pedg Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 'Portsmouth have been given special dispensation by the Football League to start the season on zero points despite being in administration.' Why? Luton must be seething at this. It seems that there is a chance they will not get any deduction at all. It is incredible, every time they say they are going to be wound up they get 'special dispensation' Its not special dispensation its standard rules. You get a points penalty when you enter admin (tick) and you can get a penalty (the -10 points) when you exit admin. Its just trying to dress up standard rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 Its not special dispensation its standard rules. You get a points penalty when you enter admin (tick) and you can get a penalty (the -10 points) when you exit admin. Its just trying to dress up standard rules. Correct. They'll get the -10 and the other restrictions as per the previous statement when, as stated, they exit admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 @pn_neil_allen: RT @hartleehair: @pn_neil_allen this better than Christmas !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericofarabia Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 @pn_neil_allen: RT @hartleehair: @pn_neil_allen this better than Christmas !!!! Certainly better than a lot of bankrupt business people and charitys had thats for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 The big news from the FL is they will let them start the season in administration. All the rest we knew. In a perverse way I hope they play ok against against Bompey, their Chairman might be tempted to issue some subtle comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 One of my skate mates reckons that the admin bill is going up quicker than the pledges are coming in & that the month at a time signings are from the ring fenced ST money which is being released a game at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19286219 Hopes that Pompey dont get -10 at all? Even when out of admin? So its nonsense that the -10 gets applied when you exit admin. As I thought. Some people have very short memories; Mawhinney and co slapped us with the -10 the second we went into admin. Yet Pompey get special dispensation, and now the next step is that they think they can get away with no points deduction. And as usual, they will probably get their way. This is rapidly taking on farcical proportions. The FL are making themselves look either biased or complete mugs. Rapidly losing faith in the English game. I still burn with anger when I think about how West Ham avoided the proscribed punishment over the Tevez business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 Certainly better than a lot of bankrupt business people and charitys had thats for sure. Yeah, I am really wondering how the average Pompey fan can look in the mirror... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 @officialpompey: #Pompey response to Football League statement: http://t.co/Qff979Vk "I’m also encouraged by the League’s decision to postpone any possible points deduction until it receives an application for membership by the Trust. At that stage, the application will be accompanied by a request for a review of the points deduction. So, unlike us, the League seemingly haven't told Birch that the -10 is non-negotiable. Unless of course that's just some interim bravado from Birch to keep the fans 'on side'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 So its nonsense that the -10 gets applied when you exit admin. As I thought. Some people have very short memories; Mawhinney and co slapped us with the -10 the second we went into admin. Yet Pompey get special dispensation, and now the next step is that they think they can get away with no points deduction. And as usual, they will probably get their way. This is rapidly taking on farcical proportions. The FL are making themselves look either biased or complete mugs. Rapidly losing faith in the English game. I still burn with anger when I think about how West Ham avoided the proscribed punishment over the Tevez business. They have had their -10 for entering admin, the extra 10 is part of the exit terms for leaving admin with the golden share. Once they leave admin it'll be applied. Whether we like it or not, they have been consistant, it was the same for Leeds and Boscombe.The extra points were added when they left admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 So its nonsense that the -10 gets applied when you exit admin. As I thought. Some people have very short memories; Mawhinney and co slapped us with the -10 the second we went into admin. Yet Pompey get special dispensation, and now the next step is that they think they can get away with no points deduction. And as usual, they will probably get their way. This is rapidly taking on farcical proportions. The FL are making themselves look either biased or complete mugs. Rapidly losing faith in the English game. I still burn with anger when I think about how West Ham avoided the proscribed punishment over the Tevez business. LOL why? Cos Birch says so? I seem to remember Birch being confident they wouldn't get a points deduction last season. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 So its nonsense that the -10 gets applied when you exit admin. As I thought. The Football League confirmed that they will get -10 when they exit admin (we knew this before today anyway so not news) as they will be doing so having diluted a failed 2010 CVA with a new 2012 CVA. Until it is seen how they exit admin they can't be hit with a points deduction as in theory they could pay off all their debts still (never going to happen but can't rule it out). What is strange is why Pompey only get -10 points for diluting a failed CVA, yet Rotherham and Bournemouth got -17 points for failing to agree a CVA. They amount to the same thing, yet are punished differently. The Football League refuse to explain the difference in punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 They have had their -10 for entering admin, the extra 10 is part of the exit terms for leaving admin with the golden share. Once they leave admin it'll be applied. Whether we like it or not, they have been consistant, it was the same for Leeds and Boscombe.The extra points were added when they left admin. Ooops, forgot that. Why is it split then ? Why not just subtract 20 points for going into admin in the first place ? Seems a bit spiteful to again kick a club staggering back to its feet. how come we only got -10 once ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 The Football League confirmed that they will get -10 when they exit admin (we knew this before today anyway so not news) as they will be doing so having diluted a failed 2010 CVA with a new 2012 CVA. Until it is seen how they exit admin they can't be hit with a points deduction as in theory they could pay off all their debts still (never going to happen but can't rule it out). What is strange is why Pompey only get -10 points for diluting a failed CVA, yet Rotherham and Bournemouth got -17 points for failing to agree a CVA. They amount to the same thing, yet are punished differently. The Football League refuse to explain the difference in punishment. And the administrator doesnt understand this ?? FFS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 It seems that some on here have forgotten this : http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16943651 PFC were docked 10 in February, when they entered administration. The additional deduction is a condition of being allowed to continue at the end of the admin process. There will be one of 2 conclusions; firstly somebody does take them over and the -10 is enforced ( we know to our cost how successful a 'challenge' to this are likely to be ); the alternative is that they go pop no later than next August, as they cannot be in admin at the start of next season. Remember that Birch is bound to run them within their means, his company are directly liable for any losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 So why is Birch telling porkies ? Didnt realise their admin has been so long now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 I'm just about done with this sport. I know what you mean. Its not just their craven disregard for the sport (in fact, I swear some are getting a kick out of it), its the fact that the authorities do nothing about it, even though the club is a basket case and they know this trust crap will fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 So why is Birch telling porkies ? Didnt realise their admin has been so long now. He's gone native. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 So why is Birch telling porkies ? Didnt realise their admin has been so long now. remember Fry did the same with us. Lots of bravado about grounds to appeal, but League can impose what ever terms they like for return of golden share. If Ken bates, couldn't get round it, there's no way a bunch of deluded Skates with their 1k each are going to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 how come we only got -10 once ? If you ignore that the club never legally went into admin (only SLH plc did, compared to both CSI and Pompey FC currently both in admin), Saints didn't require a CVA, did fail to make payments on that CVA and didn't plan to dilute a failed CVA with a new CVA. All thing Pompey have or intend to do. Hence the further deduction they will get this season when they exit administration. They are lucky it is only -10, as I said earlier Bournemouth and ROtherham had -17 for failing to agree a CVA in the first place, what Pompey are doing is similar if not worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 The Football League confirmed that they will get -10 when they exit admin (we knew this before today anyway so not news) as they will be doing so having diluted a failed 2010 CVA with a new 2012 CVA. Until it is seen how they exit admin they can't be hit with a points deduction as in theory they could pay off all their debts still (never going to happen but can't rule it out). What is strange is why Pompey only get -10 points for diluting a failed CVA, yet Rotherham and Bournemouth got -17 points for failing to agree a CVA. They amount to the same thing, yet are punished differently. The Football League refuse to explain the difference in punishment. Probably because Pompey's original CVA has been diluted and not scrapped altogether. They would still have paid some of the amount owed, but not all of it. There is an argument (not one that I ascribe to) that they could have gone back to all of the original CVA-1 creditors and put it to the vote again as to whether they would accept the revised terms of their CVA. If this had been the case, and if those creditors had agreed, there is the argument that the -10 is "unfair". Again, I don't for one minute agree with that, for me as soon as the terms of CVA-1 are not met or are altered then it has by definition failed and the club should be punished just the same as if they didn't have a CVA in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 Correct. They'll get the -10 and the other restrictions as per the previous statement when, as stated, they exit admin. Planned for 2075 no doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericofarabia Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 @pn_neil_allen: McLeod tick. Walker tick. Compton tick. Howard tick. Dumbuya tick. Eastwood tick. Djilali tick. Harley tick. Williamson tick. #Pompey Creditors? Big fat cross... I wonder who'll be picking up the medical bills if any of these poor sods gets a bad injury? Hope they all have personal medical schemes in place. Didn't the Ticket Office boy Lawrence have to pay for his own scan last season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 Probably because Pompey's original CVA has been diluted and not scrapped altogether. They would still have paid some of the amount owed, but not all of it. There is an argument (not one that I ascribe to) that they could have gone back to all of the original CVA-1 creditors and put it to the vote again as to whether they would accept the revised terms of their CVA. If this had been the case, and if those creditors had agreed, there is the argument that the -10 is "unfair". Again, I don't for one minute agree with that, for me as soon as the terms of CVA-1 are not met or are altered then it has by definition failed and the club should be punished just the same as if they didn't have a CVA in the first place. A debt of £10,000 in 2010 was going to see £2,000 paid back over a number of years. That is now going to see a return of a mere £40. I doubt any of the 2010 creditors would be willing to do the club any favours, nor should such a tiny return be seen as really still meeting the original debt. Certainly not enough to warrant a reduction in punishment from -19 points (-4 added for two previous admins ontop of the -15), to -10 points. It is a clear case of inconsistent punishments from the Football League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andysstuff Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 The second ten points is nothing to do with exiting an admin. it's for failing to pay the last one. Crystal palace last season never got a further -10 on exiting admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 @pn_neil_allen: RT @hartleehair: @pn_neil_allen this better than Christmas !!!! Laugh long and loud - you'll be crying when you finally realise that its just a stay of execution - don't forget your still on death row. How the FL have even allowed them to start the season beggars belief - lets not forget that they are starting in admin with the only potential "buyers" being the PST who's business case has more holes than a Tetley's tea bag. Can they see out the season - highly unlikely is my view (well unless a white knight on a white horse comes galloping over the horizon). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 The second ten points is nothing to do with exiting an admin. it's for failing to pay the last one. This. People think its for the act of exiting ADMIN2 itself but that just happens to be the moment in time that the football league declare that CVA1 hasn't been honoured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 A debt of £10,000 in 2010 was going to see £2,000 paid back over a number of years. That is now going to see a return of a mere £40. I doubt any of the 2010 creditors would be willing to do the club any favours, nor should such a tiny return be seen as really still meeting the original debt. Certainly not enough to warrant a reduction in punishment from -19 points (-4 added for two previous admins ontop of the -15), to -10 points. It is a clear case of inconsistent punishments from the Football League. You don't know what the creditors would have agreed to. No-one does, because they weren't asked. But being as Chainrai overwhelmingly held the cards in terms of the percentage of the debt there's a very good chance that any altering of the terms would have gone through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 @pn_neil_allen: McLeod tick. Walker tick. Compton tick. Howard tick. Dumbuya tick. Eastwood tick. Djilali tick. Harley tick. Williamson tick. #Pompey Creditors? Big fat cross... Nothing changes- Everything on Tick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 @pn_neil_allen: McLeod tick. Walker tick. Compton tick. Howard tick. Dumbuya tick. Eastwood tick. Djilali tick. Harley tick. Williamson tick. #Pompey Phew! I thought they might have been signing the whole Gibraltar team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 You don't know what the creditors would have agreed to. That is the FL's point, they should at least have been asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 Gotta be up at 02:30 so last post until September for yours truly. Can someone take notes in my absence? Just one side of A4 when i get back please. Thanks in advance. Salute! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 That is the FL's point, they should at least have been asked. Yes I know. They should have been. But the FL perhaps saw that there was a possibility the original creditors would have agreed to the CVA modification and therefore why the punishment was less than not actually agreeing a CVA in the first place. Do take note that I don't agree with this argument, but I can see where there is ambiguity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 This. People think its for the act of exiting ADMIN2 itself but that just happens to be the moment in time that the football league declare that CVA1 hasn't been honoured. On that basis getting a new CVA agreed that effectivly fails the previous CVA is meaningless while the club remain in Admin as the new CVA doesnt take effect until they exit Admin. So the FL cant realy argue the points to start at the beginining of the season. But I cant see how the club can argue the points shouldnt stand at all when the new CVA starts and basically bin's the previous CVA. Unless a new CVA has been drawn up to include the previous CVA at 100% of its worth? Im starting to get confused as to which Admins they have had points for and which ones they havent!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 Im starting to get confused as to which Admins they have had points for and which ones they havent!!!! You're not alone; I suspect Birchy is starting to have the same trouble if he thinks the -10 wont stand. Or it was a Freudian slip that he thinks the club is about to be wound up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 You're not alone; I suspect Birchy is starting to have the same trouble if he thinks the -10 wont stand. Or it was a Freudian slip that he thinks the club is about to be wound up. Ah of course, cant doc points off a club that has gone pop!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 (edited) Done some digging on the 'quality' of their latest 'quantity' : ( admittedly courtesy of Wikipedia )..... Izale MacLeod released from L2 Barnet Kieran Djilali released from L2 AFC Wimbledon Mustapha Dumbuya 10 apearances last season for Doncaster Jon Harley released from L2 Rotherham Brian Howard released by Reading ( last played on loan at Millwall 26th December 2011 ) Lee Williamson released by Sheff Utd Simon Eastwood released by Conference North Halifax Jack Compton released from Falkirk ( 'tore up his contract' ) Luke Rodgers released by Lillestrom ( and has had at least 3 arrests for assault or public order ) Liam Walker from Gibraltar Edited 16 August, 2012 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charliemiller Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 Cant believe the FL is doing this ....could be the way forward for ALL L1 and below clubs , just sign free players on month by month non contracts !!! think of the fiscal advantages. 1) If a player doesn t perform its bye bye at the end onf the month. 2) If a player gets injured you dont have to pay him after one month for sitting medics bench. 3) In the black hole that is the closed season May to early August you have no players wages because you null there contracts every month. Will save lower league clubs a fortune , the PFA wont be happy though. The right thing to have happened IMHO today not only for the credibility of Football but also in the long run for Pompey was Liquidation and expulsion from the League . Really start again its your chance !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mack rill Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 'Portsmouth have been given special dispensation by the Football League to start the season on zero points despite being in administration.' Why? Luton must be seething at this. It seems that there is a chance they will not get any deduction at all. It is incredible, every time they say they are going to be wound up they get 'special dispensation' Nicky boy my old mucker give me one of your educated up dates, is our little old eads still above water? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 (edited) Nicky boy my old mucker give me one of your educated up dates, is our little old eads still above water? Merely treading water until the huge flaws in the Trust's bid are fully exposed. Things like... 1) £30k for maintenance of Fratton Park for a year - a ludicrously low figure. 2) Budgeted for a 10,000 average for 1st rounds of League Cup, JPT and FA Cup. With the League Cup attendance of 5,318, Pompey need to get 24,682 in total for the 1st round of the JPT and 1st round of the FA Cup to meet business plan. 3) Council loan dependant on being secured against parachute payments that have been taken up for compromise agreements. 4) Extremely ambitious average attendance forecasts over the next 3 years 5) An inability to confirm if the academy is closing or not. Bid document and council document confirmed it has been budgeted for after 2014 and will close. Yet trust officials in the media say they intend to continue with it. Right hand doesn't know what the left is doing! 6) Council say you need a 90% conversion rate of pledges, trust say 75%. Which is right? I can't see either happening tbh. etc etc Anyone want to add some more? Edited 16 August, 2012 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 Nicky boy my old mucker give me one of your educated up dates, is our little old eads still above water? Just about.... ...except your in a cesspit that hasn't been cleaned out for years... its deep, your feet can't touch the bottom and you're a long way from the sides... ...and we're about to find out if the PST can swim or if TB has given any swimming lessons!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 the bottom line is how can a club plead poverty and say it has nothing to pay it's creditors, yet it has money to bring in new players? Now I know they are all eating squirrels, earning peanuts and living in fricking tents, but if you suddenly have £50K a week to spend, how about paying off the dying kids you stole money from? Perhaps stick with your plucky young braves who were the flavour of the month 12 hours ago, and clear a debt or two? Mmmm, you know, maybe keep a local business solvent by PAYING THEM?? They do stuff for you, you pay? Does it ring a bell?.... So they kept a tight rein on the finances for precisely 95 minutes. And they are now being clever by exploiting the FL restrictions on the Golden Share. When they exit admin they have to adhere to all kinds of spending limits - but all the time they are not exiting admin, they can do whatever they want! Birch has stitched the FL uysing their own rules, he has no financial restrictions at the moment because they are chugging along in admin quite nicely thank you. The insult to the much-embargoed Bournemouth is breathtaking, what next - make Luton give them their ground, get Leeds to send players? The Trust is potless and today their capital has been spent - Appy just invested next year's rent! The football league is VERY gullible - the club is a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yeovil Saint Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 Has anyone asked on POL how they can afford the new signings? On The Pompey Chimes it's because Trevor Birch has a £4m kitty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 Has anyone asked on POL how they can afford the new signings? On The Pompey Chimes it's because Trevor Birch has a £4m kitty. Ring fenced ST money being released on a game by game basis apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charliemiller Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 Ring fenced ST money being released on a game by game basis apparently. I thought most of the season tickets were sold as Life time season tickets last time they were in trouble ?? you sure it isnt the leftovers of the 11 million after pay the 8 Million to the players ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 Merely treading water until the huge flaws in the Trust's bid are fully exposed. Things like... 1) £30k for maintenance of Fratton Park for a year - a ludicrously low figure. 2) Budgeted for a 10,000 average for 1st rounds of League Cup, JPT and FA Cup. With the League Cup attendance of 5,318, Pompey need to get 24,682 in total for the 1st round of the JPT and 1st round of the FA Cup to meet business plan. 3) Council loan dependant on being secured against parachute payments that have been taken up for compromise agreements. 4) Extremely ambitious average attendance forecasts over the next 3 years 5) An inability to confirm if the academy is closing or not. Bid document and council document confirmed it has been budgeted for after 2014 and will close. Yet trust officials in the media say they intend to continue with it. Right hand doesn't know what the left is doing! 6) Council say you need a 90% conversion rate of pledges, trust say 75%. Which is right? I can't see either happening tbh. etc etc Anyone want to add some more? Well you missed the most obvious one. 7) Player deferrals of £8M+ to be re-negotiated down to the £2M that the trust have available. That there is the ball game. No agreement with football creditors = no golden share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 the bottom line is how can a club plead poverty and say it has nothing to pay it's creditors, yet it has money to bring in new players? Now I know they are all eating squirrels, earning peanuts and living in fricking tents, but if you suddenly have £50K a week to spend, how about paying off the dying kids you stole money from? Perhaps stick with your plucky young braves who were the flavour of the month 12 hours ago, and clear a debt or two? Mmmm, you know, maybe keep a local business solvent by PAYING THEM?? They do stuff for you, you pay? Does it ring a bell?.... So they kept a tight rein on the finances for precisely 95 minutes. And they are now being clever by exploiting the FL restrictions on the Golden Share. When they exit admin they have to adhere to all kinds of spending limits - but all the time they are not exiting admin, they can do whatever they want! Birch has stitched the FL uysing their own rules, he has no financial restrictions at the moment because they are chugging along in admin quite nicely thank you. The insult to the much-embargoed Bournemouth is breathtaking, what next - make Luton give them their ground, get Leeds to send players? The Trust is potless and today their capital has been spent - Appy just invested next year's rent! The football league is VERY gullible - the club is a disgrace. Yep. good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 just seen this on twitter... Why the buzz? Have they found £1? The Pompey Pages @Pompey_Pages Fantastic to see a buzz amongst #Pompey fans. Don't think many people would begrudge us a day of sunshine after years under clouds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Red Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 It won't be so easy to bully the 8 players who agreed compromises to make a further deduction this time though will it. They've gone. Are the knuckle draggers going to charters planes to Israel or where ever to hound TBH? It was easy when they were forced to train and play in friendlies in front of the mad phew. I also doubt they read much of Neil Allen's cr*p either pfc are in the past and any that make out they care are pretending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 16 August, 2012 Share Posted 16 August, 2012 (edited) Ring fenced ST money being released on a game by game basis apparently. 8,000 season tickets at £200 isn't going to go far though. That's about £30K a week plus let's say £7.5K a week average for pay on the day at 2,000 fans. Prob just enough to splutter along until the big decision is taken to liquidate or leave admin. I'm going to send another email to the FL asking them about the details of their decision and how it has been justified. Edited 16 August, 2012 by TopGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts