Window Cleaner Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Well I hope they get closed down because that shower of crap will never learn. If they go into admin they'll just start a new debt mountain all over again.One admin should be all you are entitled to, if it happens twice in 2 years the problem is obviously structural and needs to be weeded out.A CVA means you have ripped off a lot of people and you're not going to pay them back anywhere near what you owe, especially with the football creditors rule.It also means that a lot of UK hard earned has been shipped offshore and at the end of the day the tax payer has to stump up because HMRC always gets duped for shedloads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 I repeat....They should already have -10 as they've given notice that they intend going into administration. The League's rules clearly state that the 'giving notice' event triggers the penalty not the going into administration itself (unless both happen on the same day of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 I repeat....They should already have -10 as they've given notice that they intend going into administration. The League's rules clearly state that the 'giving notice' event triggers the penalty not the going into administration itself (unless both happen on the same day of course) The ten point deduction is a given. They are probably waiting to see what happens in the next week so that they can deduct any further points if needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biondani Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 I repeat....They should already have -10 as they've given notice that they intend going into administration. The League's rules clearly state that the 'giving notice' event triggers the penalty not the going into administration itself (unless both happen on the same day of course) Agreed. The 10 points should be in affect now. See section (b) below under section 1 of the League Rules : 'Insolvency Event' refers to any one of the following: (a) entering into a Company Voluntary Arrangement pursuant to Part 1 of the Insolvency Act, a Scheme of Arrangement with creditors under Part 26 of the 2006 Act, or any compromise agreement with its creditors as a whole; (b) the lodging of a Notice of Intention to Appoint an Administrator or Notice of Appointment of an Administrator at the Court in accordance with paragraph 26 or paragraph 29 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act, an application to the Court for an Administration Order under paragraph 12 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act (other than paragraph 12(1)©) or where an Administrator is appointed or an Administration Order is made ('Administrator' and 'Administration Order' having the meanings attributed to them respectively by paragraphs 1 and 10 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act); © an Administrative Receiver (as defined by section 251 of the Insolvency Act), a Law of Property Act Receiver (appointed under section 109 of the Law of Property Act 1925) or any Receiver appointed by the Court under the Supreme Court Act 1981 or any other Receiver is appointed over any assets which, in the opinion of the Board is material to the Club's ability to fulfil its obligations as a Member Club; (d) shareholders passing a resolution pursuant to section 84(1) of the Insolvency Act to voluntarily wind up; (e) a meeting of creditors is convened pursuant to section 95 or section 98 of the Insolvency Act; (f) a winding up order is made by the Court under section 122 of the Insolvency Act or a provisional liquidator is appointed under section 135 of the Insolvency Act; (g) ceasing or forming an intention to cease wholly or substantially to carry on business save for the purpose of reconstruction or amalgamation or otherwise in accordance with a scheme of proposals which have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Board; (h) being subject to any insolvency regime in any jurisdiction outside England and Wales which is analogous to the insolvency regimes detailed in paragraphs (a) to (g) above; and/or (i) have any proceeding or step taken or any court order in any jurisdiction made which has a substantially similar effect to any of the foregoing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Out of interest, is your surname Biondani? If so, I probably know you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 The ten point deduction is a given. They are probably waiting to see what happens in the next week so that they can deduct any further points if needed. Fair point but I don't see why some bright spark down at the Football League can't type "-10" into a computer this week and another "-7" (or whatever) next week. Until I see that -10 in black and white there'll always be an element of doubt (in my mind) that'll they'll get away Scott free again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Fair point but I don't see why some bright spark down at the Football League can't type "-10" into a computer this week and another "-7" (or whatever) next week. Until I see that -10 in black and white there'll alway be an element of doubt (in my mind) that'll they'll get away Scott free again... but if they survive in the NPC they'll have got away scot free anyway.Just run up slates that they can't pay anyway whilst preserving their status. Should be retrograded at least 2 divisions, anything else is just a perversion of justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 The Football League has accused Portsmouth's former owner Vladimir Antonov of misleading the football authorities at the time of his Fratton Park takeover last summer. The surprisingly candid remarks came in an email exchange, seen by the BBC, between Pompey fan Paul Chalmers-Stevens and the Football League's customer services department. Responding to the fan's questions about what checks the Football League did on Antonov when he bought the club in June 2011, the Football League claimed it was not its fault as it had been misled. "The steps taken by the Football League were based upon evidence of proof of funding, together with related business plans," it said. "It appears that the evidence was at best misleading and possibly fraudulent with the league not being alone in accepting this evidence." The BBC attempted to contact Antonov about these claims but was unable to reach him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 http://www.lifesapitch.co.uk/opinions/its-hard-to-feel-sorry-for-portsmouths-plight/ Ruffling some blue few feathers... That is so irritating to read. They wholly blame the football league and ate convinced that the club is actually sustainable without month-to-month investment. Better still, they're still pointing at Man City and going "if they do it, why can't we?". We, because their debts are serviceable you retards. Truly annoying reading that, they are so incredibly thick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 The Football League has accused Portsmouth's former owner Vladimir Antonov of misleading the football authorities at the time of his Fratton Park takeover last summer. The surprisingly candid remarks came in an email exchange, seen by the BBC, between Pompey fan Paul Chalmers-Stevens and the Football League's customer services department. Responding to the fan's questions about what checks the Football League did on Antonov when he bought the club in June 2011, the Football League claimed it was not its fault as it had been misled. "The steps taken by the Football League were based upon evidence of proof of funding, together with related business plans," it said. "It appears that the evidence was at best misleading and possibly fraudulent with the league not being alone in accepting this evidence." The BBC attempted to contact Antonov about these claims but was unable to reach him. Perhaps the next email the BBC should pick up upon is the one between a certain Portsmouth MP and the member of a certain football forum wherein said MP admitted to reading internal HMRC emails...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 (edited) The Football League has accused Portsmouth's former owner Vladimir Antonov of misleading the football authorities at the time of his Fratton Park takeover last summer. The surprisingly candid remarks came in an email exchange, seen by the BBC, between Pompey fan Paul Chalmers-Stevens and the Football League's customer services department. Responding to the fan's questions about what checks the Football League did on Antonov when he bought the club in June 2011, the Football League claimed it was not its fault as it had been misled. "The steps taken by the Football League were based upon evidence of proof of funding, together with related business plans," it said. "It appears that the evidence was at best misleading and possibly fraudulent with the league not being alone in accepting this evidence." The BBC attempted to contact Antonov about these claims but was unable to reach him. Correct, anyone could propose a CVA and a business plan based on funds they didn't actually have.Evidently the Lithuanian government arresting them for whatever it is,asset stripping is that it?,means that they weren't very "fit and proper". The FA didn't check enough, they should always ask the question "where is the money to come from" and then ask the governments of the source concerned if any preliminary investigations are under way.It might be noted that the FSA refused Bank Snoras permission to trade in the UK in 2009 because they weren't reputable enough, the FA of course (or is it the FL) didn't bother to check this out.This was a sham from day 1 and Pompey should now be put out of their misery before Chainrai finds another patsy to build up a new debt mountain. Edited 15 February, 2012 by Window Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 The Football League has accused Portsmouth's former owner Vladimir Antonov of misleading the football authorities at the time of his Fratton Park takeover last summer. The surprisingly candid remarks came in an email exchange, seen by the BBC, between Pompey fan Paul Chalmers-Stevens and the Football League's customer services department. Responding to the fan's questions about what checks the Football League did on Antonov when he bought the club in June 2011, the Football League claimed it was not its fault as it had been misled. "The steps taken by the Football League were based upon evidence of proof of funding, together with related business plans," it said. "It appears that the evidence was at best misleading and possibly fraudulent with the league not being alone in accepting this evidence." The BBC attempted to contact Antonov about these claims but was unable to reach him. Dear skates Stop moaning. Go find a lawyer, take out a class action and reposses Vlad & Roman's motors. Should be more than enough equity in those to pay for AFCP for the 1st 2 or 3 seasons. Now, why would someone without money but only a Business Plan want to buy a football club? Wonder who talked him into the idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warsash saint Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 "However the Portsmouth Supporters' Trust have claimed that Andronikou is asking them to provide £100m in proof of funds before any meeting between them could take place." :lol: Is Andriod bumping up imaginary debts again to con the tax man ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Um Bongo Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Quote from the BBC article: All of this will come as a crushing disappointment to Portsmouth's senior management, who feel they have managed to stick to the spending plans agreed in October 2010 whilst putting a young and competitive team on the park. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOSaint Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Is Andriod bumping up imaginary debts again to con the tax man ?? Surely HMRC would be stupid to allow admin Andy take charge of the Administration again without a fight given his antics last time round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericofarabia Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 This time, yes. They've cheated, conned and poisoned the game for far too long. Get all worked up over the rivalry with a resurrected AFC Sh*t Blue Few if you must, if we ever draw them in the 3rd round of the FA Cup. Agreeing with Alps post shocker Absolutely no sympathy for them at all now - they've been given so many chances and had so much time to at least start to do something about their plight, but oh no, they just put their collective hands (fins, flippers) over their collective ears (gills) saying we can't hear you we can't hear you. Also I do like the look of the amended league table if their results so far this season were made null and void ......... The Mighty SFC .... 55 West Hoof Utd ...... 51 Blackpool .... ........ 51 Reading ................51 Cardiff ................ 49 Middlesboro ......... 49 Birmingham .......... 48 Hull .................... 47 Die you barstards die!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Surely HMRC would be stupid ^This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Is Andriod bumping up imaginary debts again to con the tax man ?? Any objection if I consult my lawyer before responding to that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOSaint Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 ^This Yeah it does seem like HMRC are absolutely useless when it matters in the courtroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biondani Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Out of interest, is your surname Biondani? If so, I probably know you! Yes, who are you then? Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Yeah it does seem like HMRC are absolutely useless when it matters in the courtroom. don't know why they bother with courtrooms, just send the bailiffs round and start confiscating stuff. Then again i suppose they labour under the illusion that one fine day when hell freezes over and pigs fly Portsmouth FC will actually pay their tax and contributions bill.It won't happen lads so get down there and round up some photocopiers and ipads and that sort of stuff.At least that way you'll get a couple of quid that you'll not get any other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Yes, who are you then? Ian He's Spartacus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 The Football League has accused Portsmouth's former owner Vladimir Antonov of misleading the football authorities at the time of his Fratton Park takeover last summer. The surprisingly candid remarks came in an email exchange, seen by the BBC, between Pompey fan Paul Chalmers-Stevens and the Football League's customer services department. Responding to the fan's questions about what checks the Football League did on Antonov when he bought the club in June 2011, the Football League claimed it was not its fault as it had been misled. "The steps taken by the Football League were based upon evidence of proof of funding, together with related business plans," it said. "It appears that the evidence was at best misleading and possibly fraudulent with the league not being alone in accepting this evidence." The BBC attempted to contact Antonov about these claims but was unable to reach him. I infer from this that the FL is covering its back in the event that a) it decides to not impose a points deduction because 'poor Portsmouth - it wasn't the fault of the fans and players' (err - gentle reminder - your ex Head of Integrity or whatever he was, was CEO at the time Antonov appeared on the scene) or b) someone, somewhere attempts to sue the FL for failure to undertake its duties diligently or c) because the FL is worried about the club being the first one in the higher divisions to be liquidated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COMEONYOUREDS 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? just **** off you **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 He's Spartacus Fool! People will coming back from work thinking something big has happened as the thread grows by another 10 pages, because hilarious posters will think they are being funny and orginal by posting .... No he's not ..'. ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaMarlin Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 I infer from this that the FL is covering its back in the event that a) it decides to not impose a points deduction because 'poor Portsmouth - it wasn't the fault of the fans and players' (err - gentle reminder - your ex Head of Integrity or whatever he was, was CEO at the time Antonov appeared on the scene) or b) someone, somewhere attempts to sue the FL for failure to undertake its duties diligently or c) because the FL is worried about the club being the first one in the higher divisions to be liquidated. Or d) because the Football League are getting ready to throw a large and hefty book with sharp corners at them? I like the first sentence: "The Football League has accused Portsmouth's former owner Vladimir Antonov of misleading the football authorities." No football governing body, whether it's the FA, The Football League, or the Southampton Sunday League, likes being conned or lied to. They feel it undermines their authority and basically sticks two fingers up at them. My guess is that the FL are not very happy with PFC. The Cheats' attempts to shuffle the blame on to them quicker than a game of pass the parcel at an Al Qaeda birthday party, has forced the FL's hand into admitting they were lied to. I don't think that will sit well with the FL. I think they might be just be giving the Cheats enough rope to hang themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capitalsaint Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 He's Spartacus No he's not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waterside.saint Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 That is so irritating to read. They wholly blame the football league and ate convinced that the club is actually sustainable without month-to-month investment. Better still, they're still pointing at Man City and going "if they do it, why can't we?". We, because their debts are serviceable you retards. Truly annoying reading that, they are so incredibly thick Motto: Never argue with a fool, he will drag the argument down to his level then beat you with experience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 so the poor league and the bestest fans were cruelly conned by Vlad's handwritten bank guarantees on the back of an envelope?? Well no other f0cker was fooled by him. I expect even Ho's ITK mate (belated happy bday by the way) that he sees socially every few weeks even sussed him out fairly quick, even the idiot boy son-of-the-kitman must have seen through him. It took ten seconds on Google, let alone a chat with the FSA and the FBI. No excuse there, next! With all the criminality and lies that still surround the club it's not even been an issue that the current team and the first half of the season were funded by money stolen from pensioners and 'cleaned' for organised crime - any normal club would be horrified at that link, but that's small fry in their list of crimes, doesn't even warrant a mention. The season only hit trouble when the filthy cash dried up. Lampitt denying any involvement in the current crisis? He's got the business acumen of Peter Storrie on LSD, and he'll be living in Rosie's holiday kennel pretty soon. The bonkers Q over Q approach David - does it ring a bell? Do you remember the pay way too much for players no one else wants and cross your fingers for a frickin miracle approach?....idiot. The current crisis is clearly self-inflicted. Inviting criminals into the boardroom, playing fantasy football with real money that belongs to other people and moaning like Tiny Tears when it all goes wrong? It's b0llox. We can be repetitive on here and go round in circles sometimes but the lies currently eminating from the east as a smokescreen are ridiculous. Saints owe big money to the taxman, nazi tank drivers, 13,000 free tickets at SMS -YAWN, YAWN, YAWN. As for Ho's trolling on squad numbers, I can understand if the success of your work involves you having to think like an eight year old, but leave that persona at work or people will think you are a little bit special. Let's cut the cr4p. They are in a hole because of their own mismanagement. Not because a criminal turned out to be a criminal, or any of that other stuff designed to confuse matters. The charge - Overspending in an attempt to gain a sporting advantage. GUILTY, take them down. Next case..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waterside.saint Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 (edited) Yeah it does seem like HMRC are absolutely useless when it matters in the courtroom. Perhaps its just that the media *expect* HMRC to win all their cases & under-report the successes Edited 15 February, 2012 by Waterside.saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Couldn't we do them a favour and loan them Guly or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waterside.saint Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 just **** off you **** He's a troll. Don't feed the trolls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 so the poor league and the bestest fans were cruelly conned by Vlad's handwritten bank guarantees on the back of an envelope?? Well no other f0cker was fooled by him. I expect even Ho's ITK mate (belated happy bday by the way) that he sees socially every few weeks even sussed him out fairly quick, even the idiot boy son-of-the-kitman must have seen through him. It took ten seconds on Google, let alone a chat with the FSA and the FBI. No excuse there, next! With all the criminality and lies that still surround the club it's not even been an issue that the current team and the first half of the season were funded by money stolen from pensioners and 'cleaned' for organised crime - any normal club would be horrified at that link, but that's small fry in their list of crimes, doesn't even warrant a mention. The season only hit trouble when the filthy cash dried up. Lampitt denying any involvement in the current crisis? He's got the business acumen of Peter Storrie on LSD, and he'll be living in Rosie's holiday kennel pretty soon. The bonkers Q over Q approach David - does it ring a bell? Do you remember the pay way too much for players no one else wants and cross your fingers for a frickin miracle approach?....idiot. The current crisis is clearly self-inflicted. Inviting criminals into the boardroom, playing fantasy football with real money that belongs to other people and moaning like Tiny Tears when it all goes wrong? It's b0llox. We can be repetitive on here and go round in circles sometimes but the lies currently eminating from the east as a smokescreen are ridiculous. Saints owe big money to the taxman, nazi tank drivers, 13,000 free tickets at SMS -YAWN, YAWN, YAWN. As for Ho's trolling on squad numbers, I can understand if the success of your work involves you having to think like an eight year old, but leave that persona at work or people will think you are a little bit special. Let's cut the cr4p. They are in a hole because of their own mismanagement. Not because a criminal turned out to be a criminal, or any of that other stuff designed to confuse matters. The charge - Overspending in an attempt to gain a sporting advantage. GUILTY, take them down. Next case..... I love you (literally) :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Yes, who are you then? Ian Hi Ian. You wear glasses and work in IT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Hi Ian. You wear glasses and work in IT. Ian is Dusty Bin? Now I'm well and truly confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 He's a troll. Don't feed the trolls Just laugh. I think he needs to regroup, have a conference call with Barbie and Tiny Tears to work out his next angle of attack! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Ian is Dusty Bin? Now I'm well and truly confused. :lol::lol: Not many will get that and I should be embarrassed that I laughed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Majestic Channon Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Who remembers the endless ' we would fill it ' jibes from the skates when we failed to sell out sms by a couple of k when in the prem? yes of course, 14k in what could be one of their last ever matches, hopefully anyway very very poor skates, the truth is your support is **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Who remembers the endless ' we would fill it ' jibes from the skates when we failed to sell out sms by a couple of k when in the prem? yes of course, 14k in what could be one of their last ever matches, hopefully anyway very very poor skates, the truth is your support is **** not according to Fred's love child on Meridian 20 mins ok, magnificent or words to those effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 With all the criminality and lies that still surround the club it's not even been an issue that the current team and the first half of the season were funded by money stolen from pensioners and 'cleaned' for organised crime - any normal club would be horrified at that link, but that's small fry in their list of crimes, doesn't even warrant a mention. The season only hit trouble when the filthy cash dried up. I'm sorry Rallyboy, but this cannot be true. At the time when Andropov took the Skates over, I put it to the Ho that as the club had no ground, no training facilities or other infrastucture, was still saddled from debt from the last CVA, and couldn't shift several overpaid players from their contracts, the only really viable reason why the Russian Mafia might be interetred in buying them, was for purposes of money-laundering. He pooh-poohed the notion as being somewhat naive, as he assured me that it would not be feasible to use Pompey for money-laundering purposes, as they would be under a microscope and would therefore never hope to get away with it. However, despite ruling out money-laundering as the reason for buying the Skates, he never actually came up with a feasible alternative reason, beyond some vague notion that they might be a recognisable brand within their Convers sporting portfolio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brizzie Saints Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 54 [h=3]julian123[/h] Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 01:34 PM I want a gay muslim in a wheelchair as our new owner 56 [h=3]AllMouth[/h] Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 01:36 PM @54 - Keep going as we are and we'll get one of those as our new goalkeeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Halo* Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Excellent. Is that a full house I can make out in the background? A full house, at Fratton? Now you're just being silly. :lol::lol: Not many will get that and I should be embarrassed that I laughed. Ted Crouch is looking well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 I love you (literally) :-) He's like our very own Stuart Hall, he's brilliant. rallyboy, will you be trousers belated valentine? And secondly, can I please pay for you to have full membership? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 (edited) I'm sorry Rallyboy, but this cannot be true. At the time when Andropov took the Skates over, I put it to the Ho that as the club had no ground, no training facilities or other infrastucture, was still saddled from debt from the last CVA, and couldn't shift several overpaid players from their contracts, the only really viable reason why the Russian Mafia might be interetred in buying them, was for purposes of money-laundering. He pooh-poohed the notion as being somewhat naive, as he assured me that it would not be feasible to use Pompey for money-laundering purposes, as they would be under a microscope and would therefore never hope to get away with it. However, despite ruling out money-laundering as the reason for buying the Skates, he never actually came up with a feasible alternative reason, beyond some vague notion that they might be a recognisable brand within their Convers sporting portfolio. That's another thing - they can't be "under the microscope" and also be "stitched up with the FAPPT" as well So they are paying attention and aren't at the same time? You can't have it both ways.. Well, they can. They're Portsmouth City, Portsmouth City FC, by far the biggest criminals the world have ever seen... Ner ner ner, ner ner ner, ner ner ner ner ner ner, ner ner ner, ner ner ner, Portsmouth Edited 15 February, 2012 by Crab Lungs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biondani Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Hi Ian. You wear glasses and work in IT. And we sit fairly close to each other and had a curry just before xmas. I think I am getting the hang of give us a clue now lol Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyinthesky Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Just a thought on Pompey's 'support' In the two years they won the League back in the 50's (and fair play to them for that) they never averaged above 37,000 per season in a 'stadium' with a capacity of over 50,000 and, at a time, post war, when all clubs were recording full houses and record attendances!! Also for a club with such a rich history and a conurbation of over 400,000, why have they only averaged crowds of 14,500 in the 52 years since 1960? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 He's like our very own Stuart Hall, he's brilliant. rallyboy, will you be trousers belated valentine? And secondly, can I please pay for you to have full membership? I think Admin should bestow Honorary Full Membership on rallyboy as a reward for giving us all so many laughs over the last couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 One point the simple island/swamp dwellers overlook is that without CSI's criminally acquired money they would have folded last year and nobody who could have passed anything more rigourous than the toothless FPPT would have touched the cesspit with a sh1tty stick. The reality is that they are living on borrowed time and it's almost payback time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrek Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 Just a thought on Pompey's 'support' In the two years they won the League back in the 50's (and fair play to them for that) they never averaged above 37,000 per season in a 'stadium' with a capacity of over 50,000 and, at a time, post war, when all clubs were recording full houses and record attendances!! Also for a club with such a rich history and a conurbation of over 400,000, why have they only averaged crowds of 14,500 in the 52 years since 1960? Because they're a bunch of fish-fiddling inbreds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsland Red Posted 15 February, 2012 Share Posted 15 February, 2012 (edited) Pompey's glory years were when they were able to call upon locally based military /national service players. Apart from that era, the 1950s, they bought the FA Cup a few years ago.That is all. Since 1960 they have spent most of their time in the lower divisions,hence no great fan base, just 14,500 fanatics. Edited 15 February, 2012 by Kingsland Red Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts