Pompey Takeover Saga

[ericb]

To be honest i've always thought now is the perfect chance for Rangers to try their hand at the english leagues. Think about it, two year ban from Europe so no way they can get back in anyway and that would put them most likely a season away (at most) from the premiership.

 

Any clever owner would be looking at that as an option over rejoining the SPL if you ask me.

[Fowllyd]

The time is definitely ripe for this thread's regular Football League correspondents to ask them to explain the difference in the overall conduct of Rangers and Pompey. It'll no doubt give rise to the usual standard generic reply but it'll register on their radar nonetheless.

 

I'd have thought the difference is pretty clear. Rangers have been liquidated, but have nonetheless attempted to retain their SPL place. Other SPL clubs are being given a vote on whether this happens or not. Unless I've missed something, Pompey have not been liquidated. If they are I would expect them to be kicked out of the Football League, with no vote as to whether they get to stay in it or not. This, after all, is what has happened in previous cases of liquidation.

 

Rangers, because of their dominant position in Scottish football, have actually been given massively preferential treatment by the SPL. Do you think they'd have done that for any club other than one of the Old Firm?

[Pedro]

Whatever the the CVA outcome is, this cheating club are returning for pre-season training soon without a keeper and desperately need to shed the remaining players, get a new squad made up of freebies or loanees, then they've got the prospect of starting the season trying to persuade all the creditors to stand by them and give them credit again, coach company, hotels, caterers, programme printers etc.etc. Would you give them credit considering their previous "crimes"

 

Also, how many of the few will support the club and be prepared to line the pockets once again of BC.

 

Do the right thing, liquidate them and let a phoenix club under the trust start again 4 or 5 leagues lower, nothing else stacks up financially.

[trousers]

I'd have thought the difference is pretty clear. Rangers have been liquidated, but have nonetheless attempted to retain their SPL place. Other SPL clubs are being given a vote on whether this happens or not. Unless I've missed something, Pompey have not been liquidated. If they are I would expect them to be kicked out of the Football League, with no vote as to whether they get to stay in it or not. This, after all, is what has happened in previous cases of liquidation.

 

OldCo Portsmouth Football Club was liquidated as a result of admin1 and yet they carried on regardless as NewCo....

 

That said, I was thinking more about the comparisons at a philosophical level rather than a pure like-for-like basis.

 

Both have taken the tax payer for a ride yet one is on the cusp of being chucked out of their league at the first strike whereas the other is itching to start building a new squad once it's shaken off yet more debt under admin2....

[trousers]

@brianhowe01: Because you don't suport the Pompey Trust you cannot be a Pompey fan according to some so called supporters.

 

@mickwill: @brianhowe01 I am in PST bid team & accept that you are a real fan whether or not you support us. I don't understand why, though! #Pompey

 

@brianhowe01: @mickwill

Because the Trust is spreading malicious untruths about Chanrai.....they are scare mongering and infighting.

 

@pompeytrust: @brianhowe01 Brian, I take exception to your accusation on Twitter the Trust are spreading malicious untruths about Chainrai.

Edited 25 June, 2012 by trousers

[Verbal]

The time is definitely ripe for this thread's regular Football League correspondents to ask them to explain the difference in the overall conduct of Rangers and Pompey. It'll no doubt give rise to the usual standard generic reply but it'll register on their radar nonetheless.

 

The real difference is that Rangers will be back. PFC won't be.

[Dark Munster]

Statue is pulling away. Ha a statue would would be amazing.

[Dark Munster]

So after all of the posturing, arm waving, amendments and proposals of today....

 

....it still comes down to the players tearing up their contracts....

 

...which they have said they won't do....

 

Nothing has changed. The train is still on course to crashing down the ravine. All they have done today is stuck their head out of the window and see how far away it is.

 

28 days.

 

[dubai_phil]

I'd have thought the difference is pretty clear. Rangers have been liquidated, but have nonetheless attempted to retain their SPL place. Other SPL clubs are being given a vote on whether this happens or not. Unless I've missed something, Pompey have not been liquidated. If they are I would expect them to be kicked out of the Football League, with no vote as to whether they get to stay in it or not. This, after all, is what has happened in previous cases of liquidation.

 

Rangers, because of their dominant position in Scottish football, have actually been given massively preferential treatment by the SPL. Do you think they'd have done that for any club other than one of the Old Firm?

 

You missed the point.

 

Rangers THOUGHT they would sail through a vote and keep their SPL place.

 

The OTHER SPL clubs have faced a groundswell of FAN opnion based on the issue of SPORTING INTEGRITY.

 

There is one hell of a similarity there - the cheats stole 40mil from the taxman and spent 130 million THEY DID NOT HAVE to outperform their Sporting Competitors.

 

Now IF the ST holders at other L1 clubs told their teams THEY would refuse to attend games and buy ST's IF the cheats were allowed to stay in L1 with no sanctions, I'd have some respect for them. But down here I still think that the cheats plan some last minute start of season financial blackmail, and still think the FL/L1 clubs would cave in rather than have one less home game in the coming season, ESPECIALLY as they would have done all their financial planning.

 

Cheats would know that a week before the FL could not "un-relegate" clubs all the way down the leagues as they would be at a competitive disadvantage having planned for a lower league.

 

Not saying they WILL do this, but I know from all the information we can see that this is the only possible route to take if I was trying to save them

[Waterside.saint]

 

Genius. Its a shame the FB vote doesn't allow caption suggestions for the plinth e.g. 'TO THE BESTEST AND BRITEST'

[pedg]

One final (okay possibly not) thought on the 26 million PFA debt listed in the CVA document. If the debt is for the remainder of all the players contracts then it is not an applicable debt on administration as the players have the same contracts before, during and after administration. So claiming that as a debt on administration is akin to claiming the money twice. Its only a relevant claim for a debt on liquidation when the contracts would be cancelled.

[hutch]

I'd have thought the difference is pretty clear. Rangers have been liquidated, but have nonetheless attempted to retain their SPL place. Other SPL clubs are being given a vote on whether this happens or not. Unless I've missed something, Pompey have not been liquidated. If they are I would expect them to be kicked out of the Football League, with no vote as to whether they get to stay in it or not. This, after all, is what has happened in previous cases of liquidation.

 

Rangers, because of their dominant position in Scottish football, have actually been given massively preferential treatment by the SPL. Do you think they'd have done that for any club other than one of the Old Firm?

My reading of the CVA proposal is that it also involves an "OldCo-NewCo" arrangement, for the following reasons:

 

TB describes Chainrai's bid as:

 

the only interested party to have made a formal offer for the Club’s business and assets as a going concern is the Purchaser, a company connected to the Debenture Holder.

 

and

 

The business and assets of the Club are to be sold to the Purchaser (or other third party purchaser that is either the Debenture Holder or a company under the same ultimate ownership as that of the Debenture Holder) conditional upon the completion of a sale and purchase agreement (the "SPA") within 28 days (or within such further period as the Supervisor, in their absolute discretion may determine)

 

In the CVA the Club is defined as:

 

Portsmouth Football Club (2010) Limited (in administration) (the "Club")

 

The Club's business is defined as:

 

Portsmouth FC is a professional English football team founded in 1898 based in the city of Portsmouth and is the business currently being traded by the Club.

 

The assets are anybody's guess, but probably limited to FP and any remaining PPs.

 

No suggestion anywhere there that Chainrai is buying the Company which is in administration, he is buying it's assets. I would guess therefore that if and when he does, that Company will be liquidated. It seems to me a deliberate attempt to blur the clear distinction between the football club and the company that owns it. Wouldn't it have been more straightforward to define PFC (2010) Ltd. as "the Company"?

 

The following Condition in the CVA:

 

That the Club’s Football Shares are transferred from the Club to the Purchaser

 

suggests that it won't be PFC (2010) Ltd. that will be asking for the golden share, but some as yet unknown NewCo.

 

So not really very far from the situation at Rangers.

[Gingeletiss]

I think it is now clear, why the FL would not wish 'liquidation' as a solution to the problem of cheats fc..........simple, money! players contracts money they would have to pay. Imho, if it were not for that, they would not of offered all these advance payments, and would of let them go to the wall, as they have with other teams. This again imo, makes them as bad as the cheats they are protecting. FA...FL...PL, you should hang your collective heads in shame, along with our PM, and local MP's, who have all voiced support for the cheating scum from Portsea.

[Gingeletiss]

 

Caption competition.............

 

 

Where's me effing scooter!

[Gingeletiss]

My reading of the CVA proposal is that it also involves an "OldCo-NewCo" arrangement, for the following reasons:

 

The Club's business is defined as:

 

Portsmouth FC is a professional English football team founded in 1898 based in the city of Portsmouth and is the business currently being traded by the Club.

 

Surely this statement is wrong, as they were liquidated and a new company formed!

[bridge too far]

Isn't another difference between Rangers and PFC the fact that HMRC were able to force Rangers into liquidation because they were the largest creditor, given that the Football Creditors Rule doesn't apply in Scotland?

 

Or am I getting muddled here?

[trousers]

Portsmouth FC is a professional English football team founded in 1898 based in the city of Portsmouth and is the business currently being traded by the Club.

 

Surely this statement is wrong, as they were liquidated and a new company formed!

 

When Birch came on the scene, the statutory administration notice was published in the London Gazette.

 

A few weeks later the notice was re-issued to add a third named administrator. At the same time they added the words: "TA Portsmouth Football Club" under the 'PFC 2010 Ltd" official company name heading.

 

'TA' stands for 'Trading As'....

 

I always suspected this was a significant tweak to the admin notice. Perhaps it's a legal 'work around' for maintaining the continuity of the trading name of a company whilst the actual company goes in and out of liquidation?

[Chez]

Miss Portsmouth gets statue

[Chez]

If the players won't walk, he gets the freehold on liquidation.

I thought if they were liquidated Birch sells Fratton Park (and any other assets) to the highest bidder with Chinny top of the queue to be paid what is made. Is that not correct?

[pedg]

I thought if they were liquidated Birch sells Fratton Park (and any other assets) to the highest bidder with Chinny top of the queue to be paid what is made. Is that not correct?

 

I believe so as its theoretically possible (though highly unlikely) that the money made on selling assets on liquidation could exceed Chinny's charge and would then provide some money for other creditors so I don't think you can just hand over bits to the largest creditor.

 

--

 

Though I suppose he could just offer up to his charge to buy the assets on liquidation?

Edited 26 June, 2012 by pedg

[Depressed of Shirley]

Isn't the whole point of the parachute payment system to help clubs deal with the very situation Pompey now find themselves in?

 

i.e. to cushion the blow between lower league income versus higher league wages.

 

(ok, I know Pompey are an extreme example of this scenario but you get my drift...)

 

Ergo, how come the parachute payments aren't ring-fenced to pay off the players (as per the intention of said payments) rather than the club and administrator bleating on about how the players need to forego what they are due from this very same safety net?

 

I'm probably missing something simple here but for Pompey to effectively be saying: "We're not going to use the remaining parachute payments for the purposes for which they were designed" is surely breaking the Premier League's own terms and conditions of use?

 

Shirley?

 

You wanted me?

 

Anyway, there are hundreds of posts on here from the HO stating that all the PP's were ringfenced because he was told by his contact he sees socially every couple of weeks etc.

[suewhistle]

I think it is now clear, why the FL would not wish 'liquidation' as a solution to the problem of cheats fc..........simple, money! players contracts money they would have to pay.

 

No, they wouldn't. John D above at post 65014 has explained that: it means they are effectively free agents and are not an asset of any club, but the FL won't _pay_ them. Also the PFA have "have registered a claim of £26m for past and future payments" and I'm sure that is on behalf of the players. The PFA have an obligation to help their players with claims and they may make hardship payments. They're effectively a trade union or trade association: and any I've been in would have assisted me but not paid me if my company when PHUT! The FA or PFA, same as any other union just don't have the resources for such an open-ended commitment.

[eurosaint]

No, they wouldn't. John D above at post 65014 has explained that: it means they are effectively free agents and are not an asset of any club, but the FL won't _pay_ them. Also the PFA have "have registered a claim of £26m for past and future payments" and I'm sure that is on behalf of the players. The PFA have an obligation to help their players with claims and they may make 'hardship payments'. They're effectively a trade union or trade association: and any I've been in would have assisted me but not paid me if my company when PHUT! The FA or PFA, same as any other union just don't have the resources for such an open-ended commitment.

 

A lovely definition of need when applied to footballers like Tal Ben Haim etc..

[Alien]

 

Hence the fat in the pipes

[sussexsaint]

I know it's veering off topic slightly but why in the name of Truckasaurus' all blessing god, is there this persistent delusion that they have the best and most loyal fans in the land from ? By no measure do they fit any of the criteria that would seem reasonable.

Or is it simply a way of appeasing an ugly duckling craving attention for a compliment, i.e You have lovely eyes miss Boyle.

 

It only serves to make me hate them all the more

 

Sorry , carry on

[qwertySFC]

So, once again the debt of over £100m is about to be wiped off with the swiftness on a few hand votes - And yet the PST seem more than happy to go along with getting the club on the cheap by offering a better deal than old Chinny's 2p in the £ - What are they offering exactly ?? 3p in the £

 

Well how about a new concept - how about offering to pay all of the money owed to the many - Oh but wait that actually involves taking some sort of moral stance in the old fashioned way - Pay back what you borrowed . They are always bleating on about the previous owners shafting the club of cash - yet they are happy to shaft those who can least afford to loose it the local companies all wrapped nicely in we are the fans - and we do things differently ..

 

However in order to the decent and moral thing to pay back all who are owed means the bestest fans forking out a bit more than their "investment" of a grand , some thing that would never be achieved, so they are as just as immoral as all of the previous owners who have crapped on all of the companies, charities, schools owed cash in order to put a competitive team out to meet the deluded demands of the fans who are desperate to get where they believe they belong - The Premiership - remember that place where so much money went into that club not one penny was used for future investment in the ground, training facility or academy -

 

The fans have wet themselves over their Harry signings - their recommendation's from a Terry Henry all equating to the deluded conclusion they they have the best fans - irrespective of who got shafted in the process and who is about to be offered a mere few pence for their services - They really are taking the **** - but like all things the have no shame because it is such a part of the Fratton Furniture - Just liquidate this embarrassment

[OldNick]

So much for toast then. The CVA being passed will mean that the FL can waive any penalties and Pompey can live on still wallowing in their past glories.

Many will say they have not got away with it but I believe they have had a whale of a time and taken a small pill.

Since watching Saints from the late 60's Pompey were always off the radar except a flirtation with the top league for one season under Bally. So for 40 years years they did SFA, and then they had the overspending and cheating that gave them a wonderful time in the sun and many Wembley trips. They are now back to where they were, but if history is a lesson they are still alive and could rise from the cesspit once again.

[Saint in Paradise]

Once again I have to agree with Old Nick. I was hoping they would die before me but

that hope has now passed, they will live for ever now.

[Frank's cousin]

Its the CVA1 v CVA2 that rankles most. The fact that to dayte not a penny has been paid towards CVA1 creditors and now we have in effect a situation where the amount owed to non footballing creditors (around 100mil) will be 500k - expenses... how the flying feck the FL consider this to be aligned with their constant stance on integrity is beyond a joke, its shameful, dispicable ...

 

They are a complete and utter joke... both the cheating club and the FL...they deserve each other.

[Glasgow_Saint]

I dont want them to die - I just want them to suffer!

[pedg]

If, and its a big if, they can get rid of players so that CVA2 can proceed my guess is that the league will give them a penalty relating to CVA1, possibly making up rules as it goes along again (with the don't sue or the golden share gets it threat behind it) but that it will be something like 10 points that, given the squad they are likely to have will probably have no effect come the end of the season.

[Sevvy]

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/583919142?-11209

 

 

But in an unexpected move, creditors also agreed a modification which allows administrator Trevor Birch to consider alternative bids at any point before Portpin’s deal is finalised.

 

They also waived a 28-day exclusivity clause which would have made Portpin’s bid the only one allowed during that period.

 

That gives Pompey Supporters Trust vital time to finalise its own bid for a takeover led by fans.

 

Portpin’s proposed CVA was approved following an hour-long meeting in Fratton Park’s Victory Lounge yesterday morning.

 

It was initially adjourned for an hour after just five minutes as representatives from Portpin, liquidators of Pompey’s former operating company Baker Tilly, UHY Hacker Young and shareholders regrouped to discuss the modification.

 

It came after the trust signalled its intent to take over the club by issuing outline takeover proposals to the administrators on Friday.

 

The amendment was unanimously passed.

 

In another amendment, the Football League will act at its discretion over granting the club league membership as a new company and imposing further points penalties.Portpin’s offer now relies on the club’s big money earners leaving, while any trust bid will have to come to a compromise on £18m owed to Mr Chainrai’s firm.

 

Lets wait and see on that one.

[trousers]

So much for toast then. The CVA being passed will mean that the FL can waive any penalties and Pompey can live on still wallowing in their past glories.

 

The aforementioned "passed" CVA will only be activated if the high earners fall on their collective swords - the CVA is conditional on that happening. Of course, that is quite possibly the most likely outcome but the CVA vote yesterday was a rubber stamping of an 'IF' rather than a 'WHEN'.

[trousers]

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/583919142?-11209

Portpin’s proposed CVA was approved following an hour-long meeting in Fratton Park’s Victory Lounge yesterday morning.

 

It was initially adjourned for an hour after just five minutes as representatives from Portpin, liquidators of Pompey’s former operating company Baker Tilly, UHY Hacker Young and shareholders regrouped to discuss the modification.

 

 

Who are the "shareholders" these reports keep refering to? CSI? Lampitt? A.N.Other(s)?

[saintjay77]

Its the CVA1 v CVA2 that rankles most. The fact that to dayte not a penny has been paid towards CVA1 creditors and now we have in effect a situation where the amount owed to non footballing creditors (around 100mil) will be 500k - expenses... how the flying feck the FL consider this to be aligned with their constant stance on integrity is beyond a joke, its shameful, dispicable ...

 

They are a complete and utter joke... both the cheating club and the FL...they deserve each other.

 

The joke of CVA1 is that footballing creditors got 100% before and if there is still anything owed they will still get 100% now. The non footballing creditors went with the 20p less expenses and are now being forced into 2p in the £ of that!!! How the FC rule can be upheld in court is laughable as it is being used to absolutley shaft normal people while some rich players and clubs can cash in.

 

I still dont think its over though, as even if they can continue they will either live within their means and suffer a relegation or 2, or spend big again and end up in exactly the same position in a year or 2 from now.

 

The Saga will continue.

[saint si]

Still think this will end up in court.

 

If they hadn't pulled the "liquidate oldco & transfer golden share to newco" stunt, then the original creditors' claims would still be valid to 100%.

 

Seems like they have exploited a technical loophole that has let them off £100m+ and only a court can close it.

[trousers]

Birch changes his tune....anyone got his quote from a few weeks ago where he was saying that he had reassurances from the FL that a points penalty was out of the question (or words to that effect)....?

 

@pn_neil_allen: Birch fears #Pompey points deduction despite CVA agreement. http://t.co/cL47ol78

 

Pompey’s administrator said: ‘It is not set in stone there will now not be a points deduction.‘It is at the Football League’s discretion when they start to consider the new owners’ proposals. Whoever buys from herein will sit down with the Football League.

 

‘They will look at the proposals and look at the fact we have done a CVA, which is the first step to not getting points deducted.

 

‘But they still have to then make a decision over possible deductions.

‘They may say we have had three administrations in the past 10 years or so and take action.

 

‘Some of the board of directors may look at the fact the last CVA didn’t pay a dividend. So they may take that into account.

 

‘There is no guarantee'.

Edited 26 June, 2012 by trousers

[stevegrant]

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/birch-fears-pompey-points-deduction-1-3988134

 

What's that I hear? Is it the sound of the penny dropping?

[trousers]

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/birch-fears-pompey-points-deduction-1-3988134

 

What's that I hear? Is it the sound of the penny dropping?

 

[pedg]

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/birch-fears-pompey-points-deduction-1-3988134

 

What's that I hear? Is it the sound of the penny dropping?

 

Article mentions a penalty is at the leagues discretion 4 times. Appears to be rather keen that is made clear.

Edited 26 June, 2012 by pedg

[trousers]

Article mentions a penalty is at the leagues discretion 4 times. Appears to be rather keen that is made clear.

 

That thought occured to me too. Why would an administrator who's trying to avoid a points penalty go out of his way to highlight that a points penalty could now be on the cards. It's almost as if he knows what is about to happen and is trying to break it gently....

[pedg]

That thought occured to me too. Why would an administrator who's trying to avoid a points penalty go out of his way to highlight that a points penalty could now be on the cards. It's almost as if he knows what is about to happen and is trying to break it gently....

 

I especially like the way he goes into the details of a couple of reasons they might get a penalty, just in case the league have forgotten.

 

As to why he is doing it my guess is that he is keen to avoid any blame.. "out of my hands guv.."

[trousers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18554519

 

In other semi-related news.....Bradford Bulls have just gone into administration with "only 10 days to save the club from liquidation"....only 10 days between administration and liquidation....? Blimey.....Carlsberg don't do swift administrations but if they did....

[trousers]

I especially like the way he goes into the details of a couple of reasons they might get a penalty, just in case the league have forgotten.

 

Indeed......

[Frank's cousin]

The joke of CVA1 is that footballing creditors got 100% before and if there is still anything owed they will still get 100% now. The non footballing creditors went with the 20p less expenses and are now being forced into 2p in the £ of that!!! How the FC rule can be upheld in court is laughable as it is being used to absolutley shaft normal people while some rich players and clubs can cash in.

 

I still dont think its over though, as even if they can continue they will either live within their means and suffer a relegation or 2, or spend big again and end up in exactly the same position in a year or 2 from now.

 

The Saga will continue.

 

Thing is the FC Rule is not a legally binding rule... FC creditors do not get legal priority over other creditors, so froma leagl perspective as teh Judge said, there is not alot that can be done. The FL need the FC Rule, because unless a global wide policy of pay al monies up front on transfers exists, then one club defaulting would in effect create a domino effect and push other clubs into admin. In addition the argumnet is that if players are not paid in full, then you have had a competitive advantage so will suffer a massive points deduction/golden share removal etc.

 

From a legal point of view how can this be done? Well when a CVA proposal is put in place, the non footballing creitors are voting on what is being offered to them, not what teh total cash available is or teh distribution of it. In addition the Footballing creditors can also be paid from withheld cash from the league, as this case is not included in the offer to creditors... so legally the FC Rule does stand up. If the creditors do not like it or accept it, they dont vote for it and the CVA is not passed and huge point penalities exist.

 

So whilst the concept of rich footballers being paid ahead of small businesses is immoral, and leaves a sickly feeling, from a football perspective tere is justificatio in having such a rule. The issue that HMRC have is that in most cases non-footballing creditors would be happy with a tiny fraction of money owed rather than nothing, and HMRC usually dont ahve enough voting rights to bock the CVA... so they always lose out.

 

Simple things that could sort this out:

 

1. All transfers and agent fees must be paid up front

2. Make players resppnsible for their own PAYE/tax and NI contributions from their gross - administered by a central PFA fund. MOnies must be paid in for wages on time. NO further cheating the tax man

3. A club that defaults on wages is automatically deducted 3 points for one month, 10 if its more than 1 month etc

4. With strichter rules as above a club that still went into admin is automaticaly relegated 2 divisions. Further relegation for failure of CVA. NO club that has assets tranfered to a NEW CO can remain in teh same league but has to start form 5 divisions lower.

 

Draconian maybe, but only way to stop this shietd once and for all and would have te added benefit taht transfer fees might go down a bit as well.

[pedg]

In another amendment, the Football League will act at its discretion over granting the club league membership as a new company and imposing further points penalties.

 

This also confuses me. Surely the golden share is always at the discretion of the league and nothing written into the CVA should be able to change that? Why did that need to be an amendment at all?

[saintjay77]

This also confuses me. Surely the golden share is always at the discretion of the league and nothing written into the CVA should be able to change that? Why did that need to be an amendment at all?

 

Maybe the previous wording implied that the FL were in agreement that there would be no further penalties and if they had applied some anyway the new owners could of challenged them? Changing the wording to leave the door open covers that eventuallity.

 

TB's admission that the FL could take them on several fronts is a bit telling though. We have just been looking at the failed CVA1 but there are a few angles the FL could screw them or as more likley the case with all things pompey, act like nothing is wrong and give them a cash boost to make them competitive.......

[edprice1984]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18554519

 

In other semi-related news.....Bradford Bulls have just gone into administration with "only 10 days to save the club from liquidation"....only 10 days between administration and liquidation....? Blimey.....Carlsberg don't do swift administrations but if they did....

 

It makes you wonder why Pompey have been allowed to carry on for so long

[Gingeletiss]

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/birch-fears-pompey-points-deduction-1-3988134

 

What's that I hear? Is it the sound of the penny dropping?

 

The voice of reason (occasionally)

12:04 PM on 26/06/2012

So depressing. I've got my season ticket renewed but what will I be watching and more to the point, I'm beginning to ask myself why? When you see clubs like ours who have invested and developed like Norwich or our friends up the road, it makes you sick to the stomach. This has been ongoing since the late 1950's and it's finally caught up with us. I foresee us now trapped in the lower reaches of the league forever with the ever constant fight against the loss of league status hanging over us.

 

 

Says it all about their fans, I'd say!

[Kingsbridge Saint]

Anyone want to do a rough stab at how much they spent on player wages, whilst they failed to pay any creditors from CVA1, and then ultimately blew off over 100M of debt in CVA2? Just so we can quantify the level of Sporting Advantage for anyone who might be perusing this thread.