Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted

Correct. The players and agents will take jam today, not waft about being circumspect and fretting about who might go to the wall in two years time.

 

Circumspect footballers and football agents. You lot are off your freaking heads.

 

And where in the world of yours does the selling club come in? Yes the player may take the larger wage but he has to arrange for his current club to sell him to the club offering him more which, in a world without the FCR will mean the selling club will want more of the transfer fee upfront which could well put off the dodgy club offering silly wages on the never never.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
View From The Top

View From The Top

Posted
Posted
And where in the world of yours does the selling club come in? Yes the player may take the larger wage but he has to arrange for his current club to sell him to the club offering him more which, in a world without the FCR will mean the selling club will want more of the transfer fee upfront which could well put off the dodgy club offering silly wages on the never never.

 

Please, don't confuse him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
And where in the world of yours does the selling club come in? Yes the player may take the larger wage but he has to arrange for his current club to sell him to the club offering him more which, in a world without the FCR will mean the selling club will want more of the transfer fee upfront which could well put off the dodgy club offering silly wages on the never never.

 

Please, don't confuse him.

 

 

Clearly, I'm not confused. This takes us nicely back to where we started. The "selling clubs" example has been done, because the french clubs selling players to Pompey aren't covered by the FCR and they still sold players to Pompey. Nice try.

 

Getting rid of the FCR is not going to make football more circumspect like you fantastists are making out. Anyway, lets get back to laughing at Pompey, because I've had enough fun laughing at you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
Clearly, I'm not confused. This takes us nicely back to where we started. The "selling clubs" example has been done, because the french clubs selling players to Pompey aren't covered by the FCR and they still sold players to Pompey. Nice try.

 

Getting rid of the FCR is not going to make football more circumspect like you fantastists are making out. Anyway, lets get back to laughing at Pompey, because I've had enough fun laughing at you.

 

Ah, but I would like to continue laughing at you and your blinkered view that somehow the removal of the safety net of the FCR will not cause clubs to be more circumspect about to whom they would sell their players to.

 

By way of illustration, let's assume that you're going to book your holiday in the Caribbean and are attracted to the operator who offers a substantially lower price than most others. You realise that they might be a cowboy outfit, as generally you get what you pay for and you have heard dark mutterings that financially they might be bit precarious. But you go ahead anyway because you reason that if they go belly up, you will probably get your money back if they crash before your holiday starts, or flown back home after your holiday, because they are ABTA bonded, so you have little to lose.

 

But would you book up your holiday with that company and pay up front for the tickets if that safety net of the ABTA bonding wasn't there?

 

Yes, based on your thoughts on the football parallel, I suspect that you probably would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
Clearly, I'm not confused. This takes us nicely back to where we started. The "selling clubs" example has been done, because the french clubs selling players to Pompey aren't covered by the FCR and they still sold players to Pompey. Nice try.

 

Getting rid of the FCR is not going to make football more circumspect like you fantastists are making out. Anyway, lets get back to laughing at Pompey, because I've had enough fun laughing at you.

 

The selling club has been 'done' only if they agree to sell. As I mentioned before this was not a problem pre pompey as few of the teams shelling out millions for players were considered likely to go under. This is not now the case and if I were the owner of a european team and an english team came in to buy one of my players I would be much more likely to ask for the full price upfront that pre pompeys collapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eastcowzer

Eastcowzer

Posted
Posted
And what exactly is the problem with that?

Wouldn't it be awful to lose all that shady money coming in from abroad to be churned and squandered, the huge and growing disparity betweem the Prem (TM bestest league in the world) and the rest of football, those egotistical foreign owners, over-rated foreign managers and diving, cheating mercenary foreign players (mostly) only here for a quick and easy buck, the hideous creature that is Sky dominating our game and all those JCL fans who have the shirt but only watch football on the TV.

I'm not sure I would ever get over my disappointment....

 

Well said 'Sid...' The Pl was/is formed purely for the benefit of the so called top four, or five clubs, and, of course, Murdochs Sky, which continues to serve up sheer dross under the name of world class foot

ball. I for one, would'nt mourn the downffall Scudamore's empire, or the incessant repeats and self advertisement of Sky who, having successfully reduced football and rugby to electronic wall-paper, are well on the way to completing the demice of cricket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted (edited)
Ah, but I would like to continue laughing at you and your blinkered view that somehow the removal of the safety net of the FCR will not cause clubs to be more circumspect about to whom they would sell their players to.

 

By way of illustration, let's assume that you're going to book your holiday in the Caribbean and are attracted to the operator who offers a substantially lower price than most others. You realise that they might be a cowboy outfit, as generally you get what you pay for and you have heard dark mutterings that financially they might be bit precarious. But you go ahead anyway because you reason that if they go belly up, you will probably get your money back if they crash before your holiday starts, or flown back home after your holiday, because they are ABTA bonded, so you have little to lose.

 

But would you book up your holiday with that company and pay up front for the tickets if that safety net of the ABTA bonding wasn't there?

 

Yes, based on your thoughts on the football parallel, I suspect that you probably would.

 

 

That's a pretty lame analogy, sunshine, especially as you had a go at me for extreme examples earlier on in the thread.

 

What idiot would book a holiday with a company they knew or suspected was dodgy, just because ABTA existed. Yeah. Because I don't actually care about wasting my time, or not having a holiday at all, or being stranded in a hotel for three days when I should be back at work. Because I've got ABTA. So that safety net means I plough on regardless and ignore absolutely every other piece of information at my disposal.

 

What a moron you are.

 

The removal of the football creditors rule would not make football more circumspect, it would just shift the terms of reference and strategy of the contracts and the transfers. More money up front, shorter contracts. The more unscrupulous clubs would be prepared to gamble more because they now have a safety net that they don't actually have to pay everything if it comes to the crunch. And those clubs prepared to gamble, and the agents and players as greedy as ever, will take the bigger money on offer. The FCR is a pointless element in the wider process, apart from the benefit to non football creditors who get a fairer slice but that's a different argument.

 

 

Good luck booking a holiday with a company you know is dodgy because you have ABTA.

 

I tend to use more information because life is generally about the broader perspective. You should try it some time.

Edited by CB Fry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
That's a pretty lame analogy, sunshine, especially as you had a go at me for extreme examples earlier on in the thread.

 

What idiot would book a holiday with a company they knew or suspected was dodgy, just because ABTA existed. Yeah. Because I don't actually care about wasting my time, or not having a holiday at all, or being stranded in a hotel for three days when I should be back at work. Because I've got ABTA. So that safety net means I plough on regardless and ignore absolutely every other piece of information at my disposal.

 

What a moron you are.

 

The removal of the football creditors rule would not make football more circumspect, it would just shift the terms of reference and strategy of the contracts and the transfers. More money up front, shorter contracts. The more unscrupulous clubs would be prepared to gamble more because they now have a safety net that they don't actually have to pay everything if it comes to the crunch. And those clubs prepared to gamble that, and the agents and players as greedy as ever will take the bigger money on offer.

 

 

Good luck booking a holiday with a company you know is dodgy because you have ABTA.

 

I tend to use more information because life is generally about the broader perspective. You should try it some time.

 

The analogy is as lame as your refusal to acknowledge that you could possibly be wrong, that your opinion can only be the right one, no other argument or debate can be tolerated.

 

And your having to resort to childish name-calling just because I dared to question your opinion, speaks volumes to me that you have lost the argument.

 

There are several others that have questioned your assertion/opinion that the removal of the FCR would not make clubs more circumspect, so are you also calling them morons too?

 

It is obvious that your comprehension of the English language is also not great, as I inferred that it would be you that might book up a holiday with a company without ABTA bonding. I would be much more circumspect.

 

And what a hypocrite, advising me that life is all about the broader perspective, when your views are so narrow that they will not countenance any other view or opinion that questions yours. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted

http://www.fulham-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/fulham_set_to_take_legal_action_against_pl_chairman_541227/index.shtml

 

Another Storrie masterstroke contract or something more sinister?

 

Why do you sell a player for 2 million less than you have agreed with the other club? Now the manager of the other club is a certain Harry Redknapp, but that's just coincedence right.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
http://www.fulham-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/fulham_set_to_take_legal_action_against_pl_chairman_541227/index.shtml

 

Another Storrie masterstroke contract or something more sinister?

 

Why do you sell a player for 2 million less than you have agreed with the other club? Now the manager of the other club is a certain Harry Redknapp, but that's just coincedence right.....

 

The most obvious, but least conspiratorial, answer is that pompey were desperate for the money and the 9M was all in one go where as the 11M was in stages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
anothersaintinsouthsea

anothersaintinsouthsea

Posted
Posted
http://www.fulham-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/fulham_set_to_take_legal_action_against_pl_chairman_541227/index.shtml

 

Another Storrie masterstroke contract or something more sinister?

 

Why do you sell a player for 2 million less than you have agreed with the other club? Now the manager of the other club is a certain Harry Redknapp, but that's just coincedence right.....

 

Definitely a coincidence, f'sure your honour

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
Definitely a coincidence, f'sure your honour

 

I guess the only thing that might be said is that 'arry was probably well aware of their need for quick cash so was able to put in a lower upfront bid having inside knowledge that it would likely be accepted. The odd thing really is why Pompey did not go back to Fulham and say 'We have an upfront bid of £9M can you do better?' or similar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
Breaking news on BBC and Sky Sports is that David James has signed for Bristol City on a one year deal

 

apparently he was going to go back to pompey but would not spring for the new car parking fee's. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

Is the arms dealer going to build a multi-Storrie?....

 

In defence of child-maiming, money-laundering crooks everywhere, if you owned land vital to another business, had cut them some slack yet they were so arrogant they wouldn't even reply to your letters to have a meeting, wouldn't you be a bit miffed?

 

Back to this case! - AA's arrogance has made Portsmouth FC look like a bunch of dirty travellers who have set up their uninsured caravans on someone else's land and think they are above the law.

If AA legs it soon and leaves a right old mess behind, the image will be complete.

 

Fratton Park is still the only ground with a towbar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suewhistle

suewhistle

Posted
Posted
The removal of the football creditors rule would not make football more circumspect, it would just shift the terms of reference and strategy of the contracts and the transfers. More money up front, shorter contracts. The more unscrupulous clubs would be prepared to gamble more because they now have a safety net that they don't actually have to pay everything if it comes to the crunch.

 

I'm quite surprised you take this view. Your above "not.. more circumspect" and "money up front" are a bit contradictory: isn't asking for more money up front being more circumspect. Plus you missed a point I made earlier: with what money are these unscrupulous clubs going to gamble? At the moment they are relying on paying by instalments using the promise of future revenue streams. If you think banks aren't more aware of football's wider problems now, particularly with the Poortsmouth example freshly in mind I really do question your views. We have our own 1 year old example of the withdrawal of an overdraft, haven't we? So if they have to pay up front more often, which I think you have accepted will happen, how are these unscupulous clubs going to fund the gamble?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
I'm quite surprised you take this view. Your above "not.. more circumspect" and "money up front" are a bit contradictory: isn't asking for more money up front being more circumspect. Plus you missed a point I made earlier: with what money are these unscrupulous clubs going to gamble? At the moment they are relying on paying by instalments using the promise of future revenue streams. If you think banks aren't more aware of football's wider problems now, particularly with the Poortsmouth example freshly in mind I really do question your views. We have our own 1 year old example of the withdrawal of an overdraft, haven't we? So if they have to pay up front more often, which I think you have accepted will happen, how are these unscupulous clubs going to fund the gamble?

 

Quite so, Sue, but be prepared to be labelled a moron for holding such opinions. ;) You and I, along with other perfectly sensible posters, can see that the withdrawal of the FCR will mean that clubs will be more circumspect regarding their dealings with clubs in financial trouble, but for some reason apparently, they will be powerless against the players and their agents who will insist that their fees and salaries should rise to compensate them for the loss of the FCR safety net .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
The analogy is as lame as your refusal to acknowledge that you could possibly be wrong, that your opinion can only be the right one, no other argument or debate can be tolerated.

 

And your having to resort to childish name-calling just because I dared to question your opinion, speaks volumes to me that you have lost the argument.

 

There are several others that have questioned your assertion/opinion that the removal of the FCR would not make clubs more circumspect, so are you also calling them morons too?

 

It is obvious that your comprehension of the English language is also not great, as I inferred that it would be you that might book up a holiday with a company without ABTA bonding. I would be much more circumspect.

 

And what a hypocrite, advising me that life is all about the broader perspective, when your views are so narrow that they will not countenance any other view or opinion that questions yours. :rolleyes:

 

 

Errr, gee fanks for the patronising stuff, again. I know you inferred it was me who would buy a holiday etc, etc. I can read. Shame you are incapable of seeing beyond anything other than a clunking literal response. It's that lack of perspective again, I think. The point was no one would buy a holiday in your sixth form analogy, except maybe you as you are the wally that came up with it. Hence why I wished you luck. Did you read that bit? Did you comprehend it?

 

I am right, it is as simple as that - the football creditors rule will not make football more circumspect. Other things might make football more circumspect, but the abolition of the football creditors rule isn't one of them.

 

And you can call for the FCR to be abolished, it's fairer on everyone, esp the butcher/baker/builder. Fine by me. But it won't make football clubs, players or agents "more circumspect" in any meaningful way. That's pie in the sky.

 

You making up dopey analogies and getting all offended by name calling - like you've never had a pop at me - does not make you win the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
I'm quite surprised you take this view. Your above "not.. more circumspect" and "money up front" are a bit contradictory: isn't asking for more money up front being more circumspect. Plus you missed a point I made earlier: with what money are these unscrupulous clubs going to gamble? At the moment they are relying on paying by instalments using the promise of future revenue streams. If you think banks aren't more aware of football's wider problems now, particularly with the Poortsmouth example freshly in mind I really do question your views. We have our own 1 year old example of the withdrawal of an overdraft, haven't we? So if they have to pay up front more often, which I think you have accepted will happen, how are these unscupulous clubs going to fund the gamble?

 

I said this to someone else on the thread - this is not about the FCR, it's about the financial bubble around football bursting.

 

Clubs will be more circumspect because they have less money, but not because the FCR is going to be binned. Anyway, it isn't going to be binned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
View From The Top

View From The Top

Posted
Posted
Errr, gee fanks for the patronising stuff, again. I know you inferred it was me who would buy a holiday etc, etc. I can read. Shame you are incapable of seeing beyond anything other than a clunking literal response. It's that lack of perspective again, I think. The point was no one would buy a holiday in your sixth form analogy, except maybe you as you are the wally that came up with it. Hence why I wished you luck. Did you read that bit? Did you comprehend it?

 

I am right, it is as simple as that - the football creditors rule will not make football more circumspect. Other things might make football more circumspect, but the abolition of the football creditors rule isn't one of them.

 

And you can call for the FCR to be abolished, it's fairer on everyone, esp the butcher/baker/builder. Fine by me. But it won't make football clubs, players or agents "more circumspect" in any meaningful way. That's pie in the sky.

 

You making up dopey analogies and getting all offended by name calling - like you've never had a pop at me - does not make you win the argument.

 

Nor does insisting you're right and everyone else is wrong.

 

My 5yo even understands that. Try it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mack rill

mack rill

Posted
Posted
I guess the only thing that might be said is that 'arry was probably well aware of their need for quick cash so was able to put in a lower upfront bid having inside knowledge that it would likely be accepted. The odd thing really is why Pompey did not go back to Fulham and say 'We have an upfront bid of £9M can you do better?' or similar?

 

we were miffed when the said (done Deal) for 11mill to fool em, was trumped by the massive 9mill to the yids, The Freak was givein it large that when he found out Baggy was interested, He only wanted to play for him:rolleyes:

We put it down to Porky, Pie, getting an 'arry Bag,

Link to comment
Share on other sites
latter day saint

latter day saint

Posted
Posted
we were miffed when the said (done Deal) for 11mill to fool em, was trumped by the massive 9mill to the yids, The Freak was givein it large that when he found out Baggy was interested, He only wanted to play for him:rolleyes:

We put it down to Porky, Pie, getting an 'arry Bag,

can someone translate please ? :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
we were miffed when the said (done Deal) for 11mill to fool em, was trumped by the massive 9mill to the yids, The Freak was givein it large that when he found out Baggy was interested, He only wanted to play for him:rolleyes:

We put it down to Porky, Pie, getting an 'arry Bag,

 

can someone translate please ? :?

 

"We were slightly disappointed when the apparent completed transaction to Fulham FC was rejected in favour of a smaller bid from tottenham hotspurs. When the tall footballer in question found out Mr Redknapp esquire was interested in employing his services he informed aquantances of his desire to once again ply his sporting trade under Mr Redknapps direction. We however are of the opinion that Mr Storrie, ex of this parish, was in receipt of a currency containing manilla envelope that influences his decision"

 

or something like that..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rpb

rpb

Posted
Posted
"We were slightly disappointed when the apparent completed transaction to Fulham FC was rejected in favour of a smaller bid from tottenham hotspurs. When the tall footballer in question found out Mr Redknapp esquire was interested in employing his services he informed aquantances of his desire to once again ply his sporting trade under Mr Redknapps direction. We however are of the opinion that Mr Storrie, ex of this parish, was in receipt of a currency containing manilla envelope that influences his decision"

 

or something like that..

 

Pedg, you are very clever. I didn't have the faintest idea what the original was about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
latter day saint

latter day saint

Posted
Posted
"We were slightly disappointed when the apparent completed transaction to Fulham FC was rejected in favour of a smaller bid from tottenham hotspurs. When the tall footballer in question found out Mr Redknapp esquire was interested in employing his services he informed aquantances of his desire to once again ply his sporting trade under Mr Redknapps direction. We however are of the opinion that Mr Storrie, ex of this parish, was in receipt of a currency containing manilla envelope that influences his decision"

 

or something like that..

thanks.dont understand the mockney fish babble they spout :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mack rill

mack rill

Posted
Posted
"We were slightly disappointed when the apparent completed transaction to Fulham FC was rejected in favour of a smaller bid from tottenham hotspurs. When the tall footballer in question found out Mr Redknapp esquire was interested in employing his services he informed aquantances of his desire to once again ply his sporting trade under Mr Redknapps direction. We however are of the opinion that Mr Storrie, ex of this parish, was in receipt of a currency containing manilla envelope that influences his decision"

 

or something like that..

 

Thats fekin word for word wot i said in-it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crab Lungs

Crab Lungs

Posted
Posted

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Fitting-sendoff-assured-for-Primus.6448635.jp

 

LMAO at the Saints' fans' comment on the Linvoy love-in:

 

"It will be very emotional when the pompey legend walks out on the pitch in front of 3,000 of the 'greatest fans in the world'."

 

And PLEASE do read what they say about Le Tisser, lol.

 

So deluded. Hope they disappear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted

 

I wonder what options are open to AA if deep down he realised he is bang to rights on the court case and is almost certain to lose? Would it save his face if just before the court case he were to say "Due to the dragged out nature of the CVA and the difficulty in finding a buyer to minimise further loses to the creditors I have been left with no option but to put the club into voluntary liquidation"

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