COMEONYOUREDS Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 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..... But the real problem with these transfer is the ludicrous contracts 'one Peter Storrie' signed them too. That is what ruined you, not the transfer fees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfc123 Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 But the real problem with these transfer is the ludicrous contracts 'one Peter Storrie' signed them too. That is what ruined you, not the transfer fees No. See Corps reply above.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Surprisingly good analogy on the News site , commenting on the PFA's call to use another advance on the parachute payments to pay the wages, in spite of them already being earmarked to pay the CVA Read the article again, I think some people may have got it wrong. -- Gordon Taylor is in one respect like the creditor who knocks on your door and says, "where's our money?" -- And you say, "I haven't got any money, I can't pay you". -- And he says, "what about your life insurance that pays out next year?" -- And you say, "But that was to pay for the kids' education". And he says, "give me the address of the firm, I'll get it cashed in early and take the money for my clients". And you say "but what about the kids?" And he says "...." And by the way, they seem very quick to forget that they already had a big advance on the parachute money whilst they were still in the premier league. (you know Corp ..when you apparenly could afford those wages?) The football establishment has already bent its rules for them. Why should it do so yet again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 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.... I reckon that's the first intelligent post you've made! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COMEONYOUREDS Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 (edited) I've already explained it. Take a look a couple of pages back. PCC have outlined this land and stated they're willing to explore the option of a CPO to reunite it with the club and allow the stadium to be redeveloped. If we last that long You do realise with a CPO the council would have to pay a fair market value for the land? The car park is a large area, potentially a development opportunity and therefore maybe worth the £3m or so Gayboy is owed. Do you think PCC would be comfortable paying that much for the land? I seriously doubt it unless they were to sell it on at a profit, for example to a housing developer. Edited 9 February, 2012 by COMEONYOUREDS quoted wrong post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COMEONYOUREDS Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 No. See Corps reply above.... Well obviously it did, or you wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. Clearly the TV revenue didn't cover it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 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.....you make a very good point but didn't Bagpuss leave for Spurs in 2008? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COMEONYOUREDS Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Christ, for investigative genius' who journalists run to for advice (pmsl) you really do miss some big ones, don't you. Try Shlomo Narkis, Yoram Yossifoff, Ron Maneh, Marc Rich, Pierre Falcone, Jean-Christophe Mitterrand, President Jose Eduardo dos Santos, Lev Leviev. All these names have been discussed at length on Pompey Online and in articles written by various Pompey fans for sites such as 200 Percent. What about Joan Roman Riquelme, Diego Maradona, Javier Saviola and Richard Branson? I presume they've all been discussed in detail on there too, probably in the context of an ambassadorial role though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monk Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 One of the posters on the News is claiming that their academy (???) players have been sent home until further notice and will become free agents next week unless the situation is resolved. Brother in law is best friends with Asleigh Harris so I will ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 No. See Corps reply above.... Look. I've really got little against many portsmouth fans. Much of the stuff on here really is relatively friendly rivalry for me. But expecting us to actually believe any of Corp's nonsense is asking too much! I know the traditional internet thread rule is to compare someone with Hitler, but our Corp is effectively the Goebbels of the internet. Tell a lie , tell it big and tell it often, and you'll get some people to believe you. Just becasue he keeps talking drivel does not make it true. There is no way you generated enough income in the premier league to pay wages like £100k a week for Campbell. Just work out how many of the players and Redknapp etc were on ridiculous money, and do the sums. In fact I seem to recall seeing some figures (anyone got them to hand?) that showed PFC's wages alone as over 100% of income, even without other expenditure and costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COMEONYOUREDS Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 you make a very good point but didn't Bagpuss leave for Spurs in 2008? Yep, October 2008 http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_4393516,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 I've already explained it. Take a look a couple of pages back. PCC have outlined this land and stated they're willing to explore the option of a CPO to reunite it with the club and allow the stadium to be redeveloped. If we last that long Why is it that despite having it pointed out to you countless times that you keep on about player wages and say we couldn't afford them on our gates? You always (conveniently) forget that the year we won the cup, our turnover was £70m because the SKY deal was pumping nearly £50m a year into our coffers. Gate revenue was of realtively little importance. Even then our gate revenue was far greater than many similar sized PL clubs from the north as our ticket prices were way above theirs. As for where our problems stemmed from, I'd suggest it comes not from transfer fees or wages we paid but more to do (as PFC and I have pointed out before) on where the transfer fees and SKY monies disappeared to - along with owners being allowed to loan debt onto the club and then walk away still legally owed millions despite bankrupting us Errrrmmmm, call me a thickie, but are you suggesting PCC will buy FP under a CPO, give all the land to PFC and allow them to sell it on to Tescos for £20m? The question was : where is this land that PFC can sell for £20m that you stated you could do earlier on? It's not rocket science, just answer the question! And as for your second point, it's been pointed out to you countless times that you COULD NOT afford the wages, running costs, transfer fees, tax, NI, etc etc. If you COULD afford them you wouldn't have gone into admin twice and be staring down the barrel a third time! As for owners walking away, well that's another fallacy isn't it? Apart from Al Mirage - who didn't exist! - no owners have 'walked' away, but have always sold the club on, debts and all. Each and every time these sales have been given the green light by sitting directors / board members / administrators. It's perfectly legal to sell a club on plus it's liabilities. Perhaps if THE CLUB had been more choosy about who they sold to, then you wouldn't have these problems??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Errrrmmmm, call me a thickie, but are you suggesting PCC will buy FP under a CPO, give all the land to PFC and allow them to sell it on to Tescos for £20m? The question was : where is this land that PFC can sell for £20m that you stated you could do earlier on? It's not rocket science, just answer the question! And as for your second point, it's been pointed out to you countless times that you COULD NOT afford the wages, running costs, transfer fees, tax, NI, etc etc. If you COULD afford them you wouldn't have gone into admin twice and be staring down the barrel a third time! As for owners walking away, well that's another fallacy isn't it? Apart from Al Mirage - who didn't exist! - no owners have 'walked' away, but have always sold the club on, debts and all. Each and every time these sales have been given the green light by sitting directors / board members / administrators, and fans. It's perfectly legal to sell a club on plus it's liabilities. Perhaps if THE CLUB had been more choosy about who they sold to, then you wouldn't have these problems??? Added an important bit for you hth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 (edited) http://www.taylorwalton.co.uk/blog/high-noon-at-portsmouth/ High Noon at Portsmouth Published by Taylor Walton Admin (February 9th, 2012) Just when you thought Pompey had gone through every cliche….just like buses, another is sure to come along. Following last years’ Administration of Convers Sports Initiatives Plc (CSI) (if not before) the hunt was on for a new owner of Pompey. The Chairman (and Stakeholder in the Club’s parent company) stepped down and then, whilst continuing to try and sell the Club, on 3 January 2012, Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) sought to wind up the Club seeking £1.6 million in tax. This changed everything, especially the efforts to sell the Club. As of the 3rd January, every disposition by the Clubs directors between then and the hearing on 20th February is deemed void by s.127 of the Insolvency Act1986, unless the Club pays off HMRC or gets rid of the Winding up petition. The winding up is not just a test for the Clubs owners. It is also a test for its secured creditors, Portpin Limited. If the secured creditors want to maintain the current value of their “claim” they must either pay to get rid of the winding up petition or sell to a new owner (whose job it would be to get rid of the Petition without triggering Administration). As an aside; even if the Club or Portpin Limited or a new buyer were to pay off this petitioner (HMRC) why would they pay though the nose to do so? If that miracle was to happen and HMRC were paid off, the Club would likely avoid any point deduction from this winding up procedure but that still leaves the threat of a points deduction following the Administration of the Club’s parent company CSI Remember what was reported at the time about the possibility of a points deduction ? That issue has yet to be resolved. The various machinations at Pompey over the last two years have not changed two central points: 1. The Debenture over Portsmouth City Football Club, currently registered to a British Virgin Island company named “Portpin Ltd”, has meant that who ever controlled Portpin’s debenture, effectively controlled the fate of Pompey. 2. The second “truth” is that despite its financial difficulties Pompey has had a variety of people whom have wanted to own the shares and invest money into the Club to keep it trading – unfortunately they appear to have lost their shirts. The latest is Mr Vladimir Antonov, stakeholder in CSI (In Administration). The Administrators of CSI were also the Administrators of Pompey when it was last in Administration. Oh, the latest cliches? Well first there were the prospective buyers manoeuvres, as seen on the BBC webite along with my analysis of “Where Does Pompey Go Now?” via BBC Radio Solent and TalkSport Radio. Finally an honourable mention to those Tweeters who use #Pompey Then there was the unpaid players and ground staff And finally, the last minute validation application [i am sure that will be along any minute] The Winding up Petition means that Portpin Ltd, owners of the Debenture over Pompey now have two choices. One of these involves getting off the pot and selling the club. Question is, with such a traumatic (and potentially expensive) recent history, still fresh in their minds, who would now want to take Mr Antonov’s [CSI] place as Pompey’s unsecured but very generous benefactor; buying this struggling club but without also asking to take the place of the Debenture holder ? The date of the hearing is set for 20th February at the Companies Court in London. If the Debenture owners don’t act before “High Noon” then Portsmouth’s Football Club will very likely cease to exist on that day. What next? If the Debenture holders are holding out they may want to consider what happens if judgement in the case of the “Football Creditors Rule” comes in early, say before the 20th February?………… but more on that in my next blog Guy Thomas a partner at Taylor Walton LLP is an Insolvency Lawyer with a specialism in Football Finance. Edited 9 February, 2012 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfc123 Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 you make a very good point but didn't Bagpuss leave for Spurs in 2008? 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.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 David Up North(ish) @S13SFC @InsolvencyGuy That validation order seems troublesome to get for PFC doesn't it, especially as they said it would be done in 48hrs! Guy Thomas @InsolvencyGuy @S13SFC @InsolvencyGuy Order tougher to get this close to 20 Feb. Court'll ask #Pompey where is Portpin? Will ask Portpin why not in Admin? Guy Thomas @InsolvencyGuy RT @S13SFC "@InsolvencyGuy ...rumours that...they applied 10days ago ...rejected hence ...begging all comers for ££" Interesting! #pompey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Penny Mordaunt MP "Mad morning liaising between hmrc and pfc. Debate on football governance starting- hoping for ministerial support for a community buy out." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Penny Mordaunt MP "Mad morning liaising between hmrc and pfc. Debate on football governance starting- hoping for ministerial support for a community buy out."so the nation will be asked to bail Pompey out again. amazing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 (edited) Penny Mordaunt MP "Mad morning liaising between hmrc and pfc. Debate on football governance starting- hoping for ministerial support for a community buy out." Live coverage here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8167000/8167511.stm Edited 9 February, 2012 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 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..... Nope not right - does not factor in the payments out in paying off sold player contracts - which can neutralise any 'gross profit' - sell a player for 2 mil who has 12 months left of a 30k a week contract and he is due 1.5 mil of that- add in agent fees and bonus payments due and some of these can leave the club with a loss - the only gain is a wage reduction... which for pompey did not seem to work as you kept signing more players, easy to see why who were already 38mil in debt by dec of the cup win season... and this just kept grpowing and growing and growing..... your figures only show gross difefrence between tansfer fes paid and received - your transfer fees paid do not include agent fees or signing on fees... which is another matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Penny Mordaunt MP "Mad morning liaising between hmrc and pfc. Debate on football governance starting- hoping for ministerial support for a community buy out." Either deluded or securing local votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Even I'm bored of this now, can we put Harry to one side and focus on PFC? So, admin next week in all likelihood but what will the points deduction be? SURELY not just the standard 10 after all they've done? So will the 10 be immediate, or delayed pending a decision on the final amount? 10 won't send them down, solely because they've signed and kept half decent players by borrowing from corrupt owners and not paying tax. Are there therefore not massive causes for complaint from their relegation rivals? Forest, Cov, Donnie etc will literally be being cheated out of the league by Portsmouth. Are their fans aware of this? It is our job to spread the good word about the DCFSBs, I have educated football fans of clubs up and down the country of what they have been doing. The fact that they have not started paying a single penny of the CVA debt startles most people - there seems to be a perception that they paid it off when 'exiting' administration. We need to get on the forum of Forrest, Cov, Donny, Millwall etc and make them aware of the criminal and immoral goings on, and link them to this magnificent thread. Penny Mordaunt MP "Mad morning liaising between hmrc and pfc. Debate on football governance starting- hoping for ministerial support for a community buy out." A community buy out would be fine Penny,just stop begging for government and tax payer funding. If the local skates want to fund Ben-Haims £36k a week out of their wages then fine, I have not complaints with that at all, I will simply PMSL... The community could also look at installing a toilet, and getting the fat out of the water pipes - any good at plumbing Penny? All this for the satisfaction of paying off a vicious loan shark and gun runner with tens of millions of your hard earned cash! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Did you all hear back from No 10, re Petty Penny, nah! thought not. As I said earlier, it doesn't pay to be honest in this country, you just get shafted time and again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chin Strain Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Also, of course we were in League One at the time, all those above us (& the Skates) were in the Championship. And a lot of clubs restricted the numbers we could take (Brentford, D&R etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 I've already explained it. Take a look a couple of pages back. PCC have outlined this land and stated they're willing to explore the option of a CPO to reunite it with the club and allow the stadium to be redeveloped. If we last that long So, in other words, you don't own the land and there are no plans for you to sell the land you don't own to Tescos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfc123 Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Nope not right - does not factor in the payments out in paying off sold player contracts - which can neutralise any 'gross profit' - sell a player for 2 mil who has 12 months left of a 30k a week contract and he is due 1.5 mil of that- 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.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Kirkup Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 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.... Not so. Only if the player officially asks for a transfer. If the club decide to sell without the player requesting a transfer they must pay up the contract - these payments are usually incorporated into the price the selling club demand for said player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Penny on now.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8167000/8167511.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COMEONYOUREDS Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 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.... Oh dear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 (edited) Penny on now.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8167000/8167511.stm "The appalling fit and proper person test has let Pompey supporters down" "Pleased to announce that HMRC will be back around the table with Portsmouth Football club tomorrow" "Portsmouth Football Club WILL survive" Edited 9 February, 2012 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 They've got a ******* meeting with HMRC tomorrow. Cheats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Penny on now.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8167000/8167511.stm Penny "the trust were required to provide proof of funds to 5 X the value of the club" "hmrc will be round the table tomorrow" ......interesting ......have you got £1.8m, no, bye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyinthesky Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Look. I've really got little against many portsmouth fans. Much of the stuff on here really is relatively friendly rivalry for me. But expecting us to actually believe any of Corp's nonsense is asking too much! I know the traditional internet thread rule is to compare someone with Hitler, but our Corp is effectively the Goebbels of the internet. Tell a lie , tell it big and tell it often, and you'll get some people to believe you. Just becasue he keeps talking drivel does not make it true. There is no way you generated enough income in the premier league to pay wages like £100k a week for Campbell. Just work out how many of the players and Redknapp etc were on ridiculous money, and do the sums. In fact I seem to recall seeing some figures (anyone got them to hand?) that showed PFC's wages alone as over 100% of income, even without other expenditure and costs. Reminds me of the SCUM strike breaker lie when in actual fact it was Portsmouth Dockers in the mid 70's who turned out to be strike breakers going against their 'brothers' down in Plymouth in a dispute over the emerging Brittany Ferry service. It was Soton Dockers who took up the cause and blockaded Portsmouth Commercial Docks. None of this ever gets reported but by shouting loud enough the fairly story about Soton strike breakers has passed into folklore I wonder if Ho picked up his elaboration of the facts from a relative working in Pompey Docks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Keith Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 They've got a ******* meeting with HMRC tomorrow. HMRC enter room HMRC : "have you got our money?" Lumpitt : er...bull****.....NOPE" HMRC : "see ya" HMRC leave room Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporate Ho Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 You do realise with a CPO the council would have to pay a fair market value for the land? The car park is a large area, potentially a development opportunity and therefore maybe worth the £3m or so Gayboy is owed. Do you think PCC would be comfortable paying that much for the land? I seriously doubt it unless they were to sell it on at a profit, for example to a housing developer. Fair market value is the phrase though, isn't it? The problem up until now is that Gaydamak has been asking for way in excess of fair market value. If PCC buy it via a CPO they could then sell it on to the club at fair market value. The Tesco scheme that was planned involved moving/ rotating the stadium so the whole area is required. Gaydamak can’t sell direct to Tesco as the whole space is required and PCC would block any proposal that didn’t involve stadium redevelopment anyway. This is all covered in the PCC planning document I posted a few days back, including the CPO option. Why not actually read it before having a pop at me Look. I've really got little against many portsmouth fans. Much of the stuff on here really is relatively friendly rivalry for me. But expecting us to actually believe any of Corp's nonsense is asking too much! There is no way you generated enough income in the premier league to pay wages like £100k a week for Campbell. Just work out how many of the players and Redknapp etc were on ridiculous money, and do the sums. In fact I seem to recall seeing some figures (anyone got them to hand?) that showed PFC's wages alone as over 100% of income, even without other expenditure and costs. I’m not lying and you’re talking ********. The David Conn article that I’ve posted God knows how many times before shows that in the year we won the cup our wages to turnover ratio was 76% at £54.7m, the same ballpark ratio as Villa, Blackburn, Bolton, Fulham, Boro, Newcastle & West Ham – or most mid table PL clubs if you prefer. Our turnover that year was £70.5m which is considerably more than most of those clubs, partly due to our cup run and partly due to the fact that our ticket prices were a lot higher than many Northern clubs who need to offer lower prices due to more competition from other clubs in their area. Our debt level was also in line with many of those clubs and actually considerably less than some of them. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt On the subject of Sol Campbell’s wages, the link below (which again I’ve posted several times before) clearly shows that he was on nowhere near £100K a week, as you and others on here keep claiming and that we did pay his FA Cup bonus so could afford it at the time. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/portsmouth/7028987/Sol-Campbell-sues-Portsmouth-for-1.7m-as-club-loses-tax-appeal.html Errrrmmmm, call me a thickie, but are you suggesting PCC will buy FP under a CPO, give all the land to PFC and allow them to sell it on to Tescos for £20m? The question was : where is this land that PFC can sell for £20m that you stated you could do earlier on? It's not rocket science, just answer the question! And as for your second point, it's been pointed out to you countless times that you COULD NOT afford the wages, running costs, transfer fees, tax, NI, etc etc. If you COULD afford them you wouldn't have gone into admin twice and be staring down the barrel a third time! As for owners walking away, well that's another fallacy isn't it? Apart from Al Mirage - who didn't exist! - no owners have 'walked' away, but have always sold the club on, debts and all. Each and every time these sales have been given the green light by sitting directors / board members / administrators. It's perfectly legal to sell a club on plus it's liabilities. Perhaps if THE CLUB had been more choosy about who they sold to, then you wouldn't have these problems??? 1. You’re a thickie. Read my post above ref the CPO. FYI it’s Gaydamak’s land they’re talking about for the CPO, not Fratton Park. But as I’ve said before, it’s all detailed in the PCC planning document I posted a couple of days ago. Please read it thoroughly before commenting again. 2. See the link above to the David Conn article. Yes we had debts (in line with most PL clubs) but running into your third point, the transfer fees we received, even allowing for agents fees etc along with £50m a year from SKY should have been more than enough to pay debts down to very manageable levels and avoid admin. The question then is what happened to those transfer fees and SKY money and how did the debts increase rather than come down? The only answer is someone took that money out of the club. Nope not right - does not factor in the payments out in paying off sold player contracts - which can neutralise any 'gross profit' - sell a player for 2 mil who has 12 months left of a 30k a week contract and he is due 1.5 mil of that- add in agent fees and bonus payments due and some of these can leave the club with a loss - the only gain is a wage reduction... which for pompey did not seem to work as you kept signing more players' date=' easy to see why who were already 38mil in debt by dec of the cup win season... and this just kept grpowing and growing and growing..... your figures only show gross difefrence between tansfer fes paid and received - your transfer fees paid do not include agent fees or signing on fees... which is another matter.[/quote'] I think you’re mistaken in your statement about player contracts FC. I believe it’s the loyalty bonus that needs to be paid off, not the entire contract (happy to be corrected if anyone can provide a link proving otherwise). I’ve already commented on transfer fees etc in the post above so won’t repeat myself BUT will say again that after we won the cup we didn’t keep signing marquee names and brought in around £75m in transfer fees so how did the debt continue to grow unless money was siphoned out of the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 If I remember correctly we were offering agents some pretty big incentives to shift our high earning underacheivers in our administration season or the one before it. If a player is on say 15K a week and doing absolutely sod all then it's in your interest to offer incentive to be shot of him. If you have to pay a 100K bonus to rid yourself of 400/500K salary + charges to a non-contributor then you'll do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/business/local-business/pompey_boss_braced_for_administration_1_3506126 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfc123 Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Not so. Only if the player officially asks for a transfer. If the club decide to sell without the player requesting a transfer they must pay up the contract - these payments are usually incorporated into the price the selling club demand for said player 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 I think you’re mistaken in your statement about player contracts FC. I believe it’s the loyalty bonus that needs to be paid off, not the entire contract Correct, to the best of my knowledge. This is why most smaller clubs insist that their top players hand in a transfer request in order to get a move away. It's a bonus that would be due on completion of the full duration of the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/business/local-business/pompey_boss_braced_for_administration_1_3506126 "Michael Appleton has admitted he is prepared for Pompey to go into administration. The News understands that debenture holder Balram Chainrai is close to carrying out the action. The move would put off the HMRC winding-up petition hearing scheduled for Monday, February 20 but would see Pompey hit with a points deduction. It would also be the second time Chainrai has put Pompey into administration. And Appleton today said Pompey must get ready for the scenario." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saints foreva Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 They've got a ******* meeting with HMRC tomorrow. Cheats. They're going to get away with it... again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 "Michael Appleton has admitted he is prepared for Pompey to go into administration. The News understands that debenture holder Balram Chainrai is close to carrying out the action. The move would put off the HMRC winding-up petition hearing scheduled for Monday, February 20 but would see Pompey hit with a points deduction. It would also be the second time Chainrai has put Pompey into administration. And Appleton today said Pompey must get ready for the scenario."great news looks like the wheels are falling off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COMEONYOUREDS Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 (edited) Fair market value is the phrase though, isn't it? The problem up until now is that Gaydamak has been asking for way in excess of fair market value. If PCC buy it via a CPO they could then sell it on to the club at fair market value. The Tesco scheme that was planned involved moving/ rotating the stadium so the whole area is required. Gaydamak can’t sell direct to Tesco as the whole space is required and PCC would block any proposal that didn’t involve stadium redevelopment anyway. This is all covered in the PCC planning document I posted a few days back, including the CPO option. Why not actually read it before having a pop at me Yes thats why i used it! :confused: F*cks sake you muppet, i actually wasn't having a pop at you, but now i will. You are a tw*t of the highest order. Christ almighty are you really that f*cking stupid? All im doing is quoting the law, fair market value. It doesn't matter what Gayboy wants or thinks, if PCC CPO the land they have to pay for it at fair market value. This is still going to be a lot of money but quite possibly less than Gaydamak wants. Its a big area on a city centre site, even in Portsmouth that has value, despite the ****ty non lawful covenant that may or may not be on it. Do you think PCC residents will be happy about the council tax paying for that? The very last thing that is going to happen is PCC buy the land for say £3 million, and give it to Pompey for free. From what i can tell thats what you seem to think will happen. Seeing as you are a toy salesman Steve I will deduce that I know far more about this sort of thing than you do, you cretin Edited 9 February, 2012 by COMEONYOUREDS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 great news looks like the wheels are falling off Maybe....but you just know that a certain someone will find enough major creditors to squeeze out HMRC....again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamsaint Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 I don't know what the points deduction is for a second administration, but i have a sneaky suspicion that someone within pfc, (maybe lumpitt) has gambled that they can keep the sqaud together , and survive a points deduction of somewhere around 15 points........hence the lack of player sales. of course there are a whole shed load of other factors, but its not impossible. looking at the news, perhaps chanrai has decided that admin is the least expensive option,although the wages bill will hurt if admin lasts more than a few weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COMEONYOUREDS Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 I’m not lying and you’re talking ********. The David Conn article that I’ve posted God knows how many times before shows that in the year we won the cup our wages to turnover ratio was 76% at £54.7m, the same ballpark ratio as Villa, Blackburn, Bolton, Fulham, Boro, Newcastle & West Ham – or most mid table PL clubs if you prefer. Our turnover that year was £70.5m which is considerably more than most of those clubs, partly due to our cup run and partly due to the fact that our ticket prices were a lot higher than many Northern clubs who need to offer lower prices due to more competition from other clubs in their area. Our debt level was also in line with many of those clubs and actually considerably less than some of them. I think your missing the major point that none of us give a flying **** what your wages/turnover ratio was in 2008, all that matters is the here and now. How's that going by the way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/549142777?-11209 This makes you want to laugh out loud What's the betting this'll get peddled in court on the 20th? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Not so. Only if the player officially asks for a transfer. If the club decide to sell without the player requesting a transfer they must pay up the contract - these payments are usually incorporated into the price the selling club demand for said player Not true. I;ve seen St Chalet say this before, but it is wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsland Red Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Penny Mordaunt MP "Mad morning liaising between hmrc and pfc. Debate on football governance starting- hoping for ministerial support for a community buy out." So who is pfc - BC, AA , DL or the good lady herself ? It will be intersesting to see who will be representing them at this supposed meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts