Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted
I would argue that the club's revenues should be able to cover the running costs, rather than relying on the input of additional funds from the club's owner.

 

 

The leveraged buyout scenario is a completely different kettle of fish, and I struggle to see how that sort of scenario can be allowed in law, let alone morally. Using the example of Man United, you're taking a well-run profit-making enterprise with a profit/turnover ratio of about 25% (in football terms, that's incredibly high) with few or no liabilities and suddenly plunging it into a whole world of financial pain.

 

Bizarrely, both the buyers AND the sellers do well out of those deals, with the company itself the one to carry the weight. Man United can probably just about do it, but even a club the size of Liverpool are going to find it incredibly hard to survive while they're leveraged up to the eyeballs.

 

Steve as you say the whole leveraged buy is a completely different kettle of fish, which it is, but the big difference with Man Utd and pompey, is that Utd fans were sceaming blue murder from day one.

 

The world and his wife knew who bought pompey from Mandric and where the money had come from to finance it. Yet that was fine and dandy and nothing ever said or questioned.

 

If you take the emotion out of it being pompey, then of course you start feeling a bit sorry for them, but for such wonderful fans, you would have thought the questioning and finger pointing, should have started about 3 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
View From The Top

View From The Top

Posted
Posted
Steve as you say the whole leveraged buy is a completely different kettle of fish, which it is, but the big difference with Man Utd and pompey, is that Utd fans were sceaming blue murder from day one.

 

The world and his wife knew who bought pompey from Mandric and where the money had come from to finance it. Yet that was fine and dandy and nothing ever said or questioned.

 

If you take the emotion out of it being pompey, then of course you start feeling a bit sorry for them, but for such wonderful fans, you would have thought the questioning and finger pointing, should have started about 3 years ago.

 

Corps mantra, when the shortfall was pointed out to him all those years ago was "Sky money".

 

They didn't want to see the truth so ***** 'em now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suewhistle

suewhistle

Posted
Posted
It's my birthday the next day. I hope I will have received the present of my dreams :)

 

Well, I'd wait a few days. You can't have the FL waiting at the door and as they come in say "here's your initial 10 point penalty, we'll see about others later". They'll at least pretend to give the matter consideration even if they are already laughing wickedly at the prospect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tony13579

tony13579

Posted
Posted

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Storrie-to-have-say-in.6314730.jp

Storrie to have say in search for new boss

Peter Storrie will help Pompey identify Avram Grant's replacement.

Andrew Andronikou has revealed the Blues' former chief executive will have a say in the search for a new boss.

 

Storrie is currently at Fratton Park in a consultancy capacity, a role which is expected to continue until the end of June.

 

He is presently charged with dealing with player sales as Andronikou seeks to raise £15m this summer.

 

New chief executive David Lampitt will be on board on June 1, when he has served out his notice with the FA.

 

The current head of football integrity will front a new board earmarked to be in place should the CVA be granted next month.

 

Ultimately, Lampitt will have the biggest say as Pompey attempt to identify the right man to lead them in the Championship next season.

 

But Andronikou has admitted it would be folly not to also seek Storrie's input considering his extensive experience in the game. He said: 'Peter is focused on selling players at present.

 

'His experience is second-to-none and he will also have his opinions, which we will consider.

 

'We will obviously be interested in his views regarding potential candidates and will be speaking to him about those.

 

'Really, the decision is down to our in-coming chief executive. It is his decision, 100 per cent.

 

'But we will also be using Peter's experience in the process.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites
teamsaint

teamsaint

Posted
Posted
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Storrie-to-have-say-in.6314730.jp

Storrie to have say in search for new boss

Peter Storrie will help Pompey identify Avram Grant's replacement.

Andrew Andronikou has revealed the Blues' former chief executive will have a say in the search for a new boss.

 

Storrie is currently at Fratton Park in a consultancy capacity, a role which is expected to continue until the end of June.

 

He is presently charged with dealing with player sales as Andronikou seeks to raise £15m this summer.

 

New chief executive David Lampitt will be on board on June 1, when he has served out his notice with the FA.

 

The current head of football integrity will front a new board earmarked to be in place should the CVA be granted next month.

 

Ultimately, Lampitt will have the biggest say as Pompey attempt to identify the right man to lead them in the Championship next season.

 

But Andronikou has admitted it would be folly not to also seek Storrie's input considering his extensive experience in the game. He said: 'Peter is focused on selling players at present.

 

'His experience is second-to-none and he will also have his opinions, which we will consider.

 

'We will obviously be interested in his views regarding potential candidates and will be speaking to him about those.

 

'Really, the decision is down to our in-coming chief executive. It is his decision, 100 per cent.

 

'But we will also be using Peter's experience in the process.'

 

poopey sure do have a lot of Chiefs for an outfit that is supposed to be maximising income and minimizing outgoings in the interest of the creditors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
poopey sure do have a lot of Chiefs for an outfit that is supposed to be maximising income and minimizing outgoings in the interest of the creditors.

 

There sure does seem a cynical game is being played, why would the PL's cheif of football integrity touch them with a barge pole, add to that PS still there in a consultancy role. With the court cases going on I would have thought they would be keeping him at arms length and as for him involved in selling players!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chin Strain

Chin Strain

Posted
Posted
seriously when this thread ends, I reckon the top poster should be given a prize ;)

 

The top 5 currently stand at

 

nickh - 907

 

dubai_phil - 823

 

pedg - 717

 

Channon's Sideburns - 605

 

View From The Top - 514

 

DP should protest - how many 'they're going to get away with it' has nickh posted?! Shouldn't count them

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Micky

Micky

Posted
Posted
Any new owner should be able to cover basic running costs though or have access to finance to cover them. They had done DD or supposedly had done it so they knew what the wage bill was.

 

Look at Man Utd, owners have "bought" a club with no previous debt and now its £700m in debt because they secured the finances against future income and didnt put a penny in themselves. Yes the owners are Fit and Proper but should they have been allowed to buy the club and put it in such a bad state financially. Think they have had £70m in additional interest payments this year which bascially is the Ronaldo fee wiped out.

 

Absolutely. Did you believe (know) that 5 years ago as well? Or were the alarm bells so annoying that you switched them off, enjoyed the Premiership years and FA Cups?

 

If it is so obvious now - why not then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted
There sure does seem a cynical game is being played, why would the PL's cheif of football integrity touch them with a barge pole, add to that PS still there in a consultancy role. With the court cases going on I would have thought they would be keeping him at arms length and as for him involved in selling players!!!!

 

PS won't be charging them much, if anything at all. The safest place for him right now, is in amoungst the action. He needs to know who his friends are, what is being said, what info is being requested by the authorities and which parties are siding with who. The killer for him will be not knowing when that knock on the door will happen; next week, next month, next year???? The only thing he can be sure of, is that it will be coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Micky

Micky

Posted
Posted
There sure does seem a cynical game is being played, why would the PL's cheif of football integrity touch them with a barge pole, add to that PS still there in a consultancy role. With the court cases going on I would have thought they would be keeping him at arms length and as for him involved in selling players!!!!

 

Well if he's as good at selling players as he is at buying he should be able to solve 90% of PFC's debt, and earn himself another nice bonus in the process as well.

 

Come on Peter - let's see what you're really made of, lets see you sort this mess out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
Any new owner should be able to cover basic running costs though or have access to finance to cover them. They had done DD or supposedly had done it so they knew what the wage bill was.

Positive Pete:

Financial Responsibilities

You have to produce accounts that will be more complex than you may be used to producing as a sole trader (depending on the size of the business).

 

As a director you have a legal responsibility to:

 

Keep good accounting records from which accounts can be prepared which give a true and fair representation of the financial position of the company

 

Produce accurate accounts, filed at the due time with Companies House

 

Submit corporation tax returns to HMRC and pay any tax due

 

Deal properly with the payment of staff, deducting tax and national insurance as appropriate and paying it to HMRC by the due date

 

Trade solvently, ensuring that you are able to pay the liabilities of the business. To fail to do this is to commit an offence.

 

So the new owners had supposedly done Due Diligence and yet at the time of the Club being in Court subject to the winding-up order, a statement of affairs was produced by a reputable firm of accountants. A short time afterwards, in administration, the debt miraculously doubles.

 

So from that list, the directors of Pompey had patently been in breach of many of those legal responsibilities. I cannot see how either the courts can allow the debt position to be so different from the statement of accounts, or how the directors can be allowed to escape prosecution for either trading while insolvent or gross incompetence if they deny knowledge of the real debt situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FMPR

FMPR

Posted
Posted
Absolutely. Did you believe (know) that 5 years ago as well? Or were the alarm bells so annoying that you switched them off, enjoyed the Premiership years and FA Cups?

 

If it is so obvious now - why not then?

 

In all honesty Gaydamak told us about 3 years ago that none of the debts were against Portsmouth in a radio interview on the Quay.

 

Now obviously in hindsight that was a total lie and fans were taken hook, line and sinker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
DP should protest - how many 'they're going to get away with it' has nickh posted?! Shouldn't count them

Lol, I wonder if i will get to 1000 before the thread comes to an end. Perhaps as a prize I could get a life.......how long did it take to count all the posts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
In all honesty Gaydamak told us about 3 years ago that none of the debts were against Portsmouth in a radio interview on the Quay.

 

Now obviously in hindsight that was a total lie and fans were taken hook, line and sinker.

Im sure the same would happen here as well.

I think the problem is that knowing that Crouch etc was on 90k a week etc etc etc should have sent the alarm bells ringing. If it was so easy to have a tream of stars with crowds of under 20k i suspect that Wigan Blackburn etc etc would do the same.

Only the Pomey fans could see what Gaydamek etc saw in the club and were not aware of the nonsense. i do understand the rubbish about stadia and development was muddying the pool but who with any real money would buy a house in Fratton????The figures were never adding up and you may recall all the fun we had whne Ho and co were telling us about the complex of houses and hotels

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chin Strain

Chin Strain

Posted
Posted
Lol, I wonder if i will get to 1000 before the thread comes to an end. Perhaps as a prize I could get a life.......how long did it take to count all the posts?

 

I was surprised to find myself at 38th on the list with 208...although I may have gone up a couple of spots with my two posts today:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted (edited)
I have another question though and this may be naive or interesting ... One thing pompey fans keep going on about .. as indeed do certain broadcasters is tthe issue with teh fit and proper test, in which the biggest questions seems not to be teh important ones, such as character, integrity, business acumen, and impoprtantly an interest in ensuring a club remains a focas of and integrated with teh community and its fans.... no the only question that is rased is 'checking if they have the money'. Now forgive me, but what the flying feck has that got to do with it? Presumuably they have the money to buy the necessary shares (please exclude the glazier type purchase where the club becomes security for the loans issued to purchase it in the first place thus landing a club in debt, albeit in the form of managed loans) to take over the club.

 

But why is it EXPECTED that a new owner MUST also have tons of cash to throw at the team? Why is it that new owners are blamed becaus ethey do NOT invest in the team and cover the contractual overspend entered into by previous owners? Surely if the baord go and spend stupid money on the expectations /promises made by owners, then they are guilty of incompetence as no one should risk the business on the ground of promises - you need to wait until its sitting in the account.

 

I know in Pompeys case the various owners would possibly have struggled to pass teh fit and proper on grounds of itegruity and character, but its not ever clear why fans and pundits seem to think you cant own a club if you are not prepared to splash teh cash and underwrite the financial incompetence of teh board - although naturally it should be argued that you would fail on the business accumen part if you let your board get away with stupid spending.

 

In effect, its no different to NC saying to Pards what do you need?, Pards getting players in for say 40 mil and committing us to an extra 20 mil a season in wages over our income.... with fans and NC and Pards all expecting, without any guarrantees that ML would somehow write this off and cover it... when what he does is walk away because its a mess - or have teh ground and staplewood transferred into his name to at least get the purchase price back when admin comes to town...

 

NOw that might be a very simplistic interpretation of the pompey saga, but it just highlights the naiviety and issues surrounding this fan and football world in general expectation of owners to stump up ....

 

I agree completely with regards to those who have called for some sort of means-based test.

 

When you hear the pundits saying the Pl/FA should have to check that owners have the money it's usually someone like Claridge, "Spoony" or Bright who, whilst being able to talk a bit about football, lack the basic intelligence to follow that idea through and see how stupid and shortsighted it is.

Edited by benjii
Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
Nor was it ever intended to, on the basis that clubs should not be reliant on handouts from their owners to remain "solvent" (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense).

 

If they want to take the risk of going down the benefactor route whereby the investor(s) put their money in by way of soft loans rather than gifts, that's their lookout, and there's not really much the Premier League can (or should) do about that. The clubs have to take the responsibility for the way in which they conduct their business, that's the bottom line.

 

Exactamundo. 100% spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
Any new owner should be able to cover basic running costs though or have access to finance to cover them. They had done DD or supposedly had done it so they knew what the wage bill was.

 

Look at Man Utd, owners have "bought" a club with no previous debt and now its £700m in debt because they secured the finances against future income and didnt put a penny in themselves. Yes the owners are Fit and Proper but should they have been allowed to buy the club and put it in such a bad state financially. Think they have had £70m in additional interest payments this year which bascially is the Ronaldo fee wiped out.

 

Why do you say that? It is completely untrue of 99.9% of businesses which either cover their own costs (ie make a profit - fancy that!) or use debt.

 

The simple fact is that, absent a very rich sugar daddy, clubs with a nineteenth centruy infrastructure and minimal fan base can not afford, generally, to be genuinely competitive in the top division any more for any sustained period. This is why it is good for everyone that you have been relegated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FMPR

FMPR

Posted
Posted
Why do you say that? It is completely untrue of 99.9% of businesses which either cover their own costs (ie make a profit - fancy that!) or use debt.

 

The simple fact is that, absent a very rich sugar daddy, clubs with a nineteenth centruy infrastructure and minimal fan base can not afford, generally, to be genuinely competitive in the top division any more for any sustained period. This is why it is good for everyone that you have been relegated.

 

Last post of the day. But football is unlike 99.9% of business and does ened propping up from wealthy people or backers.

 

But its catch 22 about fan base, if you have a decent largish stadium you can set prices to attract more fans. So until you can get one you cannot expand or foresee what possible fan base a club might have. Obviously success brings fans in as well.

 

Someone asked yesterday about our wage budget. By my calcs we are at £21m per annum now or £219k a week OVER our forecast £192k a week wage budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JackFrost

JackFrost

Posted
Posted
Lol, I wonder if i will get to 1000 before the thread comes to an end. Perhaps as a prize I could get a life.......how long did it take to count all the posts?

 

If you click on the number in the replies column in the lounge it brings up how many posts each person has made in this thread.

 

I didn't go through all 30,000 posts and make a tally (honest :wink:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
Last post of the day. But football is unlike 99.9% of business and does ened propping up from wealthy people or backers.

 

But its catch 22 about fan base, if you have a decent largish stadium you can set prices to attract more fans. So until you can get one you cannot expand or foresee what possible fan base a club might have. Obviously success brings fans in as well.

 

Someone asked yesterday about our wage budget. By my calcs we are at £21m per annum now or £219k a week OVER our forecast £192k a week wage budget.

 

I agree that it is hard, but that's football now. Clubs like the Skates cannot afford to carry on as though they are a Premiership team when they clearly lack the capability to be so without spending wildly beyond their resources.

 

Alternatively, they can do so and recognise that insolvency and sporting sanctions is the likely outcome and not belly-ache like imbeciles when it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stevegrant

stevegrant

Posted
Posted
Last post of the day. But football is unlike 99.9% of business and does ened propping up from wealthy people or backers.

Football is certainly unlike any other business industry. However, I would totally disagree that it needs propping up - if the clubs ran themselves sensibly and didn't cave in to fan demands and pressure for instant success, there wouldn't be a problem.

 

But its catch 22 about fan base, if you have a decent largish stadium you can set prices to attract more fans. So until you can get one you cannot expand or foresee what possible fan base a club might have. Obviously success brings fans in as well.

I think if Gaydamak had invested the time and money into building a new ground rather than the short-term "buy loads of expensive players" option, there could have been the potential to grow organically and then generate the sort of revenues required to run a club in the top half of the Premier League. Greed and a lack of patience put paid to that idea, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
If you click on the number in the replies column in the lounge it brings up how many posts each person has made in this thread.

 

I didn't go through all 30,000 posts and make a tally (honest :wink:)

You computer geeks!! Oh b#### ive just added another to my sad score
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
Last post of the day. But football is unlike 99.9% of business and does ened propping up from wealthy people or backers.

 

Wrong, plenty of clubs don't have a wealthy backer. In fact last year was the first season I have ever supported a team that has had one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doctoroncall

Doctoroncall

Posted
Posted
In all honesty Gaydamak told us about 3 years ago that none of the debts were against Portsmouth in a radio interview on the Quay.

 

Now obviously in hindsight that was a total lie and fans were taken hook, line and sinker.

 

Perhaps the lack of publication of any accounts should have started the alarm bells, further questions on how the debt was to be managed or even thinking about how the spending/wage bill could be sustained by the club.

 

 

(Post Tally: 150)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
I have 257 in this thread and 698 on another forum in a thread about the Pompey situation. Total 955.

 

Making me even more sad and obsessed than nickh ;) :D

when did aggregate scores come into it? Im the market leader
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
Is the counter jammed. I've dipped in and out (o'er mrs) in the last minute or so & the count has remained at 999719.

 

As Steve knows well the number of views are only updated every so often (e.g. 5pm)

 

 

 

(....consolidating my third place....)

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