saint si Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Would love to but not really my place to do so. The list of creditors is as of the start of admin; there is a page of the report detailing the net income and outgoings between then and mid-April (a further net loss of about £1m if I recall correctly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wibble Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 I still think HMRC and the High Court have a big part left to play in this saga. Some thought HMRC backed down by allowing the administrator to continue despite their concerns over his independence, but I saw it as more of a tactical retreat. It seems to have been an excellent strategy now. Give someone enough rope and they will hang themselves. On a side note am I the only one wondering why nobody, be it Portsmouth players or fans, has had a whip round for St John's Ambulance service - it's not a huge debt but surely the most shocking of all of them, owing money to a charity is despicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooney Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 So in very simple terms. Anyone who buys the club will need... - A minimum of about £40m just to get their hands on the club. - Another £10m or so to get the land around Fratton to allow redevelopment. - About £30m to redevelop Fratton MINIMUM - Another £10m for a new training ground. In return they will get a club with no training ground, limited fanbase, a shed of a ground, in the Championship on -? points... Wow... I bet the businessmen and investors are fighting to be at the front of the queue for that. I think the £10M is already in the £40M as they are treating Gaydamak as an unsecured creditor at the moment until clarification. However, I get the gist of your post. There will also be a working capital requirement too. TBH I cannot see anybody buying the club even with these reduced debts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Would love to but not really my place to do so. Shame you can't convince your mate to make these goings on public ?? That wouldnt go down to well for AA would it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuRomseySaint Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 I think the £10M is already in the £40M as they are treating Gaydamak as an unsecured creditor at the moment until clarification. However, I get the gist of your post. There will also be a working capital requirement too. TBH I cannot see anybody buying the club even with these reduced debts. I thought that Gaydamak kept the land around the stadium when he sold the club and the other unsecured debts are seperate. Either way, nobody is going to take a punt on that with so many other clubs available with much better infrastructure, fanbase and long-term prospects. The thing is with the skates that they don't seem to understand is that the ONLY reason they were in the Premiership for 7 years was because they were living well beyond their means, they cheated the system and spent money they didn't generate to buy them success... ... they do not have the fanbase to be a consistant Premiership team. They are a mid-table Championship team at best in terms of 'club size' . If they are living within their means then they will remain in the Championship for the long-term, they might get lucky and have the odd season in the Premiership, but the Championship is their level. I just don't get why the skates would think anything different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint si Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 The list of creditors is as of the start of admin; there is a page of the report detailing the net income and outgoings between then and mid-April (a further net loss of about £1m if I recall correctly). Correction, looks like positive net income, not loss! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 they deserve a lot more. Here in Oz, a rugby league team (Melbourne Storm) has cheated by paying players outside of their salary cap rules to ensure they play for them, extra payments something in the region of $1.7m over 5 years. They are currently one of the top teams, have won the world club champion and have won 2 titles in the last 4 years. I see this kind of cheating similar to P****y who have cheated by paying players extra, over an above their means, to ensure they sign and play for them to bring glory to the club. Unfortunately this is where the similarities end. Melbourne Storm have been found guilty of this and the NRL (National Rugby League) has stripped them of the two titles, fine them $500k, ordered them return $1.1m of prize money won, stripped them of any points won so far and they will not be able to accrue any points going forward this season. At least the governing body in this case has balls!!! FA & PL take note! Shame there is no direct email in which we can contact the FA with our thoughts on this. Look at this and how the italian FA handled the Juventus saga and you see they do not tolerate cheating, the FA is a pushover and is IMO far too worried about it image. Newsflash, portsmouth have already dragged the PL's name through the mud, it is time to make an example to prove you are all not the money hungry bottlers we all think you are, PFC have gained an unfair advantage over everyone in the league and Scudamore is likely to sit back and do nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 What does "Ransom Payments.....£308.50" mean? (Page 60; Appendix E of the Hacker Young Creditors report)...towards the bottom of the payments list....:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 I still think HMRC and the High Court have a big part left to play in this saga. Some thought HMRC backed down by allowing the administrator to continue despite their concerns over his independence, but I saw it as more of a tactical retreat. It seems to have been an excellent strategy now. Give someone enough rope and they will hang themselves. On a side note am I the only one wondering why nobody, be it Portsmouth players or fans, has had a whip round for St John's Ambulance service - it's not a huge debt but surely the most shocking of all of them, owing money to a charity is despicable. I think HMRC have missed out because when the debt was around 70 million HMRC were worth more than 25% of the debt so there vote would have prevented Poopy succefully aquiring the CVA they need to prevent further penalty's. HMRC only vote against the CVA out of principle at not being a prefered creditor. If the debt is 120 million then HMRC's vote will only go to making there point if others are willing to make up that 25%. If everyone else agree's to the CVA Poopy will get off fairly lightly considering. Like someone else has said, Rugby and Italy seem to be showing the way forward but the Prem dont have balls big enough to upset there cash flow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/2942554/Spurs-caught-in-1m-probe.html I liked the bit "I have forensic abilities to find out what this is about and plan to utilise them." I Lol'd I liked it all, very amusing:D just a taster below:D ........But what catches the eye in the report - which spells many players' names wrong - are the smaller debts. The Fratton Park club owes the Guernsey Scout Association £697, Bognor Regis FC £230, Chichester College £60, Pukka Pies £40, Qatar Airways just 20p - and, best of all, 1p to Proton Southern Ltd. Andronikou was expecting in the region of £60-70m but the reality was that the debts were double that. Yes, it is that bad. So bad that there is a jaw-dropping revelation on virtually every page. However there is one that sums up the madness of it all perfectly. You can find it in Appendix A, entitled "Abbreviated Profit and Loss Accounts". It shows the South Coast club's payroll for 2009 was a lip-smacking £65,187,128, :rolleyes:which dwarfed the club's total income of only £59,920,362. So staff wages accounted for 108.79 per cent of income that year before any other bills were paid - or not paid as it turned out. Now that is what you call a sinking ship............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Shame you can't convince your mate to make these goings on public ?? That wouldnt go down to well for AA would it They're not interested in going public, they've already had the press botherig them since the list came out and they're trying to run a business. If they got themselves involved with 'going public' about the fact they're not owed anything the phone would probably not stop ringing and ultimately they've been paid long ago so are steering clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 What does "Ransom Payments.....£308.50" mean? (Page 60; Appendix E of the Hacker Young Creditors report)...towards the bottom of the payments list....:confused: Interesting as that is a 6 week period. If so their wage bill is now 300k a week. Doesnt add up that they have dropped from 700k p/w (3m p/m ) Franking machine 8k exactly, also quite a expensive bit of equipment for a club in admin I also like the 2m towards admin costs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 I liked it all, very amusing:D just a taster below:D ........But what catches the eye in the report - which spells many players' names wrong - are the smaller debts. The Fratton Park club owes the Guernsey Scout Association £697, Bognor Regis FC £230, Chichester College £60, Pukka Pies £40, Qatar Airways just 20p - and, best of all, 1p to Proton Southern Ltd. Andronikou was expecting in the region of £60-70m but the reality was that the debts were double that. Yes, it is that bad. So bad that there is a jaw-dropping revelation on virtually every page. However there is one that sums up the madness of it all perfectly. You can find it in Appendix A, entitled "Abbreviated Profit and Loss Accounts". It shows the South Coast club's payroll for 2009 was a lip-smacking £65,187,128, :rolleyes:which dwarfed the club's total income of only £59,920,362. So staff wages accounted for 108.79 per cent of income that year before any other bills were paid - or not paid as it turned out. Now that is what you call a sinking ship............ Presumably paying off the penny owed to Proton or the 20p to Qatar would equal paying 100% of their debt and therefore they would have to treat all the other creditors equally and pay off 100% of all unsecured debt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 They're not interested in going public, they've already had the press botherig them since the list came out and they're trying to run a business. If they got themselves involved with 'going public' about the fact they're not owed anything the phone would probably not stop ringing and ultimately they've been paid long ago so are steering clear. To be fair there Administrator has just gone through the books and found any invoice that suggests they are owed money. He said the other day that everyone will be now given the chance to say if its correct or not so the debt could go up or down. Sounds like the books are all over the place and its not clear on whats been paid and what hasnt so he has just thrown everything in. If people are owed money that paper work will stay and if people like the business you mention are not owed anything the paperwork will be filed. Somewhere down the line a final figure will be made and thats what they will work with. Funny way to sort out the accounts IMO. Our administrator just looked at the books and worked out what was genuine and what wasnt and went forward with that. Dont think SFC's accounts were as public and certainly not as shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint si Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Interesting as that is a 6 week period. If so their wage bill is now 300k a week. Doesnt add up that they have dropped from 700k p/w (3m p/m ) Franking machine 8k exactly, also quite a expensive bit of equipment for a club in admin I also like the 2m towards admin costs Good spot. No outgoings shown for admin, and without the 2m over that period, they'd have made a loss... Hmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Presumably paying off the penny owed to Proton or the 20p to Qatar would equal paying 100% of their debt and therefore they would have to treat all the other creditors equally and pay off 100% of all unsecured debt? lol you can imagine them going to Proton asking if they will accept 20% of the debt owed as full and final payment and promptly being told to **** off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyLove Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Dont think SFC's accounts were as public and certainly not as shocking. Well they were even more public as we were a PLC however they definatly were not as shocking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 im still raging at the FA Cup game I was there and saw saints hammer them for 60 mins.. only for a player not even registered to come on and score and the MoM should not have even been there... no one cared then....oh well, at least they do now I hate these skates phoning in saying they should not be punished (as fans)...well, why did they not do anything 1 year or 2 years ago..? like man U and liverpool fans now NO, they were happy to lord it over everyone in the south and claim they were getting maradona to the club etc they deserve everything they get and more...ALL OF THEM Agreed... I think that is the problem... If you cut through the banter, I dont think there are many real football fans that want to see any club fold... BUT, fans cannot whinge and moan if they were happy to accept and ignore where that money was comming from whilst it brought them success and fantasy stories of 50,000 seater grounds... surely there were some amongst them that could see this was bull shi t ? Its why I think it was important we took our punishment and accepted that even though our debt was not designed to 'buy' success at any cost, local buinesses will have lost out etc and for that we were punished... The Scale of their debt and risk taking is worse than Leeds who were only 60 mil in debt.... yet they seem oblivious to the consequences with most fans still pleading for sympathy... sorry, I dont want to see any club dissappear, but teh fans need to accept any punishment because they accpepted the spending without question...as did Redknapp as he happily points out whilst living in a 10 mil house...Uhm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 In legal terms both football creditors and HMRC are unsecured creditors, don't need to be treated in the same way as each other? Is it legal to pay 100% of the football creditor debt, but only 10% of what is owed to HMRC? I know the FA has a 'golden share' rule, but ignoring that, is it even possible for one unsecured creditor to be paid back more than another? In a word, no. I asked this question at the begining of the month. Ignoring the secured creditor, and ignoring the League's membership rule, if VFFT is correct then surely either: 1) All unsecured creditors agree to accept x p in the pound. As this is less than 100% for football creditors the league refuses Portsmouth its golden share in 2010/11. 2) or, as football creditors need to be repayed 100%, and it is not permitted to pay different unsecured creditors different amounts, therefore the club has to pay all unsecured creditors 100%. In otherwords, if HMRC or the Sally Army are forced to accept say 20p per £1 owed, surely Sol and Zahavi would also have to accept an identical 20p in the £1, and the league would refuse the share? But if Zahavi and Sol are paid in full, doesn't the law (not the league) say that HMRC etc need to be paid in full too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 I was personally amazed the amount of support Collymore got last night from people from Blackpool (for example) for his proposal of expulsion. Sensible folks up here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Page 66 of the PDF. Does AA actually know the correct address of where his firm is based? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 To be fair there Administrator has just gone through the books and found any invoice that suggests they are owed money. He said the other day that everyone will be now given the chance to say if its correct or not so the debt could go up or down. Sounds like the books are all over the place and its not clear on whats been paid and what hasnt so he has just thrown everything in. If people are owed money that paper work will stay and if people like the business you mention are not owed anything the paperwork will be filed....... Lol, I wish I had an invoice with them for £2m, that they had paid. I could then request it was paid again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Well they were even more public as we were a PLC however they definatly were not as shocking No I mean the public were not interested as there was nothing amazing in there so they were available but boring. Just as they should be IMO. Its not suprising the Poopy lot were saying everything is fine and running properly when they put so much under the carpet. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wibble Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Breaking News on SSN The FA and Premier League will not consider any late appplication from Portsmouth for playing in Europe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Lol, I wish I had an invoice with them for £2m, that they had paid. I could then request it was paid again! To be fair it sounds like they dont have a clue so we could all put in a claim to be owed money and be in with a shout of being included. 2 million knob head tax was due to be paid 6 months ago and I never heard anything back. They must have lost the paperwork so I will send them a duplicate. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Breaking News on SSN The FA and Premier League will not consider any late appplication from Portsmouth for playing in Europe This post needs a "Like" button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 To be fair it sounds like they dont have a clue so we could all put in a claim to be owed money and be in with a shout of being included. Now, there's an idea..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Breaking News on SSN The FA and Premier League will not consider any late appplication from Portsmouth for playing in Europe Anyone else rather unsurprised at the timing of that announcement, the day after the financial position of the club is published? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 To be fair there Administrator has just gone through the books and found any invoice that suggests they are owed money. He said the other day that everyone will be now given the chance to say if its correct or not so the debt could go up or down. Sounds like the books are all over the place and its not clear on whats been paid and what hasnt so he has just thrown everything in. If people are owed money that paper work will stay and if people like the business you mention are not owed anything the paperwork will be filed. Somewhere down the line a final figure will be made and thats what they will work with. Funny way to sort out the accounts IMO. Our administrator just looked at the books and worked out what was genuine and what wasnt and went forward with that. Dont think SFC's accounts were as public and certainly not as shocking. I'm no accountant, but surely there are legal Standard Operating Procedures to follow for filing claims and issuing of accounts so that at anytime the business knows the level of credit/debt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyLove Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 To be fair it sounds like they dont have a clue so we could all put in a claim to be owed money and be in with a shout of being included. 2 million knob head tax was due to be paid 6 months ago and I never heard anything back. They must have lost the paperwork so I will send them a duplicate. lol Only problem is if we all did this then HMRC's debt would be diluted even more which is not what we want. We need less debt. Or at least if we got away with it we could boycot the CVA with HMRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 can someone dig up Johnny Bognors Hitlers bunker thing. It might be time for it to be AA instead of PS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Only problem is if we all did this then HMRC's debt would be diluted even more which is not what we want. We need less debt. Or at least if we got away with it we could boycot the CVA with HMRC. would you vote against the HMRC then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Only problem is if we all did this then HMRC's debt would be diluted even more which is not what we want. We need less debt. Or at least if we got away with it we could boycot the CVA with HMRC. If enough of us do it we can take the 25% ourselves and HMRC need not worry about voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyLove Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 If enough of us do it we can take the 25% ourselves and HMRC need not worry about voting. I like the cut of your jib Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 I'm no accountant, but surely there are legal Standard Operating Procedures to follow for filing claims and issuing of accounts so that at anytime the business knows the level of credit/debt? Im sure there are plenty of legal and standard operating procedures that should have been taken but it sounds like the books are that much of a mess not many of these procedures have been followed. Someone on TV said the other day they think the mess might bring a fraud investigation but it seems the mess needs a nincompoop investigation more than anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 In otherwords, if HMRC or the Sally Army are forced to accept say 20p per £1 owed, surely Sol and Zahavi would also have to accept an identical 20p in the £1, and the league would refuse the share? But if Zahavi and Sol are paid in full, doesn't the law (not the league) say that HMRC etc need to be paid in full too? I think the, somewhat odd, ruling that went against HMRC was that the money the club used to pay off the football debt was in some way discretionary. i.e. they HAVE to pay everyone the 20p in the pound once it has been agreed but they can, at their discretion, pay the extra to those with football debts (I think!?). What this does I think though is unfairly bias the vote on accepting the CVA as all those with football debts will accept any value as they know that in all likelihood (assuming pompey don't go pop) they will get 100% anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightysaints Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Skysports reporting FA have refused Pompey entrence to Europa Leaque next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Skysports reporting FA have refused Pompey entrence to Europa Leaque next season. that's a shame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amsterdam Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 that's a shame Yes... Wouldn't surprise me if they've already spent the expected money for winning the Europa Cup next season and will therefore claim that they're being unfairly treated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lets B Avenue Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Stoke's Chairman has just been on SSN saying that Cheatsmuff were trying to get the £1mill owed to Spuds, from them. If memory serves, the deal originally fell through and Storyteller was quick to slag Stoke off, claiming that they were trying to "rip them off". The deal eventually went ahead on the last afternoon of the transfer window. As usual, the truth and that particular crooked bar stard were only connected by the use of the same language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Yes... Wouldn't surprise me if they've already spent the expected money for winning the Europa Cup next season and will therefore claim that they're being unfairly treated! According to some of them, it's their money. They just haven't won it yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsbridge Saint Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Anyone else think the fact that Spurs advanced Pompey the million re the Begovic deal to 'help them with cashflow' links in nicely with the theory that they threw the cup semi final to 'help them with cashflow'. The hand of Redknapp at work again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Does the Administrator have to pay for all debts incurred whilst he is at the club. I would imagine he is buying a tenner's worth of Euro Lottery tickets as we speak, whilst telling all and sundry that he is waiting until Friday night for possible new investment. Why haven't they been closed down yet? And is it likely to happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Skysports reporting FA have refused Pompey entrence to Europa Leaque next season. Pretty safe bet seeing their is no way that Platini would have ratified their entry in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Stoke's Chairman has just been on SSN saying that Cheatsmuff were trying to get the £1mill owed to Spuds, from them. If memory serves, the deal originally fell through and Storyteller was quick to slag Stoke off, claiming that they were trying to "rip them off". The deal eventually went ahead on the last afternoon of the transfer window. As usual, the truth and that particular crooked bar stard were only connected by the use of the same language. I forgot about that. He did come out spouting off something about Stoke not playing ball or something. All along it was his dodgy deals with Harry Crapnapp that was the sticking point and Stoke just went about things the right way. I wonder when the authorities will eventually take a look at there dodgy dealings and take some action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 (edited) I forgot about that. He did come out spouting off something about Stoke not playing ball or something. All along it was his dodgy deals with Harry Crapnapp that was the sticking point and Stoke just went about things the right way. I wonder when the authorities will eventually take a look at there dodgy dealings and take some action? If the FA or PL wont do anything about Pompey there is not a hells chance in them doing something about Spurs. They seem to be playing out time to get the shi# off their shoes and can't wait for them to find a bit of grass to clean them off with ie FL Edited 22 April, 2010 by OldNick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Does the Administrator have to pay for all debts incurred whilst he is at the club. I would imagine he is buying a tenner's worth of Euro Lottery tickets as we speak, whilst telling all and sundry that he is waiting until Friday night for possible new investment. Why haven't they been closed down yet? And is it likely to happen? I think the administrator has already been paid his 2 million and now will try and sell everything to pay for the debts to avoid being liable for the debt himself or somit like that. Id say Poopy will be closed down before there is another 100 mill + euro Lotto and I would also say Camallot would be tougher than the prem league if they found someone trying to cheat the system out of 120 mill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Neil Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 New film just been released could do with a bit of a title change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 If the FA or PL wont do anything about Popey there is not a hells chance in them doing something about Spurs. They seem to be playing out time to get the shi# off their shoes and can't wait for them to find a bit of grass to clena them off with ie FL Im not sure Spurs have done anything out of order but then where there is Harry there is usually a brown envelope so maybe in time they might get into trouble for something. I meant I wonder when the Law will look further into the Poopy mess. So far it seems its all been left to the "sweet FA" and "Premier league of let someone else deal with it" but its looking more like its a job for the big boys to sort out. Just wonder when they will or can step in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 22 April, 2010 Share Posted 22 April, 2010 Anybody else notice this? "The unsecured creditors list includes £38m owed to the club's former owners - £30m of which is owed to investment companies for former owner Sacha Gaydamak and his father Arcadi" quoted on the portsmouth evenkng news site. I thought the FA or the premiership had supposedly checked that Arcadi had no invovement with the club -- Sacha has somehow miraculously got all that money by himself. So in fact a convicted, 'unfit', person did pay for the club? K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts