Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga


Fitzhugh Fella

Recommended Posts

http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Charlton-To-Visit-Fratton-For-Friendly-4369.aspx

 

Pompey will host Championship outfit Charlton in a pre-season friendly at Fratton Park on Saturday, July 20 (3pm kick-off).

The last meeting between the sides was in January 2007, with the Londoners winning 1-0 in a Premier League clash on the south coast.

 

Pompey will also play pre-season matches at Havant & Waterlooville, Bognor and Braintree this summer.

 

They make the short trip to Westleigh Park to face the Hawks on Tuesday, July 9 (kick-off TBC).

 

The Blues will then take on Bognor at Nyewood Lane on Saturday, July 13 (2pm kick-off) before a clash with Braintree at the Amlin Stadium on Tuesday, July 16 (7.45pm kick-off).

 

Ticket information for all the games will be announced in due course.

 

What, no all expenses paid trips to sunny climes this year? We're gonna have nothing to chortle about at this rate...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

palmerston1_normal.jpgLord Palmerston ‏@Lord_Palmerston

St Mary's misses out on RWC15 games. Lack of atmosphere at Southampton games a factor? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/22379872 …

 

bruce_forsythe_normal.jpgTrousers ‏@Lord_Trousers

@Lord_Palmerston If 'best atmosphere' was a deciding factor they'd have gone for Fratton Park, surely...? :)

 

Looking down the list of potential grounds for RWC 2015, could not see the 60,000 seat Portsmouth Harbourdome on the list. Surely must be an error by the BBC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based at Ocean Village in Southampton, so it was Scuuummmmmers who helped them

 

And in the best traditions of companies who helped them out, do they expect to be paid?

 

What will FPN do when they present their bill, and are told; "can you go to the back of the queue, please, the parachute payments aren't likely to stretch as far as you."

 

Would FPN serve a winding-up order on a business they are so proud to have helped to set up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May be in a different timezone as I am but times on posts are all UK time.

Are you sure Guided Missile's gone? If we're sure he has then, as another ex-pat, post times for me are local time. I think it's a settings option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please please please tell me that Portpin are one of the new charges securing future payments!! :lol:

 

 

 

And Tweeting Lord Palmerston scrapes another barrel until the bottom is more transparent than his own club's shaky business plans.

 

Yes of course Mythmaster General, all Saints fans leave their council-owned flatpack at halftime, boo their own team, are made up mainly of asylum seekers and the jobless with free tickets, worship an SS tank commander, and are bitterly jealous of their mighty neighbours.

 

And all of that is key when the rugby authorities choose their venues - they care not a jot about transport links, hotels, proximity to international airports, capacities or costs, they just want to know if the usual occupants of a venue are plucky and bestest, or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All we need now to make the fun complete is a law suit challenging one of the old Charges that could unravel the entire (old) mess

 

How do the chances of that happening compare to the odds of Saints being relegated...? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently those Pompey fans that saved their club from extinction, are going to be faced with a large number of problems that could mean that the club either goes into administration again, or at least gets relegated to the Conference.

 

What a bunch of useless fans and a cr @p club they are and won't it be funny if they all lose all the money that they invested and have no club to support. Our fans are so much better than theirs and we will all be so amused at every mistake they make and every misfortune that befalls them, etc., etc.,

 

There, I'm done with this thread. Feel free to cut and paste the above. It summarises most of which will follow this post....

Don't leave yet GM. One more post and you hit 300.

 

300TH.jpg

 

Reminds me of my uncle years ago, who saw a film that he described as filthy and depraved. He was so disgusted he had to go back to watch it 3 more times just to verify how bad it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you mean Jobs(h)ite ?

 

Or maybe JOBBY would be more apt.

 

Urban Dictionary[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD=class: text, colspan: 3]

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: index][/TD]

[TD=class: word]Jobby

 

[/TD]

[TD=class: tools][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD=class: text, colspan: 3]Scots;- Faeces, rubbish.

Ah'm gonnae jobby masel. That film wis pure jobby. C'mere ya wee jobby. Or for instance, tartin' up hooses in a cooncil scheme: "Aye well, ye cannae polish a jobby".

 

Maybe naming rights could be given for the Harbourdome and be called JobbyDome. ... cue Crabby's I've done a Poopey ™ pic.

 

Poopey FC sponsored by Jobby and playing at The JobbyDome playing Crap football.

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD=class: text, colspan: 3]

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: index][/TD]

[TD=class: word]

 

[/TD]

[TD=class: tools][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD=class: text, colspan: 3]

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Good to see them pursuing it but they really should have raised the alarm back in August when the football league stated the penalty would apply this season, without any caveats.

 

We've been highlighting all season how toothless the other clubs affected by points penalties in the past have been.

Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to see them pursuing it but they really should have raised the alarm back in August when the football league stated the penalty would apply this season, without any caveats.

 

We've been highlighting all season how toothless the other clubs affected by points penalties in the past have been.

 

Unfortunately I don't think Luton are part of the members club at the moment so I rather the FL will file this in the ignore file, but it would be good if the media started to pick up on it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I don't think Luton are part of the members club at the moment so I rather the FL will file this in the ignore file, but it would be good if the media started to pick up on it!

 

Yeah... I suspect Mr Allen is penning an in-depth impartial article as we speak...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 new charges. All in favour of the PFA...

 

:suspicious:

Does this mean a deal has been struck regarding the PP's , that might allow the club to keep them and pay the PFA in the future? The PFA paying what the players are due out of their funds, and then having part of FP as security. If so, Pompey will have plenty of funds to survive and be more than competitive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the fit and proper person test was a last resort check for clubs who were incapable of making sensible decisions on who they get into bed with.

 

The few bang on about that aspect as if the football authorities imposed loan sharks, organised crime, people who didn't exist and fantasists upon them.

The league didn't pick these owners, they were all chosen as partners by the club.

 

But no - it has to be someone else's fault.

 

As for Guy's little outburst - the idea was you play the kids and stop spending money, not fill your squad with £5K a week journeymen and leave the kids out in the cold.

And this from a club who bent those rules by loaning out players to bring in new ones...

 

I'm sure the league will welcome advice from people like that.

 

 

 

 

The PFA will just demand security for whatever is owed as they can see it never happening, and previously I think they only had the football creditor rule to help them (?) - would this be a more aggressive stance?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PFA will just demand security for whatever is owed as they can see it never happening, and previously I think they only had the football creditor rule to help them (?) - would this be a more aggressive stance?.

 

More pertinently perhaps, isn't this simply the PFA saying to the Football League: "By allowing Pompey to defer millions of pounds worth of payments due to players, (having already intimidated them to accept compromise upon compromise), you've specatcularly failed to uphold the spirit of the Football Creditors rules that you hold in such high esteem. As such, we're going to have to protect our players going forward by agreeing to several charges on the club as we've no faith in the protection you purport to offer the players that play in your league".

 

It looks like a pretty scathing indictment of the Football League by the PFA to me.

Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I make that 12 million + Kanu secured on fratton park........I'm sure the trust said it was only worth 3 million

 

The bit I'm not quite getting is why one entity (the PFA) would need 3 separate charges to cover their potential losses. Why not just one charge to cover the whole lot? Unless they are acting on behalf of three separate players or groups of players? Does anyone with access to the records know how much each charge is for? Maybe Mr Hall could help us out here in his next investigative blog on the financial going on at Fratton Park?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More pertinently perhaps, isn't this simply the PFA saying to the Football League: "By allowing Pompey to defer millions of pounds worth of payments due to players, having intimidated them to accept compromise upon compromise, you've specatcularly failed to uphold the spirit of the Football Creditors rules that you hold in such high esteem. As such, we're going to have to protect our players going forward by agreeing to several charges on the club as we've no faith in the protection you purport to offer the players that play in your league".

 

It looks like a pretty scathing indictment of the Football League by the PFA to me.

 

What happens over the next four years if the football creditors rule changes or is overturned (A reasonable chance, I would guess)?

 

As my post above, they seem to be leveraged by four times to the value of the asset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bit I'm not quite getting is why one entity (the PFA) would need 3 separate charges to cover their potential losses. Why not just one charge to cover the whole lot? Unless they are acting on behalf of three separate players or groups of players? Does anyone with access to the records know how much each charge is for? Maybe Mr Hall could help us out here in his next investigative blog on the financial going on at Fratton Park?

 

Nice one trousers - I suspect you are right (The charges represent three different players)............... wait till the others find out, you could see the number of charges hit double figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this mean a deal has been struck regarding the PP's , that might allow the club to keep them and pay the PFA in the future? The PFA paying what the players are due out of their funds, and then having part of FP as security. If so, Pompey will have plenty of funds to survive and be more than competitive.

 

It seems they are actually just one charge with two amendments (although how an amendment can be created before the original charge isn't quite clear)

 

[TABLE=width: 98%, align: center]

[TR]

[TD][TABLE=width: 100%, align: center]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 2]Charge code: 0794 0335 0003 [/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Charge status: Outstanding[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 26%]Person(s) entitled: [/TD]

[TD]THE PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALLERS' ASSOCIATION

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 30%]Created: 19/04/2013[/TD]

[TD][TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=width: 35%]Delivered: 27/04/2013[/TD]

[TD=width: 35%]Form Type: MR01[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Description of property or undertaking: [/TD]

[TD]NA NOTIFICATION OF ADDITION TO OR AMENDMENT OF CHARGE.

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 2][/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][TABLE=width: 100%, align: center]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 2]Charge code: 0794 0335 0004 [/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Charge status: Outstanding[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 26%]Person(s) entitled: [/TD]

[TD]THE PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALLERS' ASSOCIATION

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 30%]Created: 19/04/2013[/TD]

[TD][TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=width: 35%]Delivered: 27/04/2013[/TD]

[TD=width: 35%]Form Type: MR01[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Description of property or undertaking: [/TD]

[TD]NA NOTIFICATION OF ADDITION TO OR AMENDMENT OF CHARGE.

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 2][/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][TABLE=width: 100%, align: center]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 2]Charge code: 0794 0335 0005 [/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Charge status: Outstanding[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 26%]Person(s) entitled: [/TD]

[TD]THE PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALLERS ASSOCIATION

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 30%]Created: 20/04/2013[/TD]

[TD][TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=width: 35%]Delivered: 26/04/2013[/TD]

[TD=width: 35%]Form Type: MR01[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Description of property or undertaking: [/TD]

[TD]F/H PROPERTY KNOWN AS PORTSMOUTH FOOTBALL CLUB, FRATTON PARK, FROGMORE ROAD, SOUTHSEA, T/NO: HP375034 SEE IMAGE FOR FULL DETAILS CONTAINS FIXED CHARGE. NOTIFICATION OF ADDITION TO OR AMENDMENT OF CHARGE.

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems they are actually just one charge with two amendments (although how an amendment can be created before the original charge isn't quite clear)[TABLE=width: 98%, align: center]

[/TABLE]

 

I was wondering about that - i.e. why do Companies House show it as two charges on the details page but 5 charges on the summary page? It seems misleading for Companies House to say there a 5 outstanding charges on the summary when there are only 2 charges actually in play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the fit and proper person test was a last resort check for clubs who were incapable of making sensible decisions on who they get into bed with.

 

The few bang on about that aspect as if the football authorities imposed loan sharks, organised crime, people who didn't exist and fantasists upon them.

The league didn't pick these owners, they were all chosen as partners by the club.

 

But no - it has to be someone else's fault.

 

Not forgetting that not only were the owners chosen as partners by the club, they were lauded by the local media as saviours of the club and the pr was lapped up by the majority of the fans dewey eyed with thoughts of millions more to be pumped into the cesspit.

 

But no - it has to be someone else's fault, because there was no way of seeing through what was going on down there, no siree, absolutely no way a group of fans could have predicted that each and every owner would leave them as a laughing stock....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...