Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

sidthesquid

sidthesquid

Posted
Posted
PFC to PL - We are going to sue you

 

PL to PFC - See you in court, bring it on.

 

Sudamore certainly doesn't sound like a man with charity in his heart, to quote....

 

(Scudamore) added that the embargo would remain until there it was "absolutely nailed down, absolutely clear, absolutely concise" that there were no outstanding liabilities.

 

Doesn't sound like a bit of Jacob flannel is going to work

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

I've been away for a week so just been catching up -

other than

threatening the league and then withdrawing it,

having a show of strength attending by 75 people,

watering the pitch all night to postpone certain defeat

attempting to rewrite the UK VAT rules.

 

Have they done anything else that would make me chuckle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted
I've been away for a week so just been catching up -

other than

threatening the league and then withdrawing it,

having a show of strength attending by 75 people,

watering the pitch all night to postpone certain defeat

attempting to rewrite the UK VAT rules.

 

Have they done anything else that would make me chuckle?

 

 

LOL, no rallyboy thats about our lot for this week. But stay tuned for next weeks installment (S)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eastcowzer

Eastcowzer

Posted
Posted
A retarded decision by Portsmouth here... they are playing in the PL by the rules that are set down by the PL and so are subject to the authority of the PL. That's how I see it anyway.

 

Precisely. !

Although the threat to sue now appears to have been recinded, a thing that is puzzling me is this ?

P----y are, (at the moment), bona fide members of the Premier League, so in if the threat to sue had continued they, (P----y), would, technically, be suing themselves. What would be the outcome if they win/lose the case, apart from a 'humongous' QC's bill, and even further debt.

 

Surely the lunatics have taken over the asylum. !

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ericofarabia

ericofarabia

Posted
Posted
LOL, no rallyboy thats about our lot for this week. But stay tuned for next weeks installment (S)

 

Maybe a return to Avram's indiscretions in Hedge End as a side show is in order.

 

No match this weekend , so no new income raised (but at least no extra tax to pay LOL)

 

Further action from The Fraud Office charging them with impersonating a Premier League Football club :smt081

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foxstone

Foxstone

Posted
Posted
God I shudder at the thought of some of the people who were interested in us.

We certainly seem to have got very lucky with ML but his motives and reasons for getting involved still intrigue me.

 

Just a theory !

 

The port extension at Marchwood is not dead in the water yet, and ports need cranes !

Link to comment
Share on other sites
redkeith

redkeith

Posted
Posted

I read in one of the Sundays that Watford are due almost £2 Million on 31st Jan for Smith and Williamson.

 

I think the PL would be a bit miffed if they let the Skates have the £2 Million now, lifted the embargo and later found that the Skates had blown the money on more players in the meantime onlty to get an embargo at the end of the month if Watford don't get paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foxstone

Foxstone

Posted
Posted
I read in one of the Sundays that Watford are due almost £2 Million on 31st Jan for Smith and Williamson.

 

I think the PL would be a bit miffed if they let the Skates have the £2 Million now, lifted the embargo and later found that the Skates had blown the money on more players in the meantime onlty to get an embargo at the end of the month if Watford don't get paid.

 

Also think that Lens are not minded to let the Skates off the hook either for Dindane - Lens themselves being in dire financial straights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spyinthesky

spyinthesky

Posted
Posted
Just a theory !

 

The port extension at Marchwood is not dead in the water yet, and ports need cranes !

 

Two things:

Any 'Port extension' will be at Dibden Bay (next door to Marchwood I grant you) and not for another 10-15 yrs, if at all. Secondly Markus has no interest in the crane business now, his interests lie in completely different directions.

 

As Fitzhugh Fella has mentioned in a previous post, it will be intersting to learn why Markus became involved in the first place. Only thing I can think of is a profit on the initial £12m investment if the club attracts interest as a Prem club. However how much will it cost to achieve this aim??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joensuu

Joensuu

Posted
Posted
I don't understand why they are banging on about the transfer market embargo , surely they have no money whatsoever to buy anyone with?

 

An attempt to direct some of the blame off of the management and on to the league?

 

An attempt to convince the players & fans that their is hope, and it's all just a series of banking errors?

 

An attempt to keep potential signings such as Onismor Bhasera & Emad Meteb etc interested in signing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joensuu

Joensuu

Posted
Posted (edited)
No, but they could bring in loans and free transfers and extend O'Hara's loan.

 

Neither frees nor new loanees are allowed under the embargo...

 

Edit: That's part of the reason they are talking about getting Nugent back. He's about the only player they can get back in this window... even if they don't need any more strikers (I wonder how he'd do at centre back :) ). Of course, the 'we want Nugent back' thing is more likely to try to encourage a larger bid...

Edited by Joensuu
To avoid the repetition...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Under Weststand

Under Weststand

Posted
Posted (edited)
I don't understand why they are banging on about the transfer market embargo , surely they have no money whatsoever to buy anyone with?

That never stopped them in the past :rolleyes:, But agree cant see how they can either buy (as you say with what?) or loans(if embargo lifted), how will they pay for them, & which team would be stupid enough to do buisness with them at the moment.

This latest Sky money fiasco makes them so untrustworthy, first they have a hearing to get the money paid to them & get the embargo lifted. When they lose that they CLAIM :rolleyes: to have suggested this to the EPL. Then a day or so later there are threats of suing the EPL, changed to a strongly worded letter?

They're making it up as they go along!

Edited by Under Weststand
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OLYMPIC

OLYMPIC

Posted
Posted

I see that Scudamore in an interview yesterday said how much every deal to do with the PL was looked into if more than 25k changed hands,and how if you asked you dad or grandad what clubs they supported they are all still about and we haven't lost any yet.This he put down to how much of a tight ship they ran at the PL,so if thats the case what has been going on at Pompey until now did the PL and him think everything was above board and correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joensuu

Joensuu

Posted
Posted (edited)

More contradiction fun...

 

Only the other day Grant was 'baffled' by the proposed loan of James to Stoke...

 

but today Jacob is saying that the loan to Stoke broke down because they were unwilling to pay all of James' £65K per week

 

£65K!

 

So one of Jacob or Grant is telling fibs (either that of Grant is not involved in player transfers?)

Edited by Joensuu
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clapham Saint

Clapham Saint

Posted
Posted
More contradiction fun...

 

Only the other day Grant was 'baffled' by the proposed loan of James to Stoke...

 

but today Jacob is saying that the loan to Stoke broke down because they were unwilling to pay all of James' £65K per week

 

£65K!

 

So one of Jacob or Grant is telling fibs (either that of Grant is not involved in player transfers?)

 

My money is on all 3!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

'Pompey could get TV money!' - great headline, no substance though.

 

This is Scudamore drawing a clear line in the sand and making sure the fans know that the ball is in Pompey's court so when they don't get the money he can refer them to his statement about proof.

And he wants to see legally-binding re-written contracts? Good luck with that, they shredded the originals when the door was being kicked in.

He'd better look on Storrie's computer, it's in the bath and the hard drive was flushed.

 

Is it time yet for the predictable mysterious blaze that starts in the accounts dept and spreads through the offices that deal with all relevant paperwork?...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gingeletiss

Gingeletiss

Posted
Posted
An attempt to direct some of the blame off of the management and on to the league?

 

An attempt to convince the players & fans that their is hope, and it's all just a series of banking errors?

 

An attempt to keep potential signings such as Onismor Bhasera & Emad Meteb etc interested in signing?

 

This is my take on things. They are firefighting, it's all smoke and mirrors!!. There are enough clues, in all the links, to make an informed opinion on the why's of all this.

 

Supermarket sweep anyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or Housey housey maybe;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Under Weststand

Under Weststand

Posted
Posted
Any idea where this £2M 'bonus' mentioned in that story would be coming from? I thought the PL had divided up all their £7M TV money?

They might get the 2-million bonus just in time to pay January wages then!

Or not as the EPL are demanding watertight documentation :confused:. And as no one at Pompey seems to know what is going on or how much debt their in, what are the chances of them coming up with anything watertight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doctoroncall

Doctoroncall

Posted
Posted
Any idea where this £2M 'bonus' mentioned in that story would be coming from? I thought the PL had divided up all their £7M TV money?

 

Only £5m of the £7m has been used to pay due installments to other clubs (home and abroad). The remaining £2m will return to the skates if they can provide evidence that the original contracts have been replaced with new ones, noting the new repayment schedules skate officials say they have in place.

 

They need to hurry as I think Watford are due £2m at the end of the month regarding Smith and Williamson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smirking_Saint

Smirking_Saint

Posted
Posted

It's all house deals isn't it ?? I may be so so wrong but looking at it through my eyes it is becoming more and more glaringly obvious.

 

Gaydemak controls all of the land around fratton park however there is nothing he can do with it, essentially the land he owns is useless to him as they are unable to build without A. barclays permission and B. as long as there is a football club on the ground.

 

I would say, that gaydemak has put up a fake sale to the arabs to cover himself. They are now looking to push pompey to the brink of extinction and hopefully complete extinction at which point the land will perhaps become useful to him to build on ??

 

It is too much of a coincedence that everyone involved has links to gaydemak and his father, and then you have the obvious issues of the arabs and jews working together ??

 

It is all so very very dodgy, and the result i would argue will not be any where near pretty for PFC, if that happens too the PL have an aweful lot to answer for IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=727381&sec=england&cc=3888

 

"ESPNsoccernet can reveal that Portsmouth have taken the unusual step of asking the Premier League for arbitration in order to resolve their financial dispute, unless the body agrees to two demands: the lifting of the transfer embargo by Tuesday at the latest, and the release of £2 million of TV revenue which is currently being withheld."

 

That makes much more sense than just giving those pesky people at the Premier League documented proof of what they told them, that their finances are all sorted out now, and their football-related debts up to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Barfy

Barfy

Posted
Posted

Sorry if this has already been covered, but after 149 pages, I'm not going looking :p

 

Is there still a huge pot of money from the big Asian TV deal signed a few years back? I seem to recall that even the bottom team (for one season at least) would receive £30m in "prize" money :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
edsaint

edsaint

Posted
Posted

#7448 Today, 12:30 PM

hutch

Full Member

 

Join Date: Oct 2007

Location: Worldcup2010land

Posts: 236

 

 

 

 

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/st...ngland&cc=3888

 

However, Portsmouth managed to put together a short-term loan last month to pay the December wages, which was the third time this season that the salaries were late.

 

The loan was secured against TV revenue coming into the club, so Portsmouth argue that their loan is being jeopardised and, with it, the ability to pay January's wage bill which is close to £3 million for all staff, and £1.8 million for the players.

 

This is the really interesting bit - the first time they have admitted the loan to pay December's wages was secured against the tv cash. But who would have lent on this basis given it was well known that Premier league was going to withold the money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted (edited)

This is the really interesting bit - the first time they have admitted the loan to pay December's wages was secured against the tv cash. But who would have lent on this basis given it was well known that Premier league was going to withold the money?

 

I think the first we heard about the withholding of the payments was after they had got the loan and paid their players? As its a power that the PL has but, I think, has never used before it may well be that they did not think about it?

 

---

 

the story says that they took the loan for the december wages and not having the 2M is jeopardizing their paying 3 million this month. So either they intend to pay off the 2m with the TV money then get another (secured against what) or the loan they got was enough to cover both salary bills in which case even if they do get the 2m its not going to be anywhere near the size of the loan?

Edited by pedg
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...