Pompey Takeover Saga

[pfc123]

colin this is not true and we dont need to exagerate our position. As detailed in the liquidation report at companies house, both Aviva and Barclays accepted deals significantly lower than the actual debt.

 

What has transpired is that the smaller creditors (And there really werent that many) were paid in full (Kudos to Marcus).

 

So, you DID default on the money owed on the stadium.

 

Overall then, we "cheated" on salaries and fees we could afford only until the money ran out, you "cheated" on building a stadium you could afford only until the money ran out.

 

I think the words 'pot' and 'kettle' spring to mind. You're no different to us. Cheats!

 

And by the way in The News today:

 

"Charities and creditors owed less than £2,500 from Pompey can expect to see their money in a matter of months.

 

Balram Chainrai made a promise that his company, Portpin, would pay charities such as the Tom Prince Cancer Trust and the Harbour Cancer Trust back in full.

 

Other creditors owed more than £2,500 will only see 20p for every £1 they are owed - and will be paid back over a number of years.

 

Mr Chainrai made the offer after there was outrage from fans that the charities were suffering because of the club's financial strife, and should get all the money raised on their behalf.

 

Legal papers will now be drawn up to pay them back".

[pfc123]

Yes we had a moment of madness under one of many boards in which CASH we had in the bank (approx 7mil from the sale of players) was spent in a push to regain premiership status... wich meant we entered into contracts that would not be sustainable long term if we were not promoted - hense the subsequent sale of players in an effot to get us back to an even keel - it was not possible to terminate all contracts' date=' and this meant teh need for overdraft - which was being reduced when Barclays got cold feet[/quote']

 

You see? You gambled money you couldn't afford, and so did we. There's no difference between us on that score.....cheats!

[Micky]

So, you DID default on the money owed on the stadium.

 

Overall then, we "cheated" on salaries and fees we could afford only until the money ran out, you "cheated" on building a stadium you could afford only until the money ran out.

 

I think the words 'pot' and 'kettle' spring to mind. You're no different to us. Cheats!

 

And by the way in The News today:

 

"Charities and creditors owed less than £2,500 from Pompey can expect to see their money in a matter of months.

 

Balram Chainrai made a promise that his company, Portpin, would pay charities such as the Tom Prince Cancer Trust and the Harbour Cancer Trust back in full.

 

Other creditors owed more than £2,500 will only see 20p for every £1 they are owed - and will be paid back over a number of years.

 

Mr Chainrai made the offer after there was outrage from fans that the charities were suffering because of the club's financial strife, and should get all the money raised on their behalf.

 

Legal papers will now be drawn up to pay them back".

 

Sometimes I just absolutely dispair, sorry words fail me...

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Yep, fair enough, (goes into naughty schoolboy mode) sorry. To be fair the fact that everyone on here has a different view is what makes it interesting, more of a debate. Also the format and layout of our main board is rubbish which doesn't help. Still it wouldn't be Pompey if it was all bright and shiney

 

Bright & shiney?

 

Pompey's version would be sh!te and briney surely?

[benjii]

pfc123 - I might explain it to you tonight if I can be bothered.

[RonManager]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/jeremywilson/100013201/the-saddest-lesson-from-portsmouth-that-reckless-spending-can-be-well-worth-the-gamble/

[Micky]

pfc123 - I might explain it to you tonight if I can be bothered.

 

Benji, if I was you I would save your breath. It has been explained over nearly 700 pages and yet still they cannot grasp it - sometime you just have to accept that you are flogging a dead horse.

 

Was good to see FC back on here after a period of abscence (where have you been Frank...!!!) putting a very succinct summary of events up - yet still people can't or won't grasp all that was bad with the whole 'business' plan. I honestly believe that most fans would now just shove thier heads up thier asses and not give two hoots as to how the club is run so long as it resulted in yet more 'glory days'.

[Micky]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/jeremywilson/100013201/the-saddest-lesson-from-portsmouth-that-reckless-spending-can-be-well-worth-the-gamble/

 

 

Thanks Ron - here PFC, try this, it's fairly easy to understand.

[pfc123]

Look, sorry to **** you all off over this, but you really need to get over this 'cheats' idea. Not only is it obviously eating away at a fair few of you, but it's so unbeleiveably hypocritical.

 

The bottom line is that you all see your own reckless spending before administration as merely a gamble, or a mistake- "Sorry guv, could have happened to anyone...." so thats allright then.

 

Yet you see exactly the same spending by us as "cheating." There is NO difference, we both merely spent money we didn't have in different ways....

[Micky]

Ahhhhh, perhaps not quite so simple then. Whatever, I tried, I failed - back to work for me....

[Essruu]

Look, sorry to **** you all off over this,....

 

I started to think you were playing dumb just to try to wind up some people on here. Now I just think you're fairly thick and a bit of a d!ck.

[aintforever]

I knew the average Skate was a bit thick but this PFC123 guy takes the ****.

 

You need to be seriously retarded to think what happened at SFC is the same as pompey.

[JackFrost]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/jeremywilson/100013201/the-saddest-lesson-from-portsmouth-that-reckless-spending-can-be-well-worth-the-gamble/

 

One thing the article fails to realise is they are still doing it now

[pfc123]

I knew the average Skate was a bit thick but this PFC123 guy takes the ****.

 

You need to be seriously retarded to think what happened at SFC is the same as pompey.

 

Ok, predictably, plenty of abuse which is telling in itself, but no defence so far to my assertion that our situation is the same.

 

Fine, if I'm so thick, explain it to me. Explain why your descent into administration was just a hard luck story and ours was nasty cheating all the way along. Go on.....

[Colinjb]

Look, sorry to **** you all off over this, but you really need to get over this 'cheats' idea. Not only is it obviously eating away at a fair few of you, but it's so unbeleiveably hypocritical.

 

The bottom line is that you all see your own reckless spending before administration as merely a gamble, or a mistake- "Sorry guv, could have happened to anyone...." so thats allright then.

 

Yet you see exactly the same spending by us as "cheating." There is NO difference, we both merely spent money we didn't have in different ways....

 

Yes, -130 million = -2 million

 

Skate mathematics at it's finest. We did not moan like a bunch of b*tches when it happened to us though. we took our punishment with a modicum of dignity.

 

And you are in no way safe yet. See you in May.

[saintjay77]

Ok, predictably, plenty of abuse which is telling in itself, but no defence so far to my assertion that our situation is the same.

 

Fine, if I'm so thick, explain it to me. Explain why your descent into administration was just a hard luck story and ours was nasty cheating all the way along. Go on.....

 

I thought my post a bit further up this page explained some of the details pretty well. Being in the crap and dealing with it in one way earns you kudos. Dealing it in another way earns you the cheat title.

 

It has been defended quite a few times and even without abuse occasionally. Not our fault you are selectivlynreading what you wish is it?

[Gingeletiss]

Look, sorry to **** you all off over this, but you really need to get over this 'cheats' idea. Not only is it obviously eating away at a fair few of you, but it's so unbeleiveably hypocritical.

 

The bottom line is that you all see your own reckless spending before administration as merely a gamble, or a mistake- "Sorry guv, could have happened to anyone...." so thats allright then.

 

Yet you see exactly the same spending by us as "cheating." There is NO difference, we both merely spent money we didn't have in different ways....

 

WTF do you call three times in administration!! twice in the last twelve years, repeating the same format...........CHEATING I'd call it!

[suewhistle]

Yes, -130 million = -2 million

 

Skate mathematics at it's finest. We did not moan like a bunch of b*tches when it happened to us though. we took our punishment with a modicum of dignity.

 

And you are in no way safe yet. See you in May.

 

I wonder if a Socratic dialogue would help him.. (or sod, was it Plato or aristotle..)

 

Anyway, do you agree with Colinjb's figures above?

 

Did the withdrawal of Barclay's overdraft not mean that RL immediately put Saints into insolvency to avoid trading whilst insolvent?

 

Do you think Portsmouth were solvent before they went into administration?

 

Did Saints immediately get rid of all the expensive players they could and play the kids?.

 

Did Pompey get rid of all their expensive players and play the kids? [i might accept "what kids?" as an answer..]

 

Did Aviva accept the offer on the mortgage (which was against a secured asset, a decent stadium)?

 

Did Aviva make a big loss on the deal. I'll answer this and the next for you.. NO

 

Did Aviva make quite as much money as they expected (at a time when interest rates were generally falling). NO

 

Are Portsmouth's average crowds, in the Championship, bigger than Saints in L1?

 

Are Saints relying on parachute monies for their future?

 

Are Portsmouth relying on parachute monies for their future?

 

Do Saints have assets like a decent ground and training ground?

 

Do Portsmouth have assets like a decent ground and training ground?

 

I could go on but I'm getting bored now...

[rallyboy]

so the guy whose club stole money from kid's cancer charities and used it to pay wages is preaching to us about how the two clubs are the same????

They even collected it, did a nice press photo BUT trousered the cash.

Unbelievable.

It's been explained a million times already - Pompey made no effort to address debt, they kept on flicking the V's and spending.

 

They are uniquely the only club that has ever been in administration that has continued to trade insolvently and continued to bring in new players.

Our owners were stupid, yours were criminals, and that cost the local community greatly.

 

Yes the owner of Portsmouth did promise to pay those small debts and the charities.

I wonder if he ever will, he hasn't so far and he was the owner months ago when he gave his word.

 

pfc123 - are you not just a little ashamed of the things your club has done?

Your squad should have G5 on their shirts, that's where that funding went.

Disgraceful, don't bother to try and defend their actions again.

 

The club is forever tainted, form a new one or accept what everyone knows.

[Wes Tender]

You see? You gambled money you couldn't afford, and so did we. There's no difference between us on that score.....cheats!

 

No difference? Not if you won't be magnaminous enough to look beyond the end of your nose there won't be. We arrived in a position whereby we realised that we became insolvent when the bank called in their loan for what was really quite an insignificant amount compared to your debt, which was more like the gross domestic product level of a third World country. You carried on ramping up the debt levels and carried on trading long after it was obvious that you were insolvent, which is illegal. The difference between us is the level of debt involved, but you just carry on ignoring it if that suits your conscience.

 

We played the kids to reduce our outgoings, the same as many other clubs do. It's called cutting your cloth according to one's means. Your various bent owners and bent chief executive preferred the strategy of placing every pound on black at the casino, sh*t or bust. Buy players you couldn't afford from under the noses of rival clubs, pay wages you couldn't afford, proven by not being able to pay them on time. I don't recall us doing anything like that, but had we done so and followed your example, we would have either spent ourselves into remaining in the Premiership, or have been no worse of than you are now in the Championship. Personally, I'm much happier where we are, knowing that I support a club that has honest owners, is run well and within our means. Frankly, I couldn't care a toss whether your club is a division above us, because I know that they are only there because they bankrupted themselves in the process, but without being any further ahead with regard to better owners, better stadium, better fans, etc.

 

I wouldn't swap our position for yours, even if you were still in the Premiership, but I know that with the way that you are carrying on, you will still eventually end up on the scrapheap.

[redkeith]

PFC123

 

Yes there is a similarlity between SFC and Skates FC, we both gambled, although we did it for one season, and yo did it for seven, and have started doing it again, judging by AA's statements that the transfer monies in target, had been reduced by 2 million, and the wage bill had increased by 2 million ( a net drop of 4 million in your target revenue for season one of the CVA) .

 

I think the difference between the two is like the difference between someone being caught doing 35 mph in a 30 zone to someone doing 150 in a 30 zone.

[NickG]

Now, a lot of you guys on here keep telling Pompey fans they should question things more but apparently that doesn't apply to yourselves. Highest earners on "at most" £10K a week. You don't know that. You have no idea how much they're earning. I was slagged off when I posted on here that a friend heard a football agent in a hotel bar telling Boateng what a soft touch you had become with wages and how you had players on £15K a week. And you may have bigger crowds but how much is the average price per ticket? I know of at least a couple of games when there have been offers for £5

 

 

 

Great maths there. Run that calculation by me again. Pompey's average ticket price is around £25 but you're claiming that even at £10 a ticket you'd have £1m more than us coming in from ticket sales each year? LOL

 

 

 

Thanks for the reasonable response. Even if we took your figures as correct that means your turnover to wages ratio is currently at 87%. And that doesn't take into account the fact that you've assumed an average ticket price for everyone in the ground of £20 which we know isn't true due to kids deals etc. So you're probably running at close to 100% wages/ turnover ratio. Add in other costs like player purchases, agents fees etc and my guess is you're trading at a loss.

 

So what you say. Billionaire family, agreed to bankroll us blah blah blah. But for how long? People change their minds. Look at the Jack Walker family money at Blackburn. And this is in league 1. What happens when you're promoted and wages become higher? Good luck to you for attracting Liebherr but please don't give it the large one that you're self sufficient

 

ok we have £2.5m more per year.

[JRM]

Lets be honest, Pompey have well and truely pulled off a masterful peice of business and are laughing at the rest of us as they prepare their push for the play offs.

 

They will not go down.

 

And as things stand have a first XI that would easily beat ours.

 

So the best we can hope for is they stay in the Championship and we use them as motivation to get back there ourselves and get above them.

 

As for all the f*cking know it alls on here who used terms such as "don't worry, they are toast" and sat back predicting their downfall have all been shown to be wafflers who didn't know as much as they thought they did.

 

 

The biggest let down in all this was the failure of the courts to support HMRC in the tax case, once that failed it seemed like nothing could stop them.

[Whitey Grandad]

So, you DID default on the money owed on the stadium.

 

Please keep up. Both parties came to an agreed settlement to pay up the outstanding amount. They didn't have to, they weren't outvoted by any other parties, but they agreed the amount. That is not 'defaulting' in any sense of the word.

[Gemmel]

Explain why your descent into administration was just a hard luck story and ours was nasty cheating all the way along. Go on.....

 

We can add charities, made up owners amoungst other things but off the bat........

 

If you take it from the beginning then according to Peter Storrie, the real owner was a convicted arms dealer and wouldn’t have passed the fit and proper test, so put his son in place instead as a front. Cheating.

Without remotely being close to affording it, signed as many big names as possible, all on unaffordable contracts, without the slightest hope of ever being able to fulfill them. Cheating.

In order to keep some resemblance of cash flow, they elected not to pay HMRC, when the clubs they were competing against were. Cheating.

(Allegedly) In order not to have to pay tax on a particular deal they fraudulently circumnavigated the tax man through an offshore account. Cheating.

Used unregistered football agents. Cheating

Fielded an unregistered player. Cheating

Illegally used a convicted lawyer to conduct the clubs business *****il the FA threw him out). Cheating.

When the FA gave them grace over the last transfer embargo, they went behind the FA’s back to try and get the agents fees, paid ahead of the other creditors. Cheating.

Lied about faulty bank files to try and convince the public they were solvent. Cheating.

Amazingly in the same transfer window found two players who had “Just bought out their contracts” and although subject to over 500,000 worth of agents fees and millions of pounds in debt signed them ahead of other clubs, who couldn’t match the wages pompey were offering. Cheating.

Whilst in administration, released or loaned out fringe players to bring in better and more experienced players. Cheating…hmm no, just a massive v sign to the FA.

Forced other clubs into financial hardship, due to non payment and achieved an advantage by doing so. Cheating.

Racked up 120 million pounds worth of debt, whilst the company traded insolvently and continued to increase outgoings. Cheating.

Awarded secured creditors CVA voting rights, to ensure the % of the vote needed. Cheating.

Promised the creditors that if they signed up to the CVA (And gave the club a chance) they would limit salaries to 10k – broken (Smashed) in their first two signings (Whilst under a transfer embargo). Cheating

[aintforever]

Ok, predictably, plenty of abuse which is telling in itself, but no defence so far to my assertion that our situation is the same.

 

Fine, if I'm so thick, explain it to me. Explain why your descent into administration was just a hard luck story and ours was nasty cheating all the way along. Go on.....

 

There's too many reasons to bother explaining every one.

 

Most important reason is that the minute SFC knew they were trading insolvently they went into admin, and did everything by the book. AND we've been punished. -9 when you were already down is not a punishment.

Edited 26 October, 2010 by aintforever

[Chin Strain]

We can add charities, made up owners amoungst other things but off the bat........

 

If you take it from the beginning then according to Peter Storrie, the real owner was a convicted arms dealer and wouldn’t have passed the fit and proper test, so put his son in place instead as a front. Cheating.

Without remotely being close to affording it, signed as many big names as possible, all on unaffordable contracts, without the slightest hope of ever being able to fulfill them. Cheating.

In order to keep some resemblance of cash flow, they elected not to pay HMRC, when the clubs they were competing against were. Cheating.

(Allegedly) In order not to have to pay tax on a particular deal they fraudulently circumnavigated the tax man through an offshore account. Cheating.

Used unregistered football agents. Cheating

Fielded an unregistered player. Cheating

Illegally used a convicted lawyer to conduct the clubs business *****il the FA threw him out). Cheating.

When the FA gave them grace over the last transfer embargo, they went behind the FA’s back to try and get the agents fees, paid ahead of the other creditors. Cheating.

Lied about faulty bank files to try and convince the public they were solvent. Cheating.

Amazingly in the same transfer window found two players who had “Just bought out their contracts” and although subject to over 500,000 worth of agents fees and millions of pounds in debt signed them ahead of other clubs, who couldn’t match the wages pompey were offering. Cheating.

Whilst in administration, released or loaned out fringe players to bring in better and more experienced players. Cheating…hmm no, just a massive v sign to the FA.

Forced other clubs into financial hardship, due to non payment and achieved an advantage by doing so. Cheating.

Racked up 120 million pounds worth of debt, whilst the company traded insolvently and continued to increase outgoings. Cheating.

Awarded secured creditors CVA voting rights, to ensure the % of the vote needed. Cheating.

Promised the creditors that if they signed up to the CVA (And gave the club a chance) they would limit salaries to 10k – broken (Smashed) in their first two signings (Whilst under a transfer embargo). Cheating

 

PFC123....care to respond? Seems to cover it all off quite nicely.

[benjii]

We can add charities, made up owners amoungst other things but off the bat........

 

If you take it from the beginning then according to Peter Storrie, the real owner was a convicted arms dealer and wouldn’t have passed the fit and proper test, so put his son in place instead as a front. Cheating.

Without remotely being close to affording it, signed as many big names as possible, all on unaffordable contracts, without the slightest hope of ever being able to fulfill them. Cheating.

In order to keep some resemblance of cash flow, they elected not to pay HMRC, when the clubs they were competing against were. Cheating.

(Allegedly) In order not to have to pay tax on a particular deal they fraudulently circumnavigated the tax man through an offshore account. Cheating.

Used unregistered football agents. Cheating

Fielded an unregistered player. Cheating

Illegally used a convicted lawyer to conduct the clubs business *****il the FA threw him out). Cheating.

When the FA gave them grace over the last transfer embargo, they went behind the FA’s back to try and get the agents fees, paid ahead of the other creditors. Cheating.

Lied about faulty bank files to try and convince the public they were solvent. Cheating.

Amazingly in the same transfer window found two players who had “Just bought out their contracts” and although subject to over 500,000 worth of agents fees and millions of pounds in debt signed them ahead of other clubs, who couldn’t match the wages pompey were offering. Cheating.

Whilst in administration, released or loaned out fringe players to bring in better and more experienced players. Cheating…hmm no, just a massive v sign to the FA.

Forced other clubs into financial hardship, due to non payment and achieved an advantage by doing so. Cheating.

Racked up 120 million pounds worth of debt, whilst the company traded insolvently and continued to increase outgoings. Cheating.

Awarded secured creditors CVA voting rights, to ensure the % of the vote needed. Cheating.

Promised the creditors that if they signed up to the CVA (And gave the club a chance) they would limit salaries to 10k – broken (Smashed) in their first two signings (Whilst under a transfer embargo). Cheating

 

Actually, now I've read that I can see it's exactly the same.

 

Sorry pfc123, I was wrong and you're a bit of a legend.

[mack rill]

PFC123

 

 

 

I think the difference between the two is like the difference between someone being caught doing 35 mph in a 30 zone to someone doing 150 in a 30 zone.

er there is no difference In law on both accounts you are guilty of speeding.

[sidthesquid]

At the risk of repeating myself I have dug out an old reply I made to PFC some months ago to his claim that we cheated and were no different to them......

 

Oh, but we are, my fishy one.

Imagine we are two families. Family A lives reasonably modestly but successfully and decides to move into a bigger house. The finances are stretched but manageable until a financial crisis occurs and forty percent of their income is wiped away at a stroke. They struggle to adjust, maybe make a slightly rash investment to try to regain their lost income. They struggle on, cutting costs but paying their taxes and other debts, until the bank calls in the overdraft and the mortgage holder repossesses the home. They take their pain and punishment with dignity and begin the long process of recovery.

Compare this with family B. They are serial bad payers with a history of financial recklessness. Rather than invest in a new home they carry on in their old caravan, living the high-life, maxing out on every credit card they can get, running up debt and not paying their taxes, claiming to be solvent to get more credit until, it goes t1ts-up. They sell the Mercedes but still expect to replace it with a BMW. They don't see why they can't still have three holidays a year and they claim they are being persecuted and it's not their fault. They go to court, they say we're skint and there is nothing you can do about it, then laugh all their way back to the caravan park having had all their debts wiped off ready to start all over again.

Not exactly the same in my book.

[Chin Strain]

er there is no difference In law on both accounts you are guilty of speeding.

 

And the punishment would be that the one doing 35 would go to naughty boy school and be fined £74, whereas the one doing 150 would go to the big house.

[tony13579]

In reply to Sid squid. A few years ago I was family A. Repossession order on my home. Small car on finance unpaid. I took the pain, lived on bread and wheatabix, cycled to work etc. At that point I learned to budget. I now have £400k of assets. My mate who was family B is still skint and will end up working till he is 67+ and as his mortgage LTV goes up each two years he will suddenly realise they bed to sell and end up in a one room council retirement block with a load of other duffers.

 

Pompey have not learnt to budget yet and will repeat their mistakes again and again.

[dubai_phil]

You see? You gambled money you couldn't afford, and so did we. There's no difference between us on that score.....cheats!

 

Oh dear, if only you really knew the full story.

 

The ONLY reason that we were allegedly forced into admin was because Barclays Bank "unexpectedly" reduced our bank overdraft without notice.

 

This strange occurence allegedly happened very shortly after a witnessed meeting between the Bank Manager and a person.

 

Equally strangely, said bank manager allegedly started a new job very shortly afterwards.

 

Nope, we did not gamble and lose, somebody stitched us up, whilst a series of discussions regarding a takeover were ongoing.

People know who was involved and spend a (worringly paranoic) allegedly great deal of time and effort in seeking the truth to unveil this, as it would be a major story that right now nobody wants to see in the media.

 

But dream on pfc, what happened to Riquelme? Or was that Ho?

[merrimd]

er there is no difference In law on both accounts you are guilty of speeding.

 

Not really. Thats like saying smacking someone on the legs, and stabbing someone 37 times with your mothers rustiest kitchen knife are both assult.

[the colonel]

look, sorry to **** you all off over this, but you really need to get over this 'cheats' idea. Not only is it obviously eating away at a fair few of you, but it's so unbeleiveably hypocritical.

 

The bottom line is that you all see your own reckless spending before administration as merely a gamble, or a mistake- "sorry guv, could have happened to anyone...." so thats allright then.

 

Yet you see exactly the same spending by us as "cheating." there is no difference, we both merely spent money we didn't have in different ways....

 

 

 

 

cheats

[Jimmy_D]

Ok, predictably, plenty of abuse which is telling in itself, but no defence so far to my assertion that our situation is the same.

 

Fine, if I'm so thick, explain it to me. Explain why your descent into administration was just a hard luck story and ours was nasty cheating all the way along. Go on.....

 

OK, I'll take this slowly for you.

 

When we took out the loan on the stadium, at THAT time, we COULD easily afford the repayments. Our position then changed AFTER we took out the loan with the relegation that resulted in us not being able to afford it.

 

You took out a loan that you COULD NOT afford at THAT time, hoping that better players would change your position AFTER you took out your loan so you could then afford it.

 

This is the difference that makes you lot financial cheaters, and us, unfortunate victims of circumstance. It's all in the timing.

 

It's the difference between someone that loses their home because they lost their job and defaulted on a mortgage and someone that loses their home because they could never afford the mortage in the first place. One deserves sympathy, the other doesn't.

 

 

Just a quick note people, I know PFC's opinions are drawing a lot of abuse right now from several different people and I can see why, but please try and argue against the point he's making rather than descending into personal abuse, even if you think he deserves it. (And thank you to the posters that have already done this.)

Edited 26 October, 2010 by Jimmy_D
Quick Note

[pfc123]

It's ok, I understand my point of view is completely alien and disagreed with by most on here. If you stick your head above the parapet it's fair game I guess.....

[Whitey Grandad]

It's ok, I understand my point of view is completely alien and disagreed with by most on here. If you stick your head above the parapet it's fair game I guess.....

 

Keep sticking it up, PFC! I guess the world looks different from your side of the wall.

[Golden Balls]

Bless him. It's attitudes like his that got them in this mess, and will again

[Dark Munster]

So you happily knock a couple of million off the wages, add a few million onto the turnover (the Carling Cup games that you played had a total attendance of 20,000 so you would have been pushed to have made £100k out of that lot !!) come up with a wages / turnover ratio of 110% ..... and then declare yourself happy!!! Unbelievable.

 

A Wages / Turnover ratio of more than 70% is normally considered to be pushing it. 110% is guaranteed to end in tears.

 

 

50

 

Tears of laughter for us.

 

P.S. With pfc123 hilarious posts, how can this thread die?

[Chin Strain]

It's ok, I understand my point of view is completely alien and disagreed with by most on here. If you stick your head above the parapet it's fair game I guess.....

 

Sometimes it's better for people to think you're an idiot rather than start typing and confirm it.....

 

Seriously, if you can't see the difference you must either be incredibly thick or brainwashed

[redkeith]

er there is no difference In law on both accounts you are guilty of speeding.

 

I think you will find that the punishment may be a bit different, one would be 3 points and the other would probably lose your license. Try it sometime, but don't forget to unhitch your caravan first.

[dronskisaint]

It's ok, I understand my point of view is completely alien and disagreed with by most on here. If you stick your head above the parapet it's fair game I guess.....

 

Or in one word - Wrong?!

[Frank's cousin]

You see? You gambled money you couldn't afford, and so did we. There's no difference between us on that score.....cheats!

 

How can you not see the difference between spending money that WE HAD CASH IN THE BANK, and getting 120 mil in debt to fund a squad that others could have had had they also chosen to feck all other creditors to teh tune of 120 mil? Also, our 6 mil or so CASH WE HAD IN THE BANK that we spent recklessly, half our fans were up in arms about this at teh time, seeing it as a jesture to appease fans by a new board - and a dangerous move that could back fire and did - remember also that as a result that board was ousted because of tehir financial incompetence... pompey on the other hand seem to be under the illusion that Chanrai played no part in teh debt accumulation and are happy he has returned and is already talking about 'financing' - I would be worried if I was you - because I am not sure you would get away with it again....

 

PS and you did not seem to answer any of the other points?

[PES]

To my mind what I find most sickening about the whining wind baggery on here is that supporters of your bland and insipid club are not really in a position to pass MORAL judgement. I would agree the level of mismanagement is different, but our circumstances are different to yours as ours was perpetrated by alleged criminal financial gangsters whose main concern was alleged by some to be money laundering and finally manipulation of the administration system to their own end. Whilst it could be argued a competitive advantage was gained, this was a byproduct of the laundering not the actual aim. Your mismanagement can be linked back to actual Saints supporters who took the decision to gamble on promotion knowing if it failed you'd be up sh+t creek, this gained you a competitive advantage over your rivals, so whilst I never bleated on and on about cheating at the time, in hindsight that's effectively what it was.

The point that i've waffled on about and still failed to make, is leave the moral indignation to supporters of clubs who have not cheated to gain a competitive advantage. Your club has so none of you are fit to through your red and white stones. Leave it to the supporters of clubs with clean slates to take the moral high ground, yours is sullied, to a lesser extent, but sullied all the same.

[Weston Super Saint]

To my mind what I find most sickening about the whining wind baggery on here is that supporters of your bland and insipid club are not really in a position to pass MORAL judgement. I would agree the level of mismanagement is different, but our circumstances are different to yours as ours was perpetrated by alleged criminal financial gangsters whose main concern was alleged by some to be money laundering and finally manipulation of the administration system to their own end. Whilst it could be argued a competitive advantage was gained, this was a byproduct of the laundering not the actual aim. Your mismanagement can be linked back to actual Saints supporters who took the decision to gamble on promotion knowing if it failed you'd be up sh+t creek, this gained you a competitive advantage over your rivals, so whilst I never bleated on and on about cheating at the time, in hindsight that's effectively what it was.

The point that i've waffled on about and still failed to make, is leave the moral indignation to supporters of clubs who have not cheated to gain a competitive advantage. Your club has so none of you are fit to through your red and white stones. Leave it to the supporters of clubs with clean slates to take the moral high ground, yours is sullied, to a lesser extent, but sullied all the same.

 

Phew, at least you're different to all the other whining skates, and don't think it's all someone else's fault :roll:

[Saint J 77]

Suddenly there seems to be lots of Skates on here. I wonder why? Just for the record your club HAS cheated. You cannot compare our administration with yours it is totally different kettle of FISH

 

Even the great Michel Platini says you cheated.

 

'Why was this club winning (the FA Cup in 2008) with losses of £50million?

 

'When I was younger, I remember seeing people with no money buy Ferraris - and then, because of the Ferrari, they would get the best girls!

 

'That's not correct, but it's what has happened in football: you don't have the money to buy the players, but you get the players and in the end you cheat and win the competition. 'That's not correct.'

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1269415/UEFA-chief-Michel-Platini-blasts-liberal-Premier-League-Portsmouth-collapse.html#ixzz13XhOttO8

 

Its not just the fees spent on players you couldn't afford but the wages to attract the bigger names. No other premier league club of a simlar size to Portsmouth where offering the funny money being thrown at the bigger named players that were at your club. Why should you get the upper hand in on the pitch if you didn't have the money?

 

Anyway you have survived for now, but I would be worried for your future if I were you as it looks like the lesson have not been learnt. Already we are hearing you are going to be getting MORE loans to buy players.

 

The Football League has acted like a soft parent. They have stood by and watched their child stealing and have let them off without any form of punishment and like a child you have not learn the lesson. Now more spending what you do not have looks set to continue.

 

I am sure you and your fans will not care as long as it brings you success on the pitch again this season. But People with no money buy Ferraris - and then, because of the Ferrari, they would get the best girls! 'That's not correct.

[OldNick]

To my mind what I find most sickening about the whining wind baggery on here is that supporters of your bland and insipid club are not really in a position to pass MORAL judgement. I would agree the level of mismanagement is different, but our circumstances are different to yours as ours was perpetrated by alleged criminal financial gangsters whose main concern was alleged by some to be money laundering and finally manipulation of the administration system to their own end. Whilst it could be argued a competitive advantage was gained, this was a byproduct of the laundering not the actual aim. Your mismanagement can be linked back to actual Saints supporters who took the decision to gamble on promotion knowing if it failed you'd be up sh+t creek, this gained you a competitive advantage over your rivals, so whilst I never bleated on and on about cheating at the time, in hindsight that's effectively what it was.

The point that i've waffled on about and still failed to make, is leave the moral indignation to supporters of clubs who have not cheated to gain a competitive advantage. Your club has so none of you are fit to through your red and white stones. Leave it to the supporters of clubs with clean slates to take the moral high ground, yours is sullied, to a lesser extent, but sullied all the same.

 

I recall when we were in Admin you coming on as a adversary coming in peace. You were telling us how good TL and Pinnacle were. Reading your posts recently i can see that indeed you may well have known was a disaster it was and hiding your smirk behind your hand. For all your 'Im a decent Skate' i feel you really hate us and are as bad as many of your supporters in that. Many on here have fallen for your 'friendly demeanour' , Not me, give me Mack any day of the week.

[Katalinic]

What they fail to grasp is that this thread has just been an amusing interlude to kill the time as the balance of power of the south coast shifts back to where it should rightfully sits. So you have finally been taken over? So what, I am looking forward to over taking you again - you know it is going to happen.

[sidthesquid]

To my mind what I find most sickening about the whining wind baggery on here is that supporters of your bland and insipid club are not really in a position to pass MORAL judgement. I would agree the level of mismanagement is different, but our circumstances are different to yours as ours was perpetrated by alleged criminal financial gangsters whose main concern was alleged by some to be money laundering and finally manipulation of the administration system to their own end. Whilst it could be argued a competitive advantage was gained, this was a byproduct of the laundering not the actual aim. Your mismanagement can be linked back to actual Saints supporters who took the decision to gamble on promotion knowing if it failed you'd be up sh+t creek, this gained you a competitive advantage over your rivals, so whilst I never bleated on and on about cheating at the time, in hindsight that's effectively what it was.

The point that i've waffled on about and still failed to make, is leave the moral indignation to supporters of clubs who have not cheated to gain a competitive advantage. Your club has so none of you are fit to through your red and white stones. Leave it to the supporters of clubs with clean slates to take the moral high ground, yours is sullied, to a lesser extent, but sullied all the same.

 

I can't decide if you and others are a better class of wind-up merchant or genuinely deluded.

All clubs from the Wessex league to the Prem push their finances to the limit to get success. It's a fact of football, and I'm not certain that constitutes cheating, though you could argue the point. Some gamble and succeed, others gamble and fail, and normally take the consequences.

We, in fact, only gambled marginally, but yes, we f#cked it up, I accept that. But it never felt like cheating and it still doesn't. We then took our long and painful punishment -selling and loaning off our best players and literally 'using the kids' and a cheapo manager, before slipping into admin for a pretty small sum, and getting relegated. And. although we were lucky to find a benefactor, we are still paying for it now.

You lot, with history, went on a totally reckless spending spree (whatever the motives) with borrowed money, and the fans lapped it up. Then, when it went wrong, your club weaselled and cheated its way out of paying its dues, effectively took no penalty, and now carry on like nothing happened, whilst all the time the fans take the self-pitying martyr's role. I was talking to a Palace fan the other day and he was very bitter about them getting out of admin but having sold all their best players and struggling, while you lot are signing Prem players beyond the wage bill of almost anyone in the league.

People are starting to get it.

If you had had your day in the sun, then sunk back into oblivion we could all look a little more kindly on you. But your club cheated everyone out of tens of millions of pounds as they continued to trade, knowing they were insolvent, and they seem happy to carry on getting away with it. I would have contempt for any that club behaved that way, but knowing so much more about what has gone on at Poopey, makes that contempt more heartfelt.

And it is a sign that you are aware that you have no moral credibility left that your only defence is to try to compare others to yourself. It is, as someone posted earlier, exactly the same idiotic morality as someone claiming that doing 100 in a 30mph limit is the same as doing 35 on the grounds that you were both speeding. I hope for your sake that you are on a wind-up, because if you truly believe what you write you need help.