Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
This bit is great on page 27...

 

 

[/b]

:mcinnes: :D

indicated is such a beautifully vague term.

 

Eisner could actually end up acquiring the club for just £5670. That buy now pay later deal doesn't half feel like one that a chancer would put together. Are The skates sure they are dealing with the actual Eisner here and not some look a like without a pot to **** in?

Mr Biscuits

Mr Biscuits

Posted
Posted

So basically they are demonstrating the massive chip on their shoulders again and someone said 'ten million' and they want to quote it even though there's no actual promise of that sort of investment at all just an 'indication of an intention'.

Well my ex has a really hot sister and I've often indicated an intention to smash her back doors in without actually doing it. (Absolutely nothing to do with the fact that her bloke is bigger than me and could easily lift me over his head)

 

Also quite like the 'given the experience with owners over the past 40 years'

 

FORTY YEARS of bent owners? Skates never learn.

benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted

Page 19:

 

"There is a need for funding at this time to address immediate stadium maintenance issues".

 

According to "no to the takeover" they've got enough cash to rebuild "the old girl"

 

:lol:

benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted

More detail later on:

 

We have approximately £900,000 (nine hundred thousand pounds) remaining in the Escrow

Account. All expert stadium safety reports commissioned point to a five-year contingency

requirement of at least £5,000,000 (five million pounds) to address major stadium

infrastructure issues. This results in a cash shortfall of £4,100,000 (four million one hundred

thousand pounds) that will be required over the next five years. Due to ongoing investigative

works we are currently unable to accurately predict the timing on when this funding

requirement will be needed.

❖ In the event of stadium safety work being delayed and/or being unfunded, in the interest of fan

safety and security there is a strong possibility the capacity at Fratton Park would have to be

reduced by the Licensing Authority to allow the stadium to remain open.

❖ The stadium infrastructure requirements [which are clearly detailed and attached to this

statement], will, if not funded externally, impact greatly at some point on the club’s operating

budget in the future.

benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted

It's either:

 

-Sell to Eisner

 

-Sell 4,000 "Community Shares" or get money from presidents

 

-try and get some cash from someone else.

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
An open top bus parade for being 4 points sh!tter than Doncaster Rovers in the fourth tier - wow!

If they end up third, can someone mock up the usual we got a point bus and post please?

Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted
More detail later on:

 

We have approximately £900,000 (nine hundred thousand pounds) remaining in the Escrow

Account. All expert stadium safety reports commissioned point to a five-year contingency

requirement of at least £5,000,000 (five million pounds) to address major stadium

infrastructure issues. This results in a cash shortfall of £4,100,000 (four million one hundred

thousand pounds) that will be required over the next five years. Due to ongoing investigative

works we are currently unable to accurately predict the timing on when this funding

requirement will be needed.

❖ In the event of stadium safety work being delayed and/or being unfunded, in the interest of fan

safety and security there is a strong possibility the capacity at Fratton Park would have to be

reduced by the Licensing Authority to allow the stadium to remain open.

❖ The stadium infrastructure requirements [which are clearly detailed and attached to this

statement], will, if not funded externally, impact greatly at some point on the club’s operating

budget in the future.

 

:lol:

 

they will be passing us by in the league soon - FACT

Danbert

Danbert

Posted
Posted

Yet, according to the Executive Statement, under the existing ownership model, Pompey’s provisional playing budget will be £3m – below the current League One average of £3.3m.

 

The club are next term budgeting for £300,000 losses, based on average attendances of 16,700 and an approximate 15-per-cent ticket-price increase.

 

Meanwhile, it is estimated an investment of £2.76m is required over the next two League One seasons to plug debts, including stadium repairs.

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/football/pompey/delving-into-the-facts-behind-eisner-s-pompey-bid-1-7938176

Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
I would say that 95% of POL are of the opinion that provided some questions regarding the ground and some enhancement on his vision of the club are answered its a yes vote

Are POL users mostly shareholders? If so I'm slightly surprised they are willing to give up the fan ownership at the first sign of a stadium repair bill. I thought their was great pride in being different? Is an extra million quid a year to keep **** park safe really too much of a chunk out of the playing budget to swallow?

Dangermouth

Dangermouth

Posted
Posted

I am somewhat annoyed that my fake skate post didn't receive universal criticism. Perhaps the inflection was wrong, or the orthography correct? I would like them to win the league. Then get relegated next year under "Cookie", who must surely rank as greater than Bejesus in the Phew's three-eyed faces, hmm?

Mr Biscuits

Mr Biscuits

Posted
Posted

Is it true that Goffy and Daisy Duck have been having an affair for years?

 

I heard Minnie Mouse is actually a lesbian dominatrix and Mickey is just her slave so this true?

 

What drugs are you on?

 

Is it true you wish to knock down Fratton park and move the club to Sholing?

John D

John D

Posted
Posted

Did it say somewhere in the document that the trust can't make a profit so PST shareholders can only vote for the £1k offer not the future profit one? Oh dear

Merovingian

Merovingian

Posted
Posted
Are POL users mostly shareholders? If so I'm slightly surprised they are willing to give up the fan ownership at the first sign of a stadium repair bill. I thought their was great pride in being different? Is an extra million quid a year to keep **** park safe really too much of a chunk out of the playing budget to swallow?

 

 

So couple of points. It's not just the stadium issue. If you look at the cost to be competitve in league 1 and the huge amount required in the championship we need external investment let alone fratton park issues.

 

In terms of money back to shareholders the genreal consensus on pol is that we put money in to save the club. No one expected money back and it is known you could not expect to make a profit bar a small amount of interest by law.

Colinjb

Colinjb

Posted
Posted (edited)
So couple of points. It's not just the stadium issue. If you look at the cost to be competitve in league 1 and the huge amount required in the championship we need external investment let alone fratton park issues.

 

In terms of money back to shareholders the genreal consensus on pol is that we put money in to save the club. No one expected money back and it is known you could not expect to make a profit bar a small amount of interest by law.

 

So, despite crowds vastly in excess of the most, if not the rest of League 1, you will need extra money coming in to be competitive?

 

At what point will you be able to admit that you are run by out of their depth idiots?

 

As a final aside, cute that you still behave as though it's a 'shareholding.'

Edited by Colinjb
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
If you look at the cost to be competitve in league 1 and the huge amount required in the championship we need external investment let alone fratton park issues.

 

Do you? There must still be lots of teams who compete in the Championship and lg1 without wealthy owners. Pompey should do fine based on gates. Getting into the PL is problem without a sugar daddy - but thats not something you have to worry about this year or next.

Merovingian

Merovingian

Posted
Posted
Are POL users mostly shareholders? If so I'm slightly surprised they are willing to give up the fan ownership at the first sign of a stadium repair bill. I thought their was great pride in being different? Is an extra million quid a year to keep **** park safe really too much of a chunk out of the playing budget to swallow?

 

 

So couple of points. It's not just the stadium issue. If you look at the cost to be competitve in league 1 and the huge amount required in the championship we need external investment let alone fratton park issues.

 

In terms of money back to shareholders the genreal consensus on pol is that we put money in to save the club. No one expected money back and it is known you could not expect to make a profit bar a small amount of interest by law.

 

Read the pack. It gives you all the figures with regards to vein competitive in league 1 and championship and thats without stadium issues

Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
So couple of points. It's not just the stadium issue. If you look at the cost to be competitve in league 1 and the huge amount required in the championship we need external investment let alone fratton park issues.

 

In terms of money back to shareholders the genreal consensus on pol is that we put money in to save the club. No one expected money back and it is known you could not expect to make a profit bar a small amount of interest by law.

 

Surely the genreal [sic] consensus should be that you don't want to get promoted and even if you do, there's no need to worry about finances as long as you spend within your means and continue to be a fully funded, debt free, sustainable fan owned club playing real football in a real league, trailblazing the way for other clubs to follow your example?

 

Unless of course you've all changed your minds and are no longer following the mantras that have been trotted out ever since this iteration of the club existed?

stevegrant

stevegrant

Posted
Posted
So couple of points. It's not just the stadium issue. If you look at the cost to be competitve in league 1 and the huge amount required in the championship we need external investment let alone fratton park issues.

I present to you the significant example of Burton Albion who, to my knowledge, have never spent beyond their means, despite relatively (compared to clubs like Pompey, Plymouth, etc) meagre attendances and exposure, and yet have secured a second season in the Championship next season.

 

If you get things right, having someone pouring their own money in shouldn't be necessary to be successful at those levels. Obviously once you get up to the Premier League (and arguably the Championship), there is a pretty obvious glass ceiling, even with a rich backer, but until that point, there is at least a vague sense of a competitive but fair playing field.

Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted (edited)
So couple of points. It's not just the stadium issue. If you look at the cost to be competitve in league 1 and the huge amount required in the championship we need external investment let alone fratton park issues.

 

In terms of money back to shareholders the genreal consensus on pol is that we put money in to save the club. No one expected money back and it is known you could not expect to make a profit bar a small amount of interest by law.

 

Read the pack. It gives you all the figures with regards to vein competitive in league 1 and championship and thats without stadium issues

No reason why the club could not continue, without running up a debt, simply by operating with a below average wage bill. The long and short of it is, in the hope of progression through the leagues it looks like many are willing to give up on fan ownership, no, give up on having any input into the running of the club completely. It's being painted like there is no choice. There is, but it will be a lot easier for fans to decide to chase the dream if it feels like there was no other way out.

 

If Eisener puts in £10m as he has 'indicated', that will cover the stadium safety funds needed and the 'competitive' wages for a few seasons in league 1, but what will cover the wages shortfall in the championship?

 

Would it not be better to attempt to live within you means, build a team and wait for the debt laden championship sides to implode?

Edited by Chez
Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
They could always try running the club like an actual company and make some money to pay for it?
what, you mean instead of crying about not having budgeted for their stadium works and selling to the first offer that comes along, they create a new operating budget that does take the works into account? Now there's an idea.
suewhistle

suewhistle

Posted
Posted

They seem to have a vague understanding that a budget is a list of spending categorised under different headings.

 

The active part of budgeting and monitoring seem always to have escaped them.

mack rill

mack rill

Posted
Posted
You mean plan ahead, don't overpay on players, and keep outgoings lower than income?

:scared:

 

I can't see that catching on.

 

Me neither, that can't be the way to run a footy club,:rolleyes:

The9

The9

Posted
Posted
I present to you the significant example of Burton Albion who, to my knowledge, have never spent beyond their means, despite relatively (compared to clubs like Pompey, Plymouth, etc) meagre attendances and exposure, and yet have secured a second season in the Championship next season.

 

If you get things right, having someone pouring their own money in shouldn't be necessary to be successful at those levels. Obviously once you get up to the Premier League (and arguably the Championship), there is a pretty obvious glass ceiling, even with a rich backer, but until that point, there is at least a vague sense of a competitive but fair playing field.

 

Ah but Burton have a sensibly-sized modern stadium and infrastructure which isn't a millstone. Portsmouth's best bet in the long term is just to level Fratton and rebuild. I wonder where they'd play in the interim? Reading? Oh hang on, they'd never do anything amounting to medium term planning, would they?

The9

The9

Posted
Posted

Little update from the Skate OS with all the appropriate spin: http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/portsmouth-football-club-statement-about-fratton-park-3700883.aspx#x8QAJFrgZK65FbW0.01

 

Strange timing, we've been talking about the £5m needed for the safety certificate for about 2-3 months already haven't we? It's as if they need to sell the idea to some of their fanbase - maybe the ones expecting their "shares" to be sold to any investor?

hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
If Eisener puts in £10m as he has 'indicated', that will cover the stadium safety funds needed and the 'competitive' wages for a few seasons in league 1, but what will cover the wages shortfall in the championship?

No, no, no. It's a pledge. Definately a pledge. It says so in the News.

Doctoroncall

Doctoroncall

Posted
Posted

 

Firstly, we need to finish the studies to understand what some of the additional ground problems are because we don’t yet know.

 

Read more at: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/our-region/portsmouth/brown-pompey-fans-can-continue-going-it-alone-1-7940386

 

So £5m is only an estimate no one would put their name too... yet there is no holding back on the playing budget being competitive. Priorities a bit upside down.

 

Why save today just in case when you can spend it and have the capacity dramatically reduced. Or perhaps the tactic is if you want to watch the game pledge a grand.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...