trousers Posted 15 June, 2012 Share Posted 15 June, 2012 (edited) http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18461364 The walls are closing in on them now. As Verbal highlights above, if the Football League don't issue a statement in response to this ultimatum to the football creditors (i.e. the players) then they would be sticking two fingers up to the very rule that they've been fighting tooth and nail in court to retain over the last few years. If, somehow, Pompey convince the players to render the Football League's own rule worthless and then, somehow, the Football League deem it appropriate to give Pompey the golden share for next season then we'll need to change one word on the title of this thread: 'saga' to 'farce'. Surely this ultimatum from both Birch and now Fanshawe has put Pompey into a check-mate situation? Edited 15 June, 2012 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 15 June, 2012 Share Posted 15 June, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18461364 The walls are closing in on them now. I have wondering what the 24 million to the PFA was in their documents. I sort of assume from this article that its all the outstanding wages on all the players contracts? Does that sound right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 June, 2012 Share Posted 15 June, 2012 I have wondering what the 24 million to the PFA was in their documents. I sort of assume from this article that its all the outstanding wages on all the players contracts? Does that sound right? Yep, that's my thinking too. And it's telling that that Birch left those rows blank in the creditors list first time around.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazlo78 Posted 15 June, 2012 Share Posted 15 June, 2012 (edited) Are we surprised that the phew are finding it difficult to grasp the concept of the players being prepared to honour the legally-binding contracts that they signed with the club? One side IS doing the honourable thing, but I don't think they realise which side it is. I wish someone could be arsed to dig out the quotes from January, when the brave players didn't jump ship but stayed on to fight for Pompey. Same players, same contracts, new tune from the supporters... Edit: and as usual the nutjobs called it correctly back then that Pompey would rue not making better use of the transfer window... Edited 15 June, 2012 by Lazlo78 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 15 June, 2012 Share Posted 15 June, 2012 Yep, that's my thinking too. And it's telling that that Birch left those rows blank in the creditors list first time around.... So this is football creditor money that would be owed in addition to the calculation in the CVA proposal (Why was this not included in those calculations, it is obviously football creditors?). In that case even if they get it reduced to a third of its current value that means the football creditors effectively wipe out all the parachute payments remaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 15 June, 2012 Share Posted 15 June, 2012 For someone who seems to have such a good reputation as an honest broker, TB seems somewhat dodgy to me. Just sayin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevvy Posted 15 June, 2012 Share Posted 15 June, 2012 As Verbal highlights above, if the Football League don't issue a statement in response to this ultimatum to the football creditors (i.e. the players) then they would be sticking two fingers up to the very rule that they've been fighting tooth and nail in court to retain over the last few years. If, somehow, Pompey convince the players to render the Football League's own rule worthless and then, somehow, the Football League deem it appropriate to give Pompey the golden share for next season then we'll need to change one word on the title of this thread: 'saga' to 'farce'. Surely this ultimation from both Birch and now Fanshawe has put Pompey into a check-mate situation? Any other company doing this would be accused of bullying, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvaughanwilliams Posted 15 June, 2012 Share Posted 15 June, 2012 So, if I'm reading that correctly, Fanshawe is saying the opposite of what a lot of us have understood to be the case.....i.e. he's saying the players will get nothing in the event of liquidation where some of us have been saying that they will be covered by the Football League and/or PFA.....Who's right? I don't think that the Football League or PFA have a legal obligation to make good on the contracts, however, it wouldn't surprise me if they made a gesture to the Football Creditors. If another club faced insolvency as a result of Pompey failing to make a stage payment (what the Football Creditors rule was supposed to avoid) it would be rather embarrassing for the Football Authorities. The PFA offers loans to players in the event of non-payment and I suspect that they will offer 'support' to players that falls short of paying up the full value of the contracts on a means tested basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 15 June, 2012 Share Posted 15 June, 2012 For someone who seems to have such a good reputation as an honest broker, TB seems somewhat dodgy to me. Just sayin' It's all relative. He might be less dodgy than some, but as we've all learnt, it is a well dodgy profession to start with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 15 June, 2012 Share Posted 15 June, 2012 Ha ha, lowe himself said the very same thing to me. If that comes over as a "dubaiphilism" my apologies, I only ever met him once and it was a little uncomfortable for all concerned, but the opportunity arose on a train and he couldnt go anywhere, so he got 50 questions. He mentioned what was going on down the road (This was nearly 18 months ago) and how he hoped that given their issues some Saints fans appreciated some of the things that had been done in his time, that had given us the oppurtunity of coming back so strongly.... He was actually a nice bloke. Oi I may be on holiday but I keep my spies on here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 15 June, 2012 Share Posted 15 June, 2012 As Verbal highlights above, if the Football League don't issue a statement in response to this ultimatum to the football creditors (i.e. the players) then they would be sticking two fingers up to the very rule that they've been fighting tooth and nail in court to retain over the last few years. If, somehow, Pompey convince the players to render the Football League's own rule worthless and then, somehow, the Football League deem it appropriate to give Pompey the golden share for next season then we'll need to change one word on the title of this thread: 'saga' to 'farce'. Surely this ultimation from both Birch and now Fanshawe has put Pompey into a check-mate situation? Ah so having ignored British Law and laughed in the face of the Authorities, PCFC are now going to have a go at ignoring European Supreme Court findings in relation to Footballers Contracts. Yep, that figures, keep lying cheating and breaking every moral obligation on the planet. I'm now somewhat surprised they have not come up with some clever Human Trafficking plan into Horton Heath or launched a new @Glitterchannel for kiddie porn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 15 June, 2012 Share Posted 15 June, 2012 HMRC criticised over football insolvencies HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) was criticised by a leading figure in the insolvency industry for not getting involved in football insolvencies earlier. Lee Manning a partner at Deloitte and the current president of R3 claimed if HMRC got involved when it first saw PAYE problems there’d be more left for other creditors. During the same panel Trevor Birch of PKF, the administrator of Portsmouth Football Club, admitted one player alone at the club was earning more than the average entire wage bill for a league one side. http://www.insolvencynews.com/article/14099/corporate/hmrc-criticised-over-football-insolvencies- . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsbridge Saint Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 The football creditors have to accept they are not going get what it is they are claiming now in full," Fanshawe said. "Trevor Birch (administrator) knows the number but that figure of £24 million has to be reduced by two thirds or more before there is going to be an acceptable deal on the table. "Unless you pay these particular creditors, who are in general players and agents, the Football League does not allow you to retain your position in the league." So, they need a deal with the football creditors to the tune of about $16M, or they are liquidated. If they do the deal, they break the football creditors rule and lose the Golden share. But at the meeting in Gibraltar it was not deemed that they were 'unlikely to fulfil their fixtures'. Other clubs might justifiably ask wtf is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 The football creditors don't need to agree anything. The next pp instalment is due in August and they get first dibs on that. If Pompey go bust they're free to negotiate their own deals including signing on fees elsewhere. Why should they compromise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chin Strain Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 The football creditors don't need to agree anything. The next pp instalment is due in August and they get first dibs on that. If Pompey go bust they're free to negotiate their own deals including signing on fees elsewhere. Why should they compromise? That's going to make life interesting for TB as they'll run out of cash before then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 (edited) The football creditors have to accept they are not going get what it is they are claiming now in full," Fanshawe said. "Trevor Birch (administrator) knows the number but that figure of £24 million has to be reduced by two thirds or more before there is going to be an acceptable deal on the table. "Unless you pay these particular creditors, who are in general players and agents, the Football League does not allow you to retain your position in the league." So, they need a deal with the football creditors to the tune of about $16M, or they are liquidated. If they do the deal, they break the football creditors rule and lose the Golden share. But at the meeting in Gibraltar it was not deemed that they were 'unlikely to fulfil their fixtures'. Other clubs might justifiably ask wtf is going on. My thinking is that the 24mil is the value of current deferred wages AND the total cost of paying out the remaing contracts over the time they have left to run... at present the debt is only around 8mil or so as I understand it, but increasing with everyday the players are not paid or do not walk. The reduction 'by two thirds' happens automatically if the high wage earners chose to leave or are sold... which is currently not happening - My understanding is that Chinney is only prepared to buy the club IF the value of football creditor debt is 8mil or below, in effect covered by the 14 mil parachute payments leaving 6 mil or so for him to play with/claw back. There will be no 'deal' to reduce 24 mil. The only 'deal' will be compromise agreements with players who agree, in whch case they are no longer owed the rest of their contract, and thus the football creditor debt (24mil) is reduced... and there would be no infringement of the football creditor rule or impact on the golden share Pompey are hoping players will leave voluntarliy to pave the way for a take over and the club is emotionally blackmailing players to try and get them to do so.... the same players who were heralded in the media in Jan for their LOYALTY (seriously you could not make this up) LOL Someone should email the creepy bloke Taylor at the PFA and ask him how he feels that members who signed contracts in good faith and were heralded as loyal in Jan are now being emotionally blackmailed in the media to leave and tear up their contracts.... would make for an interesting response. PTS could in theory better chinneys deal, as they would probably not need to hold back 6mil of parachutes for themselves and us all 14 mill for creditors...if the the players leave voluntarily thus screwing Chinney (which is what he is so worried about) Edited 16 June, 2012 by Frank's cousin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 the problem with any Trust bid is that it involves outbidding Chinny and taking AA out of the picture. That would attract a Chinny-added-tax fee of anything up to £18M. He might now be prepared to walk away for only £10M, but the Trust seem to think that he'll write off the lot. Good luck with that plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 the problem with any Trust bid is that it involves outbidding Chinny and taking AA out of the picture. That would attract a Chinny-added-tax fee of anything up to £18M. He might now be prepared to walk away for only £10M, but the Trust seem to think that he'll write off the lot. Good luck with that plan. Its what makes teh whole takeover by a major creditor dodgy.... Chinney offers 2p in the £ knowing that he will vote for it and sort of ensure the CVA is accepted as he knows IF the player debt is reduced he will ed up with a pot of cash from the left over PPs for himself and not having to divy this up to the other creditors.... Given how we are told that teh FSA is so strict, it still surprises me that insolvency law is so immoral... Its is clear that the best deal for ALL creditors is that in which chinney only gets his fair %, yet the rules allow him to in effect ensure he gets a bigger share (proportionallyhe could get 40p in the £) owed simply by keeping the rotting corpse alive until the PPs are due and screwing the rest for 2p.... how can this be possible? The simplest and fairest solution is that either the PPs are ONLY available if distributed equally amongst all creditors, or should liquidation take place, also made available to all creditors... but the world football is rotten in this regard and its amazing that thsoe with their snouts in the trough get away with it and the media/public/legislators turn a blind eye... its as though the collective country has a love in for the 'loveable rogue' mentality within the game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 So, if I'm reading that correctly, Fanshawe is saying the opposite of what a lot of us have understood to be the case.....i.e. he's saying the players will get nothing in the event of liquidation where some of us have been saying that they will be covered by the Football League and/or PFA.....Who's right? I have it on very good authority that Fanshawe is so worried about getting something sorted quickly that he's flown off on holiday yesterday! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 FC - Chinny is not an unsecured creditor so will be excluded from one vote (there are two votes; one unsecured, two all creditors I believe). He of course has AA on his side but it's no guarantee he would succeed in the vote with that alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 Is it only me that thinks that now TB is also working more in BC interests than anyone elses? He is using crude methods of pressure on the players (they will become more unbearable as they come back for training as every fan will be on their backs)to walk. Whilst many on here would say 'well I would put up with it for 30k a week' i suggest in real time it will not be so easy. No-one wants to face the torrent of abuse all the time and i suspect some will crumble. Yet again the football authorities are watching the crime but hiding behind the curtains instead of going to stop it. TB said some weeks ago the money is going to run out but magically they can still limp on another 5 weeks. Where those funds are coming from is a bit of a mystery, i know they have sold a couple of players but was it all up front? As for the FL ,as soon as they grant the golden share they will allow the potential chaos of folding during the season happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 Is it only me that thinks that now TB is also working more in BC interests than anyone elses? I'm not sure [hah!] that's it really, just that he wants the club and his own reputation to survive and BC is the only game in town. The trust are a useful presence if only to keep an eye on BC, even if practically there isn't much they can do. As for the running costs/FL situation: it just seems that everybody is in their own hole and continueing to dig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Jim Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 FC - Chinny is not an unsecured creditor so will be excluded from one vote (there are two votes; one unsecured, two all creditors I believe). He of course has AA on his side but it's no guarantee he would succeed in the vote with that alone. He is only secured to the value of the asset that is acting as security. Any credit he has supplied above that is unsecured, therefore it really depends on the valuation of he's security to establish if he is unsecured and for how much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 They just can't get them out, can they? I particularly like the last line. The trouble is, anywhere else he goes he is unlikely to get a third of the wage he is on at Nottarf Krap. Hoping to get £800k for him is a joke, even if he ought to be worth it. Paying someone that amount to take on the remainder of his contract is probably still not enough. http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/erik-i-don-t-regret-switch-to-pompey-1-3960192 Unfortunately things happened and it was sad to see. As things stand, I still plan to enjoy my time here because I will be back for next season. ‘I’m still under contract. It says two more years, so I have to stick to that unless something else happens. ‘You never know but I’m sticking to my contract as things stand.’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 They just can't get them out, can they? I particularly like the last line. The trouble is, anywhere else he goes he is unlikely to get a third of the wage he is on at Nottarf Krap. Hoping to get £800k for him is a joke, even if he ought to be worth it. Paying someone that amount to take on the remainder of his contract is probably still not enough. http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/erik-i-don-t-regret-switch-to-pompey-1-3960192 Unfortunately things happened and it was sad to see. As things stand, I still plan to enjoy my time here because I will be back for next season. ‘I’m still under contract. It says two more years, so I have to stick to that unless something else happens. ‘You never know but I’m sticking to my contract as things stand.’ I like the way that it's Birmingham's transfer embargo that is the reason that they haven't signed him... nothing at all to do with the fact that he's overpriced in terms of transfer fee and salary. Still it's all more spin to keep the deluded going whilst the club slips ever closer to cliff edge of oblivion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy_D Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 They just can't get them out, can they? I particularly like the last line. The trouble is, anywhere else he goes he is unlikely to get a third of the wage he is on at Nottarf Krap. Hoping to get £800k for him is a joke, even if he ought to be worth it. Paying someone that amount to take on the remainder of his contract is probably still not enough. http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/erik-i-don-t-regret-switch-to-pompey-1-3960192 Unfortunately things happened and it was sad to see. As things stand, I still plan to enjoy my time here because I will be back for next season. ‘I’m still under contract. It says two more years, so I have to stick to that unless something else happens. ‘You never know but I’m sticking to my contract as things stand.’ I particularly like the 'You could never see what has happened coming.' line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truckasaurus Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 5 weeks to go then "POP" You dirty cheating scumbag of a club. Finally getting it are you? Tick tock,tick tock. God bless the sands of time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 There will be no 'deal' to reduce 24 mil. The only 'deal' will be compromise agreements with players who agree' date=' in whch case they are no longer owed the rest of their contract, and thus the football creditor debt (24mil) is reduced... [b']and there would be no infringement of the football creditor rule or impact on the golden share[/b] Pompey are hoping players will leave voluntarliy to pave the way for a take over and the club is emotionally blackmailing players to try and get them to do so. Re: the bit in bold....yes, I would concur with your diagnosis, within the letter of the law...but....I would argue that it effectively renders the football leagues football creditors rule worthless....in other words, what's the point of the football league having a rule that says all the players contracts should be honoured in full in the event of their club going into administration if said players are then bullied into "voluntarily" diluting their contracts....? In that scenario the rule has completely failed to achieve the very aims that the rule was introduced for in the first place. There's no point having a rule if it's open for clubs to make a mockery of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint si Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 Re: the bit in bold....yes, I would concur with your diagnosis, within the letter of the law...but....I would argue that it effectively renders the football leagues football creditors rule worthless....in other words, what's the point of the football league having a rule that says all the players contracts should be honoured in full in the event of their club going into administration if said players are then bullied into "voluntarily" diluting their contracts....? In that scenario the rule has completely failed to achieve the very aims that the rule was introduced for in the first place. There's no point having a rule if it's open for clubs to make a mockery of it. Completely agree. If it's not ok to agree a compromise through a CVA, which is the very insolvency vehicle designed to enable it (and particularly given that the FL insists admin is exited via a CVA) then it shouldn't be ok any other way either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvaughanwilliams Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 Re: the bit in bold....yes, I would concur with your diagnosis, within the letter of the law...but....I would argue that it effectively renders the football leagues football creditors rule worthless....in other words, what's the point of the football league having a rule that says all the players contracts should be honoured in full in the event of their club going into administration if said players are then bullied into "voluntarily" diluting their contracts....? In that scenario the rule has completely failed to achieve the very aims that the rule was introduced for in the first place. There's no point having a rule if it's open for clubs to make a mockery of it. I disagree. The Football Creditors rule means that the players cannot be disadvantaged without their agreement. Without the FCR in a CVA all of the Football Creditors might vote against a reduction with the other 75.1% of creditors voting for, which would then be forced on the players or other clubs. Players agree to walk away from contracts all the time and clubs do deals to change staged payments all the time and none of those arrangements make a mockery of the Football Creditors rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevvy Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/582165024?-11209 Now here is one Pompey supporter that talk a bit of sense, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 I disagree. The Football Creditors rule means that the players cannot be disadvantaged without their agreement. Without the FCR in a CVA all of the Football Creditors might vote against a reduction with the other 75.1% of creditors voting for, which would then be forced on the players or other clubs. Players agree to walk away from contracts all the time and clubs do deals to change staged payments all the time and none of those arrangements make a mockery of the Football Creditors rule. Are you saying that it's routine ('all the time') that players are induced to walk away from their contracts while their clubs are in administration and attempting to put together a CVA? Can you give an example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 He is only secured to the value of the asset that is acting as security. Any credit he has supplied above that is unsecured, therefore it really depends on the valuation of he's security to establish if he is unsecured and for how much. Well Fratton has two valuations on it and I'm not sure whether the players have been valued using the Storrie method, if so all his value is secured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/582165024?-11209 Now here is one Pompey supporter that talk a bit of sense, Indeed. But given that it was suggested earlier this week that the next big for seeing if PFC lives or dies is in about four/five weeks time - if they leave it that late before pulling the plug, is there any league that will be willing and/or able to take them? Well, beyond Sunday morning park football I guess?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 Been away for a week. Looking at the news, it would appear nothing has changed. The trust has already missed its own 7 day deadline to bid http://www.pompeytrust.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=409:pst-statement-080612&catid=34:demo-category No player has left. It is still an impasse. Have I missed anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 no players have left, no debts have been paid, more parachute payments have been gobbled up, time is of the essence, the Trust's only professional advisor has gone on holiday, and Birch's masterplan is moving at the pace of a lazy glacier. But there is good news, they haven't raped a charity this week. I met someone yesterday who told me they'd bought a season ticket at Fratton. I laughed out loud. He told me the season ticket money is ringfenced. I laughed even louder and wet myself a lot. Shouldn't be long now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 16 June, 2012 Share Posted 16 June, 2012 Last night we had the Chair of Portsmouth Labour Party, and a councillor, say on twitter that he would prefer pompey to be liquidated and today we had a board member of the PST refuse to deny the BC could scupper any PST bid. The are all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 17 June, 2012 Share Posted 17 June, 2012 He is only secured to the value of the asset that is acting as security. Any credit he has supplied above that is unsecured, therefore it really depends on the valuation of he's security to establish if he is unsecured and for how much. I'm going to take a wild guess here: Chinny's portion of the unsecured debt is just sufficiently large enough that HMRC's is only 24.99% of the total unsecured debt. What prize do I win if I'm right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 17 June, 2012 Share Posted 17 June, 2012 I'm going to take a wild guess here: Chinny's portion of the unsecured debt is just sufficiently large enough that HMRC's is only 24.99% of the total unsecured debt. What prize do I win if I'm right? A night out with TBH (you're paying) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 17 June, 2012 Share Posted 17 June, 2012 A night out with TBH (you're paying) great prize the man is becoming a saints legend, doing more damage to the skates than any other player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 17 June, 2012 Share Posted 17 June, 2012 In town with the family shopping yesterday afternoon, I was amazed to see one of Skatesmouth's finest, together with his wife/sister. He was wearing his OKI skate top, as bold as brass. When I passed him, I told him that I hoped that he would enjoy watching Crawley Town whilst we played Chelski. I suspect that he probably went through the day unscathed, as the population here is mostly more civilised that that of Portsmouth, but I certainly wouldn't dare do the reverse. Presumably he wore the OKI top because that is the last time they had any glory and perhaps the poor sop felt the desperate need to hark back to that era and to walk around a city that breathed the sweet air of Premiership football, but without the fetid smell of corruption that hung over their city when they were there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 17 June, 2012 Share Posted 17 June, 2012 I saw a junior Skate (about seven or eight years old!) on the ferry last week ! Had Kanu on the back, made me smile it did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amesbury Saint Posted 17 June, 2012 Share Posted 17 June, 2012 great prize the man is becoming a saints legend' date=' doing more damage to the skates than any other player[/quote'] He wil never be a legend for me. Overpaid and is a great example of everything that is wrong with modern football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvaughanwilliams Posted 17 June, 2012 Share Posted 17 June, 2012 Are you saying that it's routine ('all the time') that players are induced to walk away from their contracts while their clubs are in administration and attempting to put together a CVA? Can you give an example? What I meant was that players are told that they don't have a future at the club and are unlikely to play for the first team again. They then come to an agreement to pay up the contract and let the player leave, irrespective of the clubs finances. This kind of agreement doesn't make a mockery of the Football Creditors rule, despite the fact that a contract isn't paid in full. The current situation of pressurising the players through the press is unique and unpleasant, but I don't see what other options TB has. It's a Prisoners Dilemma. With brinkmanship on all sides and each party trying to maximise their own interests. However, if a player does agree to take a compromise it is, technically, his choice. They can just sit there and refuse any agreement and get the club liquidated. The point I was trying to make is that if the FCR didn't exist then the players would have been sacked, as they were with Rangers. The league wants to stop a club arranging big transfer deals and big wages with money the club doesn't have, gambling everything on the belief that they will be successful. The theory (which didn't work in practice) is that clubs, knowing that they will be held accountable to their Football debts, wouldn't arrange unsustainable contracts. The problem now is that given that a club run by 'optimists' HAVE got a load of unsustainable football debts, what is the correct resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 17 June, 2012 Share Posted 17 June, 2012 What I meant was that players are told that they don't have a future at the club and are unlikely to play for the first team again. They then come to an agreement to pay up the contract and let the player leave, irrespective of the clubs finances. This kind of agreement doesn't make a mockery of the Football Creditors rule, despite the fact that a contract isn't paid in full. I guess the key word there - tiny little word!! - is PAY. That is the exact opposite of what the skates are trying to do. They want the players to leave without being paid in order to save the club. It's not the player's fault that the idiots running the club signed them up to stupid contracts. As far as they are concerned, they have a contract. Why shouldn't they be paid for the contract! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stev2001 Posted 17 June, 2012 Share Posted 17 June, 2012 The skates have used every law, bylaw, verbal agreement and handshake to dodge, weave and avoid paying tax and creditors in the last few years. However they are now pressurising players who have perfectly legitimate contracts to try and leave without getting what hey are owed. Keep it up TBH you deserve every penny and are a beacon for everyone who has been screwed by them. ...every week that passes with nothing happening the worse their situation is. I hope we hear nothing anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waterside.saint Posted 17 June, 2012 Share Posted 17 June, 2012 The skates have used every law, bylaw, verbal agreement and handshake to dodge, weave and avoid paying tax and creditors in the last few years. However they are now pressurising players who have perfectly legitimate contracts to try and leave without getting what hey are owed. Keep it up TBH you deserve every penny and are a beacon for everyone who has been screwed by them. ...every week that passes with nothing happening the worse their situation is. I hope we hear nothing anytime soon. Right. No News = Good News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 17 June, 2012 Share Posted 17 June, 2012 pompey. We've run out of money because our players are still on big wages. PL. What happened to the millions we gave you to cover this exact scenario? pompey. We spent it on shiny things and prossies. Well there you go - they chose to gamble everything, and they lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 17 June, 2012 Share Posted 17 June, 2012 I've been quiet recently, especially since I've now lost the template I was going to use to convert this wonderful thread and it's contributions into slide form. However, I'm loving the about-turn on the brave, plucky heroes who turned down moves in January, only now to be pillored from all quarters for not ripping up their contracts. Long may the pain continue. Sha la f()cking la. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 17 June, 2012 Share Posted 17 June, 2012 I've been quiet recently, especially since I've now lost the template I was going to use to convert this wonderful thread and it's contributions into slide form. However, I'm loving the about-turn on the brave, plucky heroes who turned down moves in January, only now to be pillored from all quarters for not ripping up their contracts. Long may the pain continue. Sha la f()cking la. Phew....welcome back sir....we all thought you'd been nobbled :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts