sussexsaint Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 TCWTBell could soon be TCWTBall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 As long as they can get 7 players onto the pitch, they can start the game - they have plenty of spares :lol::lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 The whole football creditors rule should be so easy to overcome. 2 new football rules are all that's needed 1) Transfer fees must be payed in full, in one installment, before a player's registration at a new club becomes effective. 2) No club can select a player for a match who's salary is more than 31 days in arrears (in accordance with the terms of his contract) Might start seeing some sanity in the transfer / wages market then. Football debts could then be treated the same as every other debt because effectively there should never be any. I don't have a problem with transfer fees being paid in instalments or being incentivised (i.e. extra payments based on the player and/or team fulfilling certain criteria), but they should simply do away with the Football Creditors rule for any transfers conducted from this summer onwards. It should remain in place for transfers that have already taken place because I don't think it's particularly fair on selling clubs to move the goalposts on a deal they concluded under the old system of secure knowledge that they'll receive 100% of the agreed fees, but from the summer onwards, it should be down to selling clubs to do due diligence on any other club they're looking to do business with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/appy_to_seek_league_s_assistance_1_3521505 They should be forced to use their under 18's to plug the gaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 The football leagues argument over the football creditors rule, is basically that a lot of clubs will go bust and there will be a crisis in football, if clubs can't rack up and then dump millions of pounds worth of tax debts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 this forming of a new club incorporating old and new names and history should be the way forward. I for one would fully respect new local rivals Havant and Portalooville. Had to chuckle at the irony and honesty of Ridsdale on the radio just now asking how on earth Rangers could be allowed to spend big fees on players when they hadn't paid their tax bill. Yeah, welcome to our world Peter, you have finally caught up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 They should be forced to use their under 18's to plug the gaps. Like every other skint club has had to. The arrogance of the skates is astounding, they seem to think they have a god given right to field a strong first eleven regardless of the financial state of the club. We went into a game against Man Utd with Mat Paterson up front FFS, we were actually TRYING to pay our debts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 I have no time for the skates or their board however I do feel a tad sad for Michael Appleton. I listened to him on Radio 5 last night and clearly he has been duped and had the wool pulled over his eys by Chanria and co promising him money etc if he took the job. Quite a frank admission he made on the radio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 I have no time for the skates or their board however I do feel a tad sad for Michael Appleton. I listened to him on Radio 5 last night and clearly he has been duped and had the wool pulled over his eys by Chanria and co promising him money etc if he took the job. Quite a frank admission he made on the radio He seems to be pretty much the only person down there coming out of this situation with any sort of credit. However, I would also argue that he was rather naive to take Lampitt and Antonov's promises at face value when even the slightest bit of research (and apparently a West Brom director warned him of the pending crisis) would have painted a fairly bleak picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Listening to that skate fan the other day. We are a massive club with a massive fan base etc . There is a catchment area of 400K and we put bums on seats every week. Well if your that big Mrs Blue Skate how come only 3.5% of that catchment area turned up and your dingy ground?. have you been attending the android school of spin ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 ... so Mr Appleton simply do the Maths - 1 player on 20k a week or 2 on 10k a week or 4 on 5k a week? Or even given teh size of your revenue may I suggest 3 players on 3k a week? Like the clubs that are trying to maintain a sensible financial structure? ...Oh sorry, missed the transfer window? missed the last 8 transfer windows when something could have been done to prevent this situation? ... (NB. think Apleton is an OK guy and its not his fault, but by entering the public debate on this - he becomes fair game. If he had said publically, ''FFS, I told those idiotic ****s in the board room that I dont need 1 player on 20k... I need 5 players on 3k...NOW, but would the feckers listen? No, which is why its easy to see why we are ins uch a fecking mess'' ) RE Stevie Grant's point - problem with doing due diligence etc is that its impossible to predict everything and so if you sell a player to club the defaults, it potentially leads to you defaultig on your own schems... thus a blanket ban on deferred payments is the only way really - yes it might cause issues with so called triggered payments such appearences, caps etc... but then it would as a result almost certyainly see transfer fees come down to more realistic and sustainable levels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie66 Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Not alone in our contempt for all things blue. The word is spreading http://www.lifesapitch.co.uk/opinions/its-hard-to-feel-sorry-for-portsmouths-plight/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 I don't have a problem with transfer fees being paid in instalments or being incentivised (i.e. extra payments based on the player and/or team fulfilling certain criteria), but they should simply do away with the Football Creditors rule for any transfers conducted from this summer onwards. It should remain in place for transfers that have already taken place because I don't think it's particularly fair on selling clubs to move the goalposts on a deal they concluded under the old system of secure knowledge that they'll receive 100% of the agreed fees, but from the summer onwards, it should be down to selling clubs to do due diligence on any other club they're looking to do business with. I meant on future deals from a set date, clearly it would be wrong to change the terms of existing deals retrospectively. I guess you're right though, simply doing away with the football creditors rule would mean no rule would be needed that transfers must be paid up front. It would be up to the selling club if they were prepared to take that risk of receiving installments. Paying up front would probably become self fulfilling in a few years anyway - after all if someone had done due-diligence on Pompey 6 months ago what would they have seen? Probably enough to think they were good for the money. Word soon gets round, and once bitten twice shy, any club letting another club down would find it very hard buying players in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporate Ho Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 FFS Appleton.....try recalling the academy players that were stood down last week? Call me old fashioned..... They should be forced to use their under 18's to plug the gaps. OK, let's put the "our team was fiull of kids" myth to bed once and for all. On of your posters (Chez?) posted the following appearances by your "kids". [TABLE=width: 165] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, width: 156, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Bartosz Bialkowski [/TD] [TD=width: 64, bgcolor: transparent, align: right]3[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Nathan Dyer [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]4[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Simon Gillett [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]27[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Oscar Gobern [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]6[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Lee Holmes [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]11[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Lloyd James [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]41[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Oliver Lancashire [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]11[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Kayne McLaggon [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]7[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Joseph Mills [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]8[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Lee Molyneux [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]4[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Matthew Paterson [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]11[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Alex Pearce [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]9[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Tomas Pekhart [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]9[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jordan Robertson [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]10[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Ryan Smith [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]13[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jake Thomson [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]10[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jamie White [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]3[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent]Total[/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]187[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jack Cork [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]23[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Adam Lallana [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]40[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]David McGoldrick [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]46[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Morgan Schneiderlin [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]30[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Andrew Surman[/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]44[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] I've taken some of them out of the "kid list" because Surman was already established in the first team, Lallana was already breaking into it the season before, Cork was a loan, Scheiderlin cost £1m and McGoldrick was already 22 and had played in the first team fairly regularly two years before. So none of these were "kids" that you were forced to play out of desperation or cost cutting. That leaves players making a total of 187 appearances. Of those, Lee Holmes was a player you signed that summer by outbidding Leeds & Pekhart and Robertson were loans. So, not exactly "kids" bumped up from your youth team any more than some of the loan players we've played over the last couple of seasons. Taking those out of the equation gives you what I'd agree in calling "kids" a total of 157 appearances across the season. Now, I'm assuming many of these appearances were as sub but we'll count them anyway. That means out of a total possible players across the season of 672 (11 starting and 3 subs across 46 league and 2 cup games) your "kids" made up a total of 23% of the total players you played. Or to put it another way, your team averaged 2.5 "kids" per game. Not exactly the youth team you try to portray, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 I meant on future deals from a set date, clearly it would be wrong to change the terms of existing deals retrospectively. I guess you're right though, simply doing away with the football creditors rule would mean no rule would be needed that transfers must be paid up front. It would be up to the selling club if they were prepared to take that risk of receiving installments. Paying up front would probably become self fulfilling in a few years anyway - after all if someone had done due-diligence on Pompey 6 months ago what would they have seen? Probably enough to think they were good for the money. Word soon gets round, and once bitten twice shy, any club letting another club down would find it very hard buying players in future. Definitely. The Football League/Premier League (actually, **** it, it should be an FA directive, they should re-stamp their authority on the game they are supposed to govern) should basically replace the Football Creditors rule with sporting sanctions for non-payment of agreed transfer fees and tax. If clubs knew they'd be docked points if they missed payments (or were significantly late), they'd soon get their house in order. The Conference should be used as a blueprint here, they regularly impose points deductions for teams missing payment deadlines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 I've taken some of them out of the "kid list" because Surman was already established in the first team, Lallana was already breaking into it the season before, Cork was a loan, Scheiderlin cost £1m and McGoldrick was already 22 and had played in the first team fairly regularly two years before. Schneiderlin cost €250k. No idea where this bizarre £1m figure comes from. Of those, Lee Holmes was a player you signed that summer by outbidding Leeds I'm intrigued as to what Leeds offered, then, considering we signed him on a free transfer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 this forming of a new club incorporating old and new names and history should be the way forward. I for one would fully respect new local rivals Havant and Portalooville. Had to chuckle at the irony and honesty of Ridsdale on the radio just now asking how on earth Rangers could be allowed to spend big fees on players when they hadn't paid their tax bill. Yeah, welcome to our world Peter, you have finally caught up. Love it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Corpy you have earned some respect from me recently only to lose it with a post like this... I suggest you put the wages earned next to each of the players then a time line against each player played for us Wages went down and so did the quality of footy played. Larger wage earners were moved on...this is completely different to you guys and what you have doing. We tried to pay our way and Pompey haven't - for whatever reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 (edited) I don't have a problem with transfer fees being paid in instalments or being incentivised (i.e. extra payments based on the player and/or team fulfilling certain criteria), but they should simply do away with the Football Creditors rule for any transfers conducted from this summer onwards. It should remain in place for transfers that have already taken place because I don't think it's particularly fair on selling clubs to move the goalposts on a deal they concluded under the old system of secure knowledge that they'll receive 100% of the agreed fees, but from the summer onwards, it should be down to selling clubs to do due diligence on any other club they're looking to do business with. I agree with that, The current rule is there sue to another rule that says if you dont pay footballing debts up in full then you will be kicked out of the league. If they get rid of the creditors rule all they have to do is change the other rule to suit. like changing it to, if you cant pay footballing debts in full you will recieve a league demotion and a massive points penalty for the following season. An adminitstration would automatically trigger that rule of course. Clubs would have to be a bit more thoughtful on how they do their business but it wouldnt stop them trading. Prices may become a little more realistic in some cases and the financial fair play rules would be allot easier to live by as clubs lower down the league would be much more inclined to live within their means anyway. The FL/FA or who ever it is are a bit daft to think that their current rule is the only or best way forward IMO. EDIT: To add to that I would also put in a release/recall clause into any players contract with the selling club is still owed money. That way the selling club could bring their partly purchaced player back and be allowed to re-sell him for the remaining debt. Other clubs would get the chance of buying a player at a cut down value boosting their chances and the selling club would not be out of pocket and therefor facing an admin of their own. The owness would always be on the buying club to live within their means or face potentially puttin them selves out of business with any miss-management. Edited 15 February, 2012 by saintjay77 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 OK, let's put the "our team was fiull of kids" myth to bed once and for all. On of your posters (Chez?) posted the following appearances by your "kids". [TABLE=width: 165] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, width: 156, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Bartosz Bialkowski [/TD] [TD=width: 64, bgcolor: transparent, align: right]3[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Nathan Dyer [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]4[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Simon Gillett [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]27[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Oscar Gobern [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]6[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Lee Holmes [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]11[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Lloyd James [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]41[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Oliver Lancashire [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]11[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Kayne McLaggon [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]7[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Joseph Mills [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]8[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Lee Molyneux [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]4[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Matthew Paterson [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]11[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Alex Pearce [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]9[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Tomas Pekhart [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]9[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jordan Robertson [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]10[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Ryan Smith [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]13[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jake Thomson [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]10[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jamie White [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]3[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent]Total[/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]187[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jack Cork [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]23[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Adam Lallana [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]40[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]David McGoldrick [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]46[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Morgan Schneiderlin [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]30[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Andrew Surman[/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]44[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] I've taken some of them out of the "kid list" because Surman was already established in the first team, Lallana was already breaking into it the season before, Cork was a loan, Scheiderlin cost £1m and McGoldrick was already 22 and had played in the first team fairly regularly two years before. So none of these were "kids" that you were forced to play out of desperation or cost cutting. That leaves players making a total of 187 appearances. Of those, Lee Holmes was a player you signed that summer by outbidding Leeds & Pekhart and Robertson were loans. So, not exactly "kids" bumped up from your youth team any more than some of the loan players we've played over the last couple of seasons. Taking those out of the equation gives you what I'd agree in calling "kids" a total of 157 appearances across the season. Now, I'm assuming many of these appearances were as sub but we'll count them anyway. That means out of a total possible players across the season of 672 (11 starting and 3 subs across 46 league and 2 cup games) your "kids" made up a total of 23% of the total players you played. Or to put it another way, your team averaged 2.5 "kids" per game. Not exactly the youth team you try to portray, is it? I look forward to your comparative set Barbie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporate Ho Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Definitely. The Football League/Premier League (actually, **** it, it should be an FA directive, they should re-stamp their authority on the game they are supposed to govern) should basically replace the Football Creditors rule with sporting sanctions for non-payment of agreed transfer fees and tax. If clubs knew they'd be docked points if they missed payments (or were significantly late), they'd soon get their house in order. The Conference should be used as a blueprint here, they regularly impose points deductions for teams missing payment deadlines. Problem is Granty at present there's nothing to prevent any club owner racking up debt by signing players or loading debt onto a club and then walking away leaving the club broke and himself as a secured creditor with no risk. Sporting sanctions and points penalties mean nothing to people like Chainrai. What do they care if the club's docked points or are relegated? They still have their snouts in the trough One idea that's come up on POL is for anyone buying a club needing to deposit enough funds into an escrow account overseen by the FA/ FL to guarantee it can at least see out the season or possibly even two seasons. Another idea would be to make any owners personally responsible for any debt incurred at a club whilst they were there. Both good ideas but neither will happen as out governing bodies seem toothless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 OK, let's put the "our team was fiull of kids" myth to bed once and for all. On of your posters (Chez?) posted the following appearances by your "kids". I've taken some of them out of the "kid list" because Surman was already established in the first team, Lallana was already breaking into it the season before, Cork was a loan, Scheiderlin cost £1m and McGoldrick was already 22 and had played in the first team fairly regularly two years before. So none of these were "kids" that you were forced to play out of desperation or cost cutting. That leaves players making a total of 187 appearances. Of those, Lee Holmes was a player you signed that summer by outbidding Leeds & Pekhart and Robertson were loans. So, not exactly "kids" bumped up from your youth team any more than some of the loan players we've played over the last couple of seasons. Taking those out of the equation gives you what I'd agree in calling "kids" a total of 157 appearances across the season. Now, I'm assuming many of these appearances were as sub but we'll count them anyway. That means out of a total possible players across the season of 672 (11 starting and 3 subs across 46 league and 2 cup games) your "kids" made up a total of 23% of the total players you played. Or to put it another way, your team averaged 2.5 "kids" per game. Not exactly the youth team you try to portray, is it? I doubt you'll reply to this, but here goes... - Southampton went into Admin in April 2009. They didn't sign any players between going into admin and the takeover. Before that they used 18 -21 year olds when needed. - Pompey are going into admin in February 2012 whilst the loan window is still open. They have under 18 players that can be used and should be used. Southampton had more players than Pompey do, but they did use the younger members of the squad and didn't need to get to the under 18's. Pompey on the other hand have a small squad and refuse to use the players in the under 18's already at the club and instead want to add new senior players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 ... so Mr Appleton simply do the Maths - 1 player on 20k a week or 2 on 10k a week or 4 on 5k a week? Or even given teh size of your revenue may I suggest 3 players on 3k a week? Like the clubs that are trying to maintain a sensible financial structure? ...Oh sorry, missed the transfer window? missed the last 8 transfer windows when something could have been done to prevent this situation? ... (NB. think Apleton is an OK guy and its not his fault, but by entering the public debate on this - he becomes fair game. If he had said publically, ''FFS, I told those idiotic ****s in the board room that I dont need 1 player on 20k... I need 5 players on 3k...NOW, but would the feckers listen? No, which is why its easy to see why we are ins uch a fecking mess'' ) RE Stevie Grant's point - problem with doing due diligence etc is that its impossible to predict everything and so if you sell a player to club the defaults, it potentially leads to you defaultig on your own schems... thus a blanket ban on deferred payments is the only way really - yes it might cause issues with so called triggered payments such appearences, caps etc... but then it would as a result almost certyainly see transfer fees come down to more realistic and sustainable levels? This is the strange bit really, no understanding of income vs expenditure or any realistic wage 'cap'. Take Millwall, the owner underwrites a modest loss each year however the club operates on a strict wage cap of 5/6k max per week. They can afford the odd big signing but cannot afford the wages due to them protecting their future. They got close to Lambert, Barnard and Puncheon in L1 however as we double their attendences we could offer better wages (and prospects too!). These deluded skates will never get it, untill their looking at grass roots. OK, let's put the "our team was fiull of kids" myth to bed once and for all. On of your posters (Chez?) posted the following appearances by your "kids". [TABLE=width: 165] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, width: 156, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Bartosz Bialkowski [/TD] [TD=width: 64, bgcolor: transparent, align: right]3[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Nathan Dyer [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]4[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Simon Gillett [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]27[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Oscar Gobern [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]6[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Lee Holmes [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]11[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Lloyd James [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]41[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Oliver Lancashire [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]11[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Kayne McLaggon [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]7[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Joseph Mills [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]8[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Lee Molyneux [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]4[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Matthew Paterson [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]11[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Alex Pearce [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]9[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Tomas Pekhart [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]9[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jordan Robertson [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]10[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Ryan Smith [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]13[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jake Thomson [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]10[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jamie White [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]3[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent]Total[/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]187[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jack Cork [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]23[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Adam Lallana [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]40[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]David McGoldrick [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]46[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Morgan Schneiderlin [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]30[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Andrew Surman[/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]44[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] I've taken some of them out of the "kid list" because Surman was already established in the first team, Lallana was already breaking into it the season before, Cork was a loan, Scheiderlin cost £1m and McGoldrick was already 22 and had played in the first team fairly regularly two years before. So none of these were "kids" that you were forced to play out of desperation or cost cutting. That leaves players making a total of 187 appearances. Of those, Lee Holmes was a player you signed that summer by outbidding Leeds & Pekhart and Robertson were loans. So, not exactly "kids" bumped up from your youth team any more than some of the loan players we've played over the last couple of seasons. Taking those out of the equation gives you what I'd agree in calling "kids" a total of 157 appearances across the season. Now, I'm assuming many of these appearances were as sub but we'll count them anyway. That means out of a total possible players across the season of 672 (11 starting and 3 subs across 46 league and 2 cup games) your "kids" made up a total of 23% of the total players you played. Or to put it another way, your team averaged 2.5 "kids" per game. Not exactly the youth team you try to portray, is it? Corporate, we slashed the wage bill, loaned out the experienced pros - and played the kids... im sorry but we really did, it was a depressing season - I was unfortunate to miss the only one (or was it two) home wins all season. Watched about 20 home league matches winless, all aways we also lost... a whole winless season for myself your statistics above support the fact we played the kids, and Lallana was in his first full season in the 1st team. Holmes was 20/21 i think, Cork was 20 odd maybe younger. McGoldrick was a stand in as we sent the likes of Rasiak and Saganovski out on loan. It was painful but we did what we had to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 OK, let's put the "our team was fiull of kids" myth to bed once and for all. On of your posters (Chez?) posted the following appearances by your "kids". I've taken some of them out of the "kid list" because Surman was already established in the first team, Lallana was already breaking into it the season before, Cork was a loan, Scheiderlin cost £1m and McGoldrick was already 22 and had played in the first team fairly regularly two years before. So none of these were "kids" that you were forced to play out of desperation or cost cutting. That leaves players making a total of 187 appearances. Of those, Lee Holmes was a player you signed that summer by outbidding Leeds & Pekhart and Robertson were loans. So, not exactly "kids" bumped up from your youth team any more than some of the loan players we've played over the last couple of seasons. Taking those out of the equation gives you what I'd agree in calling "kids" a total of 157 appearances across the season. Now, I'm assuming many of these appearances were as sub but we'll count them anyway. That means out of a total possible players across the season of 672 (11 starting and 3 subs across 46 league and 2 cup games) your "kids" made up a total of 23% of the total players you played. Or to put it another way, your team averaged 2.5 "kids" per game. Not exactly the youth team you try to portray, is it? As usual you ignore the whole point in favour of a cheap shot . Do you really think, just as one example, we played McGoldrick all season when we had established international Gregorz Rasiak on our books because he was the better player. Course not, we found ourselves in a position where we couldn't pay GR's wages so we loaned him out and played an inferior player instead. Didn't grizzle about it. Didn't stomp our feet, throw our toys and whinge about level playing fields. We just did what was right. How many of your high earners that you can't afford have you loaned out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 OK, let's put the "our team was fiull of kids" myth to bed once and for all. On of your posters (Chez?) posted the following appearances by your "kids". [TABLE=width: 165] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, width: 156, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Bartosz Bialkowski [/TD] [TD=width: 64, bgcolor: transparent, align: right]3[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Nathan Dyer [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]4[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Simon Gillett [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]27[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Oscar Gobern [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]6[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Lee Holmes [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]11[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Lloyd James [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]41[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Oliver Lancashire [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]11[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Kayne McLaggon [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]7[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Joseph Mills [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]8[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Lee Molyneux [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]4[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Matthew Paterson [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]11[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Alex Pearce [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]9[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Tomas Pekhart [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]9[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jordan Robertson [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]10[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Ryan Smith [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]13[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jake Thomson [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]10[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jamie White [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]3[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent]Total[/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]187[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jack Cork [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]23[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Adam Lallana [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]40[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]David McGoldrick [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]46[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Morgan Schneiderlin [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]30[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Andrew Surman[/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]44[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] I've taken some of them out of the "kid list" because Surman was already established in the first team, Lallana was already breaking into it the season before, Cork was a loan, Scheiderlin cost £1m and McGoldrick was already 22 and had played in the first team fairly regularly two years before. So none of these were "kids" that you were forced to play out of desperation or cost cutting. That leaves players making a total of 187 appearances. Of those, Lee Holmes was a player you signed that summer by outbidding Leeds & Pekhart and Robertson were loans. So, not exactly "kids" bumped up from your youth team any more than some of the loan players we've played over the last couple of seasons. Taking those out of the equation gives you what I'd agree in calling "kids" a total of 157 appearances across the season. Now, I'm assuming many of these appearances were as sub but we'll count them anyway. That means out of a total possible players across the season of 672 (11 starting and 3 subs across 46 league and 2 cup games) your "kids" made up a total of 23% of the total players you played. Or to put it another way, your team averaged 2.5 "kids" per game. Not exactly the youth team you try to portray, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Problem is Granty at present there's nothing to prevent any club owner racking up debt by signing players or loading debt onto a club and then walking away leaving the club broke and himself as a secured creditor with no risk. Sporting sanctions and points penalties mean nothing to people like Chainrai. What do they care if the club's docked points or are relegated? They still have their snouts in the trough One idea that's come up on POL is for anyone buying a club needing to deposit enough funds into an escrow account overseen by the FA/ FL to guarantee it can at least see out the season or possibly even two seasons. Another idea would be to make any owners personally responsible for any debt incurred at a club whilst they were there. Both good ideas but neither will happen as out governing bodies seem toothless Truly unbelievable and typical skate reaction! 1. The owner didn't 'walk away'! It's not possible for a business owner to just 'walk away'! Chinny SOLD [on HP!!] the company to CSI! He also put a charge on the only asset left that didn't have one, to ensure he still had something if they defaulted on the payments! Pretty good business sense in the end! It seems to me he did his due dilligence and was expecting them to default! However, that doesn't mean the Chief Executive of the club couldn't have got involved. If he had walked when the purchase happened, you could have had a slightly more realistic defence, but he didn't, so he accepted CSI for the genuine businessmen you all thought they were! 2. How much should a new owner put into an escrow account? CSI stated they were going to run the business within its means. Therefore they would have been obliged to put in exactly zero pounds. Or are you suggesting that an owner should put in £100m so that they can run the club at a loss for a couple of years! What happens when that money runs out? Who do you blame then as they will have fulfilled your new criteria?? Let's just assume that the BEST way to run a club is within its means, and not needing handouts from owners. I know that doesn't sit well with the skates as that would put you as a league 2 club. 3. You want to make owners personally liable for the debt. LOL. Good luck with changing the company laws of the land to suit your agenda! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Problem is Granty at present there's nothing to prevent any club owner racking up debt by signing players or loading debt onto a club and then walking away leaving the club broke and himself as a secured creditor with no risk. Sporting sanctions and points penalties mean nothing to people like Chainrai. What do they care if the club's docked points or are relegated? They still have their snouts in the trough One idea that's come up on POL is for anyone buying a club needing to deposit enough funds into an escrow account overseen by the FA/ FL to guarantee it can at least see out the season or possibly even two seasons. Another idea would be to make any owners personally responsible for any debt incurred at a club whilst they were there. Both good ideas but neither will happen as out governing bodies seem toothless I often wonder why there isn't a law that says, when a company (of any description) goes into administration, it can't be then bought out of administration by the people who put it into administration - even if it's a new company. What's to stop people doing this time and again, each time getting the same asset for less money but enjoying whatever rewards the new company might bring (although in Poopey's case the rewards are neglible). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Let's just add some names back in to our Relegation/Admin Season shall we. Those massive global superstars on 15/20k a week that we brought in Paul Wotton Let's do the argument professionally shall we and pose a question. What was poopeys wage bill this year? What was poopeys wage bill last year? What percentage of revenue was poopeys wage bill each year for the past 4 years In Season 2007/8 SFC wage Bill was 13.5 Million In Season 2008/9 SFC wage Bill was 9.4 Million Representing a reduction in one year of nigh on 30%. 2 x 17 Year Old 1 x 18 Year Old 7 x 19 Year Old Always enough players to fill a bench on match day. Not ONE single complaint to the Football League How many 18 year olds have poopey got these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 (edited) http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/297644-warning-that-taxpayer-will-lose-out-if-rangers-do-not-pay-bill/ Warning that taxpayer will lose out if Rangers do not pay bill Campaigning group says Rangers administration should ensure taxpayers do not lose out. Hmmm....perhaps someone should remind the Tax Payers Alliance how much tax payers lost out on when Pompey last went into administration....."administration should ensure taxpayers do not lose out" my arse! Edited 15 February, 2012 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 OK, let's put the "our team was fiull of kids" myth to bed once and for all. On of your posters (Chez?) posted the following appearances by your "kids". [TABLE=width: 165] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, width: 156, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Bartosz Bialkowski [/TD] [TD=width: 64, bgcolor: transparent, align: right]3[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Nathan Dyer [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]4[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Simon Gillett [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]27[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Oscar Gobern [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]6[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Lee Holmes [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]11[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Lloyd James [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]41[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Oliver Lancashire [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]11[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Kayne McLaggon [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]7[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Joseph Mills [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]8[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Lee Molyneux [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]4[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Matthew Paterson [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]11[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Alex Pearce [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]9[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Tomas Pekhart [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]9[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jordan Robertson [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]10[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Ryan Smith [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]13[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jake Thomson [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]10[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jamie White [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]3[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent]Total[/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]187[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jack Cork [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]23[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Adam Lallana [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]40[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]David McGoldrick [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]46[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Morgan Schneiderlin [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]30[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Andrew Surman[/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]44[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] I've taken some of them out of the "kid list" because Surman was already established in the first team, Lallana was already breaking into it the season before, Cork was a loan, Scheiderlin cost £1m and McGoldrick was already 22 and had played in the first team fairly regularly two years before. So none of these were "kids" that you were forced to play out of desperation or cost cutting. That leaves players making a total of 187 appearances. Of those, Lee Holmes was a player you signed that summer by outbidding Leeds & Pekhart and Robertson were loans. So, not exactly "kids" bumped up from your youth team any more than some of the loan players we've played over the last couple of seasons. Taking those out of the equation gives you what I'd agree in calling "kids" a total of 157 appearances across the season. Now, I'm assuming many of these appearances were as sub but we'll count them anyway. That means out of a total possible players across the season of 672 (11 starting and 3 subs across 46 league and 2 cup games) your "kids" made up a total of 23% of the total players you played. Or to put it another way, your team averaged 2.5 "kids" per game. Not exactly the youth team you try to portray, is it? So Cork (then 19), Schneiderlin (then 19), Pekhart (then 19), and Robertson (then 21) don't classify as kids because we signed them from other clubs? As for McGoldrick he made 17 appearances for Saints in the Championship seasons 2 years before the 08-09 season. He was playing so "fairly regularly" for us then he was loaned out to Bmouth (league 1) in 06-07 and Port Vale (League 1) in 07-08. As for Lallana he made only 9 appearances in any first team before the 08-09 season 5 were in the 07-08 season. He made 40 appearances in the 08-09 season. He really was an experienced pro at the top level when starting the 08-09 season wasn't he You even give trolls a bad name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALWAYS_SFC Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 May i post this again for the benefit and advice of the HMRC,the court ruling on the admin application and for corp ho... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Problem is Granty at present there's nothing to prevent any club owner racking up debt by signing players or loading debt onto a club and then walking away leaving the club broke and himself as a secured creditor with no risk. Sporting sanctions and points penalties mean nothing to people like Chainrai. What do they care if the club's docked points or are relegated? They still have their snouts in the trough One idea that's come up on POL is for anyone buying a club needing to deposit enough funds into an escrow account overseen by the FA/ FL to guarantee it can at least see out the season or possibly even two seasons. Another idea would be to make any owners personally responsible for any debt incurred at a club whilst they were there. Both good ideas but neither will happen as out governing bodies seem toothless The idea of an escrow account has merit but not for the protection of the football creditors. The escrow accounts should be there for the benefit of the tax man. The second you pay the players, you deposit the tax into the escrow. You miss the escrow payment - 5 points deduction, and another 5 points for the following month etc. Football clubs will then take there obligations to the tax man more seriously. Regrads to the selling clubs, perhaps they should accept a smaller fee in cash up front, that way they won't be at risk from the buying club never paying the balance. Paying installments for players is just paying for them on tick - if you can't afford them outright or cannot raise the finance from your bank, then you cannot afford them full stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Problem is Granty at present there's nothing to prevent any club owner racking up debt by signing players or loading debt onto a club and then walking away leaving the club broke and himself as a secured creditor with no risk. Sporting sanctions and points penalties mean nothing to people like Chainrai. What do they care if the club's docked points or are relegated? They still have their snouts in the trough In Pompey's case, IMO, the main problem is that there's been a whole succession of owners with a somewhat chequered past, so why would any legitimate potential owner believe the numbers they're presented with if they showed an interest in buying the club? Sporting sanctions will do the trick for the vast majority of clubs, who haven't had money launderers, arms dealers and tax dodgers as owners - realistically, the authorities should be putting a framework in place to cover the majority, while accepting that they're unlikely to be able to legislate for every single issue that may arise. One idea that's come up on POL is for anyone buying a club needing to deposit enough funds into an escrow account overseen by the FA/ FL to guarantee it can at least see out the season or possibly even two seasons. Another idea would be to make any owners personally responsible for any debt incurred at a club whilst they were there. Both good ideas but neither will happen as out governing bodies seem toothless The idea of making an owner personally responsible is a non-starter, football clubs are nearly always limited companies - legally, the shareholders are not personally liable for losses sustained by the company directors/management. The escrow account is an interesting idea, but you're then getting into the very dodgy ground of the authorities basically running the club. The club should be (within reason, clearly) free to run their business as they see fit, within whatever restrictions the authorities place on all clubs. There's a fair argument to suggest that clubs with a history of financial mismanagement should be subject to additional scrutiny, but as we've seen with your situation with CSI, there's still plenty of scope for it to go horribly wrong. How the FL justified allowing CSI to pump in what seems to equate to £2m a month genuinely baffles me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HK_Phoey Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 I don't have a problem with transfer fees being paid in instalments or being incentivised (i.e. extra payments based on the player and/or team fulfilling certain criteria), but they should simply do away with the Football Creditors rule for any transfers conducted from this summer onwards. It should remain in place for transfers that have already taken place because I don't think it's particularly fair on selling clubs to move the goalposts on a deal they concluded under the old system of secure knowledge that they'll receive 100% of the agreed fees, but from the summer onwards, it should be down to selling clubs to do due diligence on any other club they're looking to do business with. 100% agree with this. Any other company extending credit to another company has to do the same thing, why shouldn't football clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Didnt we also have Jason Euell that season that wasnt getting paid or something? Seem to remember several of our senior players being absent week in week out while the youth were 1st team pics. Was a crap season but I am glad we actually tried to do what was best considiring the situation. What was best financially unfortunatley wasnt the best on the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 The simple response to Corpy's post? Marc Wilson. Wages of £10k, replaced with two players earning £20k and £19k respectively. Ignore the transfer fee, it wouldn't have been in one go, and would've gone on Tal Ben Haim... Yes - austerity the Portsea way. How's the neckache looking up at us on the high ground eh Corpy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niceandfriendly Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Hang on, let me get this straight. We stated that during our financial mess we loaned out big earners and played inexperienced youngsters. The Fisherprice Man disagreed. Then he made a post which intended to prove us wrong but actually completely confirmed our earlier statement? Genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Depressed of Shirley Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 OK, let's put the "our team was fiull of kids" myth to bed once and for all. On of your posters (Chez?) posted the following appearances by your "kids". [TABLE=width: 165] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, width: 156, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Bartosz Bialkowski [/TD] [TD=width: 64, bgcolor: transparent, align: right]3[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Nathan Dyer [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]4[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Simon Gillett [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]27[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Oscar Gobern [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]6[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Lee Holmes [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]11[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Lloyd James [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]41[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Oliver Lancashire [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]11[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Kayne McLaggon [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]7[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Joseph Mills [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]8[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Lee Molyneux [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]4[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Matthew Paterson [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]11[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Alex Pearce [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]9[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Tomas Pekhart [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]9[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jordan Robertson [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]10[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Ryan Smith [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]13[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jake Thomson [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]10[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jamie White [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]3[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=bgcolor: transparent][/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent]Total[/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]187[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Jack Cork [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]23[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Adam Lallana [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]40[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]David McGoldrick [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]46[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Morgan Schneiderlin [/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]30[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl65, bgcolor: transparent, colspan: 2]Andrew Surman[/TD] [TD=bgcolor: transparent, align: right]44[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] I've taken some of them out of the "kid list" because Surman was already established in the first team, Lallana was already breaking into it the season before, Cork was a loan, Scheiderlin cost £1m and McGoldrick was already 22 and had played in the first team fairly regularly two years before. So none of these were "kids" that you were forced to play out of desperation or cost cutting. That leaves players making a total of 187 appearances. Of those, Lee Holmes was a player you signed that summer by outbidding Leeds & Pekhart and Robertson were loans. So, not exactly "kids" bumped up from your youth team any more than some of the loan players we've played over the last couple of seasons. Taking those out of the equation gives you what I'd agree in calling "kids" a total of 157 appearances across the season. Now, I'm assuming many of these appearances were as sub but we'll count them anyway. That means out of a total possible players across the season of 672 (11 starting and 3 subs across 46 league and 2 cup games) your "kids" made up a total of 23% of the total players you played. Or to put it another way, your team averaged 2.5 "kids" per game. Not exactly the youth team you try to portray, is it? Actually, they were kids, but importantly they were also cheap. Anyway Steve, how do you feel about the current situation at Cheats FC? Ashamed to be associated with it, or just trolling on here because your a p***k? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Corp is proving a good fisherman for one who can't even afford proper bait. Come on people, don't fall for it. Yeah, but it's more fun reacting in the knowledge that we know that's what he wants us to do because it makes him think we're genuinely reacting rather than keeping up a pretence. If you get my drift. We're just following the script.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Actually, they were kids, but importantly they were also cheap. Anyway Steve, how do you feel about the current situation at Cheats FC? Ashamed to be associated with it, or just trolling on here because your a p***k? He has no pride and cares little how they get their money so he can give it the big one. Just watch old Tiny Tears get all upset when they eventually do fold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 A skate friend of mine was at the game last night and enjoyed the pleasure of sitting with Lampitt after the game for a drink. His status on Facebook afterwards read: "I had a drink with David Lampitt tonight... PFC is gone everybody... RIP PFC" The post was commented on by others asking him what DL said and he replied: "He said it's over. His own words. No press, the truth" ... "No money, no one wants us" Someone then said "surely it's only going into administration and not being wrapped up completely??" to which the response was: "No, we are dead and buried. His own words in front of my work mate. He said it was a fight we cannot win. I told him I am a lifelong fan. He just said we will fight to the end" another comment from him read "One of his (DL's) comments stuck in my head, he said that "I dont see a way out of this one". He even asked if Jobsite could buy Pompey. He gave every air of a beaten man" Just thought I would share this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Just watch old Tiny Tears get all upset when they eventually do fold. Is that the model that wets their nappy as well? We'd better ask an expert.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Neil Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Next protest arranged "Occupy Fratton" v Leeds and try and get them to stay in afterwards to protest against Bates at the same time, presumably to beef up the numbers/get more coverage. What has happened to Varney? still injured or does he have a massive goal and appearance bonus in his contract that they dont want to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Just found this I dindt realise they were in **** creek back in 1976 to The 1950s The early 1950s put Portsmouth on the map as a soccer power. In the 1948-49 season---the club's 50th, or Jubilee, year---the team set attendance records and won the Football League title. The next year they won the title again, making Portsmouth FC one of only five English teams to win back-to-back titles since World War II. The team performed respectably through the first half of the decade, but by 1959 they had been relegated to the second division of the Football League. Decline Portsmouth remained a second and third division team for the next several decades, and attendance fell to just 5,000 fans per game from a peak capacity of 50,000. By 1976, the team was near bankruptcy. They were saved by a campaign to garner supporter contributions, but the team slipped to the fourth division shortly thereafter. Financial Woes The 2010 relegation to the second division was precipitated by yet another financial crisis in which key players, staff and debt-holders were not paid their wages and earnings. The club once again came perilously close to declaring bankruptcy, and disbanding entirely before a new ownership deal was forged in October 2010. Same old skates always cheating and broke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 A skate friend of mine was at the game last night and enjoyed the pleasure of sitting with Lampitt after the game for a drink. His status on Facebook afterwards read: "I had a drink with David Lampitt tonight... PFC is gone everybody... RIP PFC" The post was commented on by others asking him what DL said and he replied: "He said it's over. His own words. No press, the truth" ... "No money, no one wants us" Someone then said "surely it's only going into administration and not being wrapped up completely??" to which the response was: "No, we are dead and buried. His own words in front of my work mate. He said it was a fight we cannot win. I told him I am a lifelong fan. He just said we will fight to the end" another comment from him read "One of his (DL's) comments stuck in my head, he said that "I dont see a way out of this one". He even asked if Jobsite could buy Pompey. He gave every air of a beaten man" Just thought I would share this. Think he was conned, that could not have been Lumpitt Unless he's been reading this thread everyday of late Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shufty Zubrik Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 A skate friend of mine was at the game last night and enjoyed the pleasure of sitting with Lampitt after the game for a drink. His status on Facebook afterwards read: "I had a drink with David Lampitt tonight... PFC is gone everybody... RIP PFC" The post was commented on by others asking him what DL said and he replied: "He said it's over. His own words. No press, the truth" ... "No money, no one wants us" Someone then said "surely it's only going into administration and not being wrapped up completely??" to which the response was: "No, we are dead and buried. His own words in front of my work mate. He said it was a fight we cannot win. I told him I am a lifelong fan. He just said we will fight to the end" another comment from him read "One of his (DL's) comments stuck in my head, he said that "I dont see a way out of this one". He even asked if Jobsite could buy Pompey. He gave every air of a beaten man" Just thought I would share this. I read this thread every day and have sometimes despaired that they will get away with it. If this exchange with Lumpitt is true it just makes me glow with anticipation. Let it be, Let it be, Let it be, Let it be, Skates in Liquidation, Let it be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 A skate friend of mine was at the game last night and enjoyed the pleasure of sitting with Lampitt after the game for a drink. His status on Facebook afterwards read: "I had a drink with David Lampitt tonight... PFC is gone everybody... RIP PFC" The post was commented on by others asking him what DL said and he replied: "He said it's over. His own words. No press, the truth" ... "No money, no one wants us" Someone then said "surely it's only going into administration and not being wrapped up completely??" to which the response was: "No, we are dead and buried. His own words in front of my work mate. He said it was a fight we cannot win. I told him I am a lifelong fan. He just said we will fight to the end" another comment from him read "One of his (DL's) comments stuck in my head, he said that "I dont see a way out of this one". He even asked if Jobsite could buy Pompey. He gave every air of a beaten man" Just thought I would share this. Lovely jubbly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Just found this I dindt realise they were in **** creek back in 1976 to The 1950s The early 1950s put Portsmouth on the map as a soccer power. In the 1948-49 season---the club's 50th, or Jubilee, year---the team set attendance records and won the Football League title. The next year they won the title again, making Portsmouth FC one of only five English teams to win back-to-back titles since World War II. The team performed respectably through the first half of the decade, but by 1959 they had been relegated to the second division of the Football League. Decline Portsmouth remained a second and third division team for the next several decades, and attendance fell to just 5,000 fans per game from a peak capacity of 50,000. By 1976, the team was near bankruptcy. They were saved by a campaign to garner supporter contributions, but the team slipped to the fourth division shortly thereafter. Financial Woes The 2010 relegation to the second division was precipitated by yet another financial crisis in which key players, staff and debt-holders were not paid their wages and earnings. The club once again came perilously close to declaring bankruptcy, and disbanding entirely before a new ownership deal was forged in October 2010. Same old skates always cheating and broke 76 Was that when John Deacon from Southampton saved them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Lovely jubbly. Think we need to get some Tee-Shirts made - I was on TSW when.... I won't be able to qualify though, cannot BELIEVE that, maybe a trip to Salisbury Library for the day on Monday to use their boxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 A skate friend of mine was at the game last night and enjoyed the pleasure of sitting with Lampitt after the game for a drink. His status on Facebook afterwards read: "I had a drink with David Lampitt tonight... PFC is gone everybody... RIP PFC" The post was commented on by others asking him what DL said and he replied: "He said it's over. His own words. No press, the truth" ... "No money, no one wants us" Someone then said "surely it's only going into administration and not being wrapped up completely??" to which the response was: "No, we are dead and buried. His own words in front of my work mate. He said it was a fight we cannot win. I told him I am a lifelong fan. He just said we will fight to the end" another comment from him read "One of his (DL's) comments stuck in my head, he said that "I dont see a way out of this one". He even asked if Jobsite could buy Pompey. He gave every air of a beaten man" Just thought I would share this. Friday will be a good indicator of whether this is true or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts