument, you're just being stupid. We chose to buy less players of a higher quality rather than a bigger squad of poorer standard. That's not "stupid" that's a strategy. Might go right, might go wrong.

2. No selling players wasn't an "aggressive act". We actually tried to sell players but the players refused to go. Personally I'm glad because even if they had gone we'd have been in the same situation next month, it would have just given AA and Chainrai more time to try and come up with a plan. As it is, it's properly brought things to a head

 

 

 

Which doesn't address my argument in the slightest. What I said was that if the Liebherr's pulled their investment out of the club now you'd be in trouble. i se nothing in your post to change that view. A loan repayable in not less than 5 years becomes payable now? Wages being subsidised no longer subsidised? Would you be in trouble? Yes, you would. Of course the circumstances are different, they always are because no two cases are the same but both clubs were being funded above their natural means by owners. I fail to see the essential difference

 

If you can't see the difference between an honest responsible owner, and the crooks and money launderers that have been running your club, then you must be some sort of idiot.

[eurosaint]

1. Antonov agreed a business plan with the FL based on him paying the difference between income and expenditure. Antonov was the owner, he could do what he wanted regarding signing players and spending the money. If he had the money and wanted to outbid other teams for players then why shouldn't he - that's what you've been doing, isn't it? All the deals were sanctioned by the FL so why shoudl Lampitt say no? Even if he did, what would happen? He'd probably be sacked. The deals were sustainable all the time Antonov funded it. Just like you, Man City, Chelsea, Wigan, Bolton, Sunderland, Villa (shall I go on?). As for the quality over quantity argument, you're just being stupid. We chose to buy less players of a higher quality rather than a bigger squad of poorer standard. That's not "stupid" that's a strategy. Might go right, might go wrong.

2. No selling players wasn't an "aggressive act". We actually tried to sell players but the players refused to go. Personally I'm glad because even if they had gone we'd have been in the same situation next month, it would have just given AA and Chainrai more time to try and come up with a plan. As it is, it's properly brought things to a head

 

 

 

Which doesn't address my argument in the slightest. What I said was that if the Liebherr's pulled their investment out of the club now you'd be in trouble. i se nothing in your post to change that view. A loan repayable in not less than 5 years becomes payable now? Wages being subsidised no longer subsidised? Would you be in trouble? Yes, you would. Of course the circumstances are different, they always are because no two cases are the same but both clubs were being funded above their natural means by owners. I fail to see the essential difference

And you wonder why you are branded as a 'Thick Skate' !

[Saint Mikey]

@pn_neil_allen: RT @FootballNotices: According to http://t.co/ Kettering Town FC granted payment extension by HMRC

 

I'm sure the Skates will squeal about this, and claim they should be afforded the same treatment. However, did Kettering also screw the Taxman out of £30m just a year ago or so? I know it's all OldCo. NewCo bulsh!t, but surely this has to be taken into account?