Weston Super Saint Posted 26 July, 2011 Share Posted 26 July, 2011 That's rather lazy considering the impact it would have to prove your point, oh and Dubia_Phil has never been right!!! (sorry Phil). What every the figure paid, did it account for early repayment against the capital? Sorted it for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 26 July, 2011 Share Posted 26 July, 2011 99% sure the Tom Prince foundation has been paid monies owed, however not sure about others. Outside of the fans control when a **** owns you If you (as a collective of Pompey fans) were really bothered about the fact that countless charities are still owed thousands upon thousands of pounds by your football club you could do the decent thing and demand that these debts were paid. Instead, you don't say a peep and continue to delight in the transfer fees and wages you're paying to already rather wealthy players. That's kinda wrong and should make you feel incredibly uneasy. To say it's "outside of the fans control" is a feeble, spineless and immoral. You, as fans and supposedly decent human beings, should feel ashamed of yourselves and your disgusting apathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint lard Posted 26 July, 2011 Share Posted 26 July, 2011 And some new blood on it's way...... http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/great-matches/pompey_line_up_trio_of_signings_1_2900014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 26 July, 2011 Share Posted 26 July, 2011 just the usual spin, smoke, mirrors and column inches that rarely result in a signing and distract the dim from the ongoing crisis. As annoying for the few as it is for the rest of us by now I would imagine. Chatting to two pompey fans the other night, they reckon Brighton will do well and we will struggle, mainly based on a game they saw on the telly two years ago.... They also think our team is built around Chamberlain. I'd like to think they will be in for a shock - I expect us to top the south coast group of three. Saints 8th/10th, Brighton 12th, Pompey 14th? Sadly I don't think we will quite double their season ticket sales - according to the ticket office we have done 14,500 thus far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 26 July, 2011 Share Posted 26 July, 2011 No, you are wrong once again- it was NOT paid off. Aviva had to write off £16m. It's a fact that has been posted on here numerous times by your own people! By the way, I love the usual classy end to your post..... Ipswich led the way and offered a settlement to Aviva for paying off the mortgage on Portman Road, about £7m was accepted. At the time SLH Ltd went into administration the Administrator quoted me a maximum figure of £15m to buy the assets and settle with Aviva and Barclays, the solvent football club was paying it's own bills having sold Surman and McGoldrick. Aviva had already put forward a settlement figure as they had already received approx £24m in payments and didn't want the stadium on land that couldn't be developed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 26 July, 2011 Share Posted 26 July, 2011 http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Fratton-Park-Stadium-Tour-2369.aspx? Hey boys, how about we check out the 'unique' facilities' ? Could easily add sparkle to the 'sh1tholes of the world' almanac !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporate Ho Posted 26 July, 2011 Share Posted 26 July, 2011 Nope, complete rubbish, which if you had looked beforehand you would have seen... Derby County Baseball Ground Capacity at Closure = 18,300 Average in season before moving = 17,889 Leicester City Filbert Street Capacity at Closure = 22,000 Average in season before moving = 19,835 (were relegated that year, over 20k averages before that) Stoke City Victoria Ground capacity at Closure = 25,000 Average in season before moving = 12,748 Stoke saw no significant increase for 11 years after moving to a new stadium - when they reached the Premier League. Reading Elm Park capacity at Closure = 15,500 Average in season before move = 9,676 Reading saw no significant increase in attendance until they reached the upper Championship/Premier League 5 years after moving. Sunderland Roker Park capacity at Closure = 22,500 Average in season before moving = 20,847 Newcastle United St Jame's Park capacity before 1998 to 2000 expansion expansion project = 36,610 Average in season before expansion = 36,333 All goes to show, if you want to fill a larger stadium, you need to be close to filling the current smaller one! Something Pompey don't do! Yet their fans still peddle the myth that a new stadium will attract more fans than the fanbase at the old stadium showed evidence for. Can’t help but think you’re being a bit disingenuous with your stats there. All well and good looking at one season but when you compare the 5 seasons before clubs moved and the 5 seasons after it’s a different story. I haven’t checked the capacities you claimed for the stadiums so assume they’re correct. Derby Crowd average for 5 years before they left the Baseball Ground was 15,356 and 5 years after they moved it was 29,203 – an increase of 90%. True they’d just been promoted but even when they were relegated their crowds stayed at the same kind of levels as when they were in the PL Leicester 5 year average pre move was 20,240, 5 years after move was 25, 958. However, 4 of the 5 years after they moved were spent in the Championship when the 5 years before moving were in the PL – and their crowds increased by 28% AFTER relegation. Boro Nice to see you ignored anything that backed up what I said. 5 year before moving average 15,515. 5 years post moving average 31,435. Increase of 103% Reading 5 year average pre move was 8,813. 5 year average after moving was 12,604, an increase of 43%. What’s more, that increase came after they were relegated from the Championship and spent the next 4 years in L1/ Div 3. Stoke Crowd average decreased by 5% after the new stadium opened but they were relegated to L1/ D3 the year after they moved and spent the next 4 years there. Sunderland Crowd average for the last 5 years at Roker park were 17,677. 5 year average after moving were 41,598. Increased by 135% Tell me again about this myth that a new stadium usually attracts more fans. Stats again taken from here http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/england.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 26 July, 2011 Share Posted 26 July, 2011 http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Fratton-Park-Stadium-Tour-2369.aspx? Hey boys, how about we check out the 'unique' facilities' ? Could easily add sparkle to the 'sh1tholes of the world' almanac !!! Lol. Please meet in the main car park behind the Fratton End at 11.50am. The tour starts promptly at midday. I can only hope they won't be meeting in the car park owned by one of the child maimers... after all, he's probably land mined it by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 26 July, 2011 Share Posted 26 July, 2011 Nice to see you ignored anything that backed up what I said. 5 year before moving average 15,515. 5 years post moving average 31,435. Increase of 103% Haha... and they're now back to average 15,000 again, despite only being relegated a couple of years ago or so. If you had a stadium the size of Boro's, you'd probably mirror their attendances... and that's doing Boro' as disservice, what with local competition not too far away and a much, much smaller catchment area. You'll have a temporary wave of excitement backed up by increased attendances (like EVERY club who moved into a new stadium; Saints, Derby etc) for a 2-3 seasons and if nothing significant has happened, it'll dwindle back down and return to your genuine hardcore fanbase. In conclusion, you're rubbish fans. 150 to Bolton, 120 to Wigan, 300 to Boro, 200 to Sunderland... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seaempty Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 Fairly recent interview with Roman Dubov, not sure if it's been posted: http://www.sports.ru/en/football/109721844.html Pompey made £1 million profit last year, apparently, (though one reason was the parachute payments) and there's no budget restrictions on player transfers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 The manager and the chief executive have a vision of how to make the club competitive in the Championship. They also have a carte blanche for transfers. When we bought the club, at the end of the season the team had only eight players with valid contracts. So, we will have at least ten new signings. Cotterill doesn't look like a bloke who has been given millions to spend on ten new signings - maybe he hasn't been told about the unlimited warchest... And on my specialist subject, the Russians won't be making millions from the World Rally Championship without major changes - and Saab won't be knocking them out a WRC car in a hurry unless the designers get paid their wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 Fairly recent interview with Roman Dubov, not sure if it's been posted: http://www.sports.ru/en/football/109721844.html Pompey made £1 million profit last year, apparently, (though one reason was the parachute payments) and there's no budget restrictions on player transfers. Looking at the picture of him, I wouldn't want to be in Clotterill's shoes when he has to start explaining why they couldn't beat Doncaster at home! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 Looking at the picture of him, I wouldn't want to be in Clotterill's shoes when he has to start explaining why they couldn't beat Doncaster at home! Indeed - we all know that old saying about not judging a book by its cover, but would you give this man an honest opinion on how his jacket looks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooney Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 Oh dear, do I espy a County Court Judgement at Northampton County Court for £443 on 7th July, already against Portsmouth Football Club (2010) Ltd. Good job Baloo's Debenture is still in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 (edited) I like this guy, I think he has the potential to outshine, AL Fahim, Al Mirage and Chinny. He certainly makes me smile. His last interview, he said he was never interested in Rangers, it was for someone else.... this time; At the end of May you have entered the football market. Why did you choose Portsmouth? We have been keeping an eye on football clubs for a long time. There was an option with Glasgow Rangers. But for the last fourteen years the club had some disputed issues with their tax office for quite a large amount. Is anyone going to tell him about pompeys 26 million pound hiccup with the tax man? Probably best to keep quiet, We wouldn't want it to draw attention to the 20 million pounds that has to paid to the CVA. Edited 27 July, 2011 by Gemmel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 Oh dear, do I espy a County Court Judgement at Northampton County Court for £443 on 7th July, already against Portsmouth Football Club (2010) Ltd. Good job Baloo's Debenture is still in place. I take it that is one of the under £2500 creditors getting fed up with waiting for their money while the club spunk money on new players and claim to have made £1m in profit last season. How long before more follow suit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 I take it that is one of the under £2500 creditors getting fed up with waiting for their money while the club spunk money on new players and claim to have made £1m in profit last season. How long before more follow suit I doubt it, the original creditors wouldn't be granted anything against PFC (2010) Ltd as that's the new company. Northampton County Court is where many of the credit card debts go to court, Chinny maybe forget to pay the the credit card bill in his race to get the Russians in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 I doubt it, the original creditors wouldn't be granted anything against PFC (2010) Ltd as that's the new company. Northampton County Court is where many of the credit card debts go to court, Chinny maybe forget to pay the the credit card bill in his race to get the Russians in... Brilliant! Although this is small change to some of their previous debts it at least shows they mean to carry on as they were so the fun can continue for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 I was thinking about this thread today. By a strange set of circumstances I ended up in Bali on a business trip with 4 hours notice. Had to go to Ubud today a home for Arts & Crafts, on the way our dirver was unable to avoid a chicken that was trying to be the butt of a joke by running into the road. On entering Ubud 200 yards later a huge road sign indicated we were on Monkey Forest Road. I went for a walk there and spotted Monkeys being petted while sitting on one of those Asian Statue things that was a Dragon but could have been the squished chicken. Made me wonder, how's the stadium plans down the M27? I promise to post at least one pic when I get home and get some bandwidth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussexsaint Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 Harbour cancer support,here in Gosport,are still owed monies by PFC. Portsmouth FC disgust me,in every way possible. And defending them is tantamount to condoning their actions. Missed this, not been in here for a while - that is F*cking sick when you consider the weekly wage of the players and board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 It is a well known fact that Marcus Lieberr paid about 13mil to buy the assetts(including Southampton F.C) of Southampton Leisure out of admin. Not sure of the exact figure owed by Southampton leisure when it went into admin, but it must have been well over 20 million. Both Aviva and Barclays would have received a percentage of the monies owed them but both would have made a substantial loss. Yes, but Barclays actions in taking an uncommonly hard-line over the overdraft caused the administration. We were not in default with Aviva. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 Yes, but Barclays actions in taking an uncommonly hard-line over the overdraft caused the administration. We were not in default with Aviva. I had a great deal of sympathy with Aviva over the whole situation, they'd been very good to the club during the dark days but ended up the biggest losers in pure monetary terms because of a personal grudge held by a bloke at Barclays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 Oh dear, do I espy a County Court Judgement at Northampton County Court for £443 on 7th July, already against Portsmouth Football Club (2010) Ltd. Good job Baloo's Debenture is still in place. Is there a link to that anywhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooney Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 Is there a link to that anywhere? http://www.creditsafeuk.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporate Ho Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 Can’t help but think you’re being a bit disingenuous with your stats there. All well and good looking at one season but when you compare the 5 seasons before clubs moved and the 5 seasons after it’s a different story. I haven’t checked the capacities you claimed for the stadiums so assume they’re correct. Derby Crowd average for 5 years before they left the Baseball Ground was 15,356 and 5 years after they moved it was 29,203 – an increase of 90%. True they’d just been promoted but even when they were relegated their crowds stayed at the same kind of levels as when they were in the PL Leicester 5 year average pre move was 20,240, 5 years after move was 25, 958. However, 4 of the 5 years after they moved were spent in the Championship when the 5 years before moving were in the PL – and their crowds increased by 28% AFTER relegation. Boro Nice to see you ignored anything that backed up what I said. 5 year before moving average 15,515. 5 years post moving average 31,435. Increase of 103% Reading 5 year average pre move was 8,813. 5 year average after moving was 12,604, an increase of 43%. What’s more, that increase came after they were relegated from the Championship and spent the next 4 years in L1/ Div 3. Stoke Crowd average decreased by 5% after the new stadium opened but they were relegated to L1/ D3 the year after they moved and spent the next 4 years there. Sunderland Crowd average for the last 5 years at Roker park were 17,677. 5 year average after moving were 41,598. Increased by 135% Tell me again about this myth that a new stadium usually attracts more fans. Stats again taken from here http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/england.htm No comment from MLG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper71 Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 No comment from MLG? He's probably done what I am now doing. Putting people who don't talk any sense on ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 Can't be arsed to find it TBH, but it is a genuine figure. DubaiPhil has confirmed it before. Answers to questions: 1. Nope 2. Damn, been rumbled. Still, plenty of material on here for my 'What I did in the summer holidays essay'... There was one major difference though and we probably wont agree on it, but its worth saying again: I believe there is a MAJOR moral and ethical difference between how we both ended up in Admin - Pompey gambled on on the field success - letting 'arry ' never knew anything about it' swan around wuth tehc heque book to provide himself with some personal glory in a cup win and build his own personal 'legend' so he could get a bigger job - when the notice first appeared of debts of aroun 28 mil, you just kept on spending...and spending, it does not matter who owned you, the spending got bigger and bigger until you could not afford to pay anyone and went bust - chasing success. or... look at it from saints perspective... after some 22 years as a stable top flight club we invested in a new ground and took out finance witha reputable and regulated lender - as a result we were able to reamian reasonably competitive, without setting teh world on fire, but we were BREAKING EVEN and living within our means - paying teh tax man etc... however, we had a bad run and were relegated, the incumbants were ousted and some well meaning, but rather naive directors decided to spend teh revenue generated from SELLING our best players in an attempt get us back up - 7mil - it was wrong and as as a result of it failing, we struggled... please note we DID NOT KEEP SPENDING, and whatyever many think of Lowe, he came back, shipped out as many players as we could and told the cheap managers to play the kids - .... OK he may have been more interested in saving his shareholding, but nonetheless, we were doing everything possible to continue paying our way and reduce costs... we were scuppered by Barclays despite the overdraft having been regularly reduced, having never missed a tax payment, having never missed a mortgage repayment, having never failed to pay staff or players, having never defaulted on monies owed... In the hands of the administrator deals were made with teh main 2 creditors and a price agreed for the club... ALL PAID up front and settled.... Now FFS, surely you can see that there is a slight difference between the scenarios? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 There was one major difference though and we probably wont agree on it, but its worth saying again: I believe there is a MAJOR moral and ethical difference between how we both ended up in Admin - Pompey gambled on on the field success - letting 'arry ' never knew anything about it' swan around wuth tehc heque book to provide himself with some personal glory in a cup win and build his own personal 'legend' so he could get a bigger job - when the notice first appeared of debts of aroun 28 mil, you just kept on spending...and spending, it does not matter who owned you, the spending got bigger and bigger until you could not afford to pay anyone and went bust - chasing success. or... look at it from saints perspective... after some 22 years as a stable top flight club we invested in a new ground and took out finance witha reputable and regulated lender - as a result we were able to reamian reasonably competitive, without setting teh world on fire, but we were BREAKING EVEN and living within our means - paying teh tax man etc... however, we had a bad run and were relegated, the incumbants were ousted and some well meaning, but rather naive directors decided to spend teh revenue generated from SELLING our best players in an attempt get us back up - 7mil - it was wrong and as as a result of it failing, we struggled... please note we DID NOT KEEP SPENDING, and whatyever many think of Lowe, he came back, shipped out as many players as we could and told the cheap managers to play the kids - .... OK he may have been more interested in saving his shareholding, but nonetheless, we were doing everything possible to continue paying our way and reduce costs... we were scuppered by Barclays despite the overdraft having been regularly reduced, having never missed a tax payment, having never missed a mortgage repayment, having never failed to pay staff or players, having never defaulted on monies owed... In the hands of the administrator deals were made with teh main 2 creditors and a price agreed for the club... ALL PAID up front and settled.... Now FFS, surely you can see that there is a slight difference between the scenarios? Good post - factual and laid out in a way even the PO code can understand! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 Northampton County Court is where many of the credit card debts go to court, Chinny maybe forget to pay the the credit card bill in his race to get the Russians in... There is a Govt run scheme MCOL where small creditors can claim online through the small claims court. I did it once for a car engine, and all the claims go through Northampton court. It maybe a small creditor taking that route. https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 or... look at it from saints perspective... after some 22 years as a stable top flight club we invested in a new ground and took out finance witha reputable and regulated lender - as a result we were able to reamian reasonably competitive, without setting teh world on fire, but we were BREAKING EVEN and living within our means - paying teh tax man etc... however, we had a bad run and were relegated, the incumbants were ousted and some well meaning, but rather naive directors decided to spend teh revenue generated from SELLING our best players in an attempt get us back up - 7mil - it was wrong and as as a result of it failing, we struggled... please note we DID NOT KEEP SPENDING, and whatyever many think of Lowe, he came back, shipped out as many players as we could and told the cheap managers to play the kids - .... OK he may have been more interested in saving his shareholding, but nonetheless, we were doing everything possible to continue paying our way and reduce costs... we were scuppered by Barclays despite the overdraft having been regularly reduced, having never missed a tax payment, having never missed a mortgage repayment, having never failed to pay staff or players, having never defaulted on monies owed... In the hands of the administrator deals were made with teh main 2 creditors and a price agreed for the club... ALL PAID up front and settled.... Now FFS, surely you can see that there is a slight difference between the scenarios? Agreed, The major difference is that Barclays and Norwich Union are commercial lenders, they factor into their rates the chances of being knocked, they take a commercial decision when they lend money. The tax man and charities dont. When charity and HMRC get knocked it has the knock down effect of less money going to local people in need, when the same thing happens to NU or Barclays, it just means less profit for a private company. Completely different..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 No comment from MLG? I'll willingly comment. Statistics can be used in a variety of different ways to draw the different conclusions desired by those who quote them. In reality, it is a bit futile comparing all of these clubs as if some sort of level playing field existed between them, as there are several factors that need to be taken into account when assessing each one and their attendances. For example, a club with very limited capacity can charge a higher entrance fee to matches, because once the stadium is full, it is full. Demand exceeds supply. ST uptake is generally higher when such a club is reasonably successful, as that guarantees a seat at every home match. Where stadium capacity is large, no such necessity exists to buy STs to guarantee a seat and in fact there is a probability that match prices would have to be reduced to an optimum level which would encourage the increased attendances to make the best return financially. Other factors to consider are the number of rival clubs in the vicinity and their success relative to your club. There is always a percentage of plastics who will switch their loyalties, even to clubs that are supposedly sworn enemies, if that rival is doing better than your club. Such a situation is going to happen here, where Southampton will acquire some of these plastics who supported your club when you bought success and your inevitable decline following your financial car crash will mean some of them switching to us. As has already been pointed out, attendance levels also have to be viewed in the light of success or failure of the club around the time of the new/enlarged stadium being built. You counter the stats given from the year before with stats that show the picture 5 years before and after the event. Well, a ten year span is a very long time in football and although averages are generally more accurate with a larger number of input figures, in football there are changes that occur that can skew these averages significantly. For example, ten years ago, who would have thought that Wigan or Blackpool could have been in the Premiership? Or that Leeds and Sheffield Wednesday would fall to the third division? Indeed, before your lot started spending money you didn't have, who would have believed that you would have got into the Premiership too? But regardless of pfc123's desire only to make comparisons between us and your shower when there is a level playing field, i.e. when you have a stadium of equal capacity, that isn't going to happen within a very long time span. As somebody else astutely pointed out, it is a chicken and egg situation unless somebody buys you with considerable wealth behind them. This Russian outfit haven't the wealth or the inclination to pour money into building you a stadium, because they have no guarantee on current attendance levels that you will fill it. And attendances will not be increasing without success in the league, something else that you will not be achieving unless you revert back to type and spend more than you earn again on the quality players that can help you manage it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 27 July, 2011 Share Posted 27 July, 2011 The manager and the chief executive have a vision of how to make the club competitive in the Championship. They also have a carte blanche for transfers. When we bought the club, at the end of the season the team had only eight players with valid contracts. So, we will have at least ten new signings. Cotterill doesn't look like a bloke who has been given millions to spend on ten new signings - maybe he hasn't been told about the unlimited warchest... And on my specialist subject, the Russians won't be making millions from the World Rally Championship without major changes - and Saab won't be knocking them out a WRC car in a hurry unless the designers get paid their wages. I was wondering who could be mad enough to bid €80 million for Hulk. Now we know. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/937748/porto-rejected-€80-million-bid-for-hulk---agent?cc=5901 Now that they have unlimited funds (except for the creditors of course), maybe the Cheats will aim higher with a cheeky €200 million bid for Messi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfc123 Posted 28 July, 2011 Share Posted 28 July, 2011 Pompey gambled on on the field success - letting 'arry ' never knew anything about it' swan around wuth tehc heque book to provide himself with some personal glory in a cup win and build his own personal 'legend' so he could get a bigger job - when the notice first appeared of debts of aroun 28 mil... or... look at it from saints perspective...the incumbants were ousted and some well meaning, but rather naive directors decided to spend teh revenue generated from SELLING our best players in an attempt get us back up - 7mil - it was wrong and as as a result of it failing, we struggled... please note we DID NOT KEEP SPENDING... Now FFS, surely you can see that there is a slight difference between the scenarios? No. Because of your twisted view of us (as highlighted above) you try to make it sound like your board were all jolly good chaps, nay pillars of the community doncha know, and golly gosh they were so unlucky to take the club into administration by spending £7m that-they-couldn't-actually-afford-to-spend. Ooops. That's the bottom line- you spent what little reserves you had left on a reckless gamble to get back up and when it failed, there was nothing left. It doesn't matter that it was only a 4k bill that took you over the edge. Barclays pulled the plug because you weren't a good bet anymore. You simply weren't generating the income to cover the bills. Banks don't take their clients down for no reason- it's not good publicity. You were insolvent, end of. If this attempt by most of you on here to grab the moral high ground was genuine dismay at profligate spending by football clubs, why isn't there a Birmingham city thread on this forum? What about a Plymouth Argyle thread? No, you'd rather all whip each other into a frenzy of outrage with a load of lies peddled as fact about Pompey. For example, the "they're not even servicing the CVA...." lie from the other week was an absolute classic.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cynicalsaint Posted 28 July, 2011 Share Posted 28 July, 2011 Don't know the in's and out's of SFC's position with Aviva but at the end of the day they are an FS organisation so taking risks and pricing their products to reflect those risks is what they do. Sometimes they win / sometimes they lose - that's their business model. In the scheme of things the agreement they came to with SFC barely registered in their overall performance. Or did i miss the coverage of their impoverished shareholders and policyholders being up in arms because of the damage done? It's spurious to compare this to local businesses where the lost revenue represented a large %age of income or worse still for charities where the shortfall simply meant they couldn't do things they would have been able to had PFC not bailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 28 July, 2011 Share Posted 28 July, 2011 I had a great deal of sympathy with Aviva over the whole situation, they'd been very good to the club during the dark days but ended up the biggest losers in pure monetary terms because of a personal grudge held by a bloke at Barclays. PFC, did you even read this post ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 28 July, 2011 Share Posted 28 July, 2011 (edited) For example, the "they're not even servicing the CVA...." lie from the other week was an absolute classic.... lol. Show us that you are. All that has happened is the CVA has been re-written (twice), that does not constitute servicing a CVA. Servicing a CVA means to start paying off the debt to the creditors. How much has the club paid so far? Nothing. But there again you've shown you cannot be bothered in finding the facts and are more interested in a wind up. Edited 28 July, 2011 by Doctoroncall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 28 July, 2011 Share Posted 28 July, 2011 No. Because of your twisted view of us (as highlighted above) you try to make it sound like your board were all jolly good chaps, nay pillars of the community doncha know, and golly gosh they were so unlucky to take the club into administration by spending £7m that-they-couldn't-actually-afford-to-spend. Ooops. That's the bottom line- you spent what little reserves you had left on a reckless gamble to get back up and when it failed, there was nothing left. It doesn't matter that it was only a 4k bill that took you over the edge. Barclays pulled the plug because you weren't a good bet anymore. You simply weren't generating the income to cover the bills. Banks don't take their clients down for no reason- it's not good publicity. You were insolvent, end of. If this attempt by most of you on here to grab the moral high ground was genuine dismay at profligate spending by football clubs, why isn't there a Birmingham city thread on this forum? What about a Plymouth Argyle thread? No, you'd rather all whip each other into a frenzy of outrage with a load of lies peddled as fact about Pompey. For example, the "they're not even servicing the CVA...." lie from the other week was an absolute classic.... And when exactly did we spend £7M that we couldn't afford to spend? I assume you mean the 2006/7 season; if so, then we did indeed have the money to spend, as we had the second (and final) instalment of parachute payments at that time. Massive mistakes were made at the end of that season, with overpaid players being brought in when the money wasn't there to pay their wages; it's been speculated that those running the club at the time (chiefly Jim Hone) believed that a deal with Sisu was about to be reached and sanctioned spending on that basis. During the 2007/8 season, we found ourselves in crisis, so what did we do? We loaned out two of our better players to cut down on wages, and took further measures to reduce costs as much as possible. Lowe then returned and, love him or loathe him, he did his damnedest to pare costs to the bone, getting rid of several players, loaning out any higher earners he could, and putting out a team of youngsters and cheap acquisitions. Our overdraft with Barclays was reduced from £6M to £4M during this period (this is from memory, so may not be exact, but the reduction was large). When we went into administration, it was as a result of Barclays refusing to honour small payments. Personally, I think it came as a huge shock to Lowe, who thought he had the bank's backing to carry on as he was doing. Reasons for Barclays acting as they did are unknown - there are quasi-conspiracy theories about our account manager at the time and our administrator, though I'm never too keen on conspiracy stuff. It may simply be that the bank looked at diminishing attendance and dissatisfaction with Lowe, then decided that it was time to pull the plug. I don't know; only a handful of people do, and I'm willing to bet the Lowe isn't one of them. So yes, we were indeed insolvent (at least the holding company was, but I'm not one of those who thought that we should avoid penalty because of that technicality). However, we went into administration voluntarily as soon as this happened. The whole episode is nothing to be proud of, but my own view is that those running the club did their utmost to keep it running honestly, but failed in the attempt. How does this compare with Pompey? Well, we can wait for the results of the liquidators' examination to get the full gen, but I think it's safe to say that they were trading whilst insolvent, knowingly and for several months at least, before going into administration. During that time they faced a winding-up petition and (please do correct me if I'm wrong here) deliberately presented false information to the court in order to avoid being wound up - massively inflated estimates of player values, supposed evidence of a takeover just around the corner. They had also come under a transfer embargo; to get out of this, they made promises of repayment they must have known they had no chance of keeping. Once the embargo was lifted, they stretched and bent the rules laid down as to what transfers they could bring in by getting loans which entailed large fees, not to mention the increase in wages this brought about. It was remarked on by a few Premier League managers that they'd been unable to get certain players because they couldn't match the wages Pompey were offering at that time - this from a business facing a winding-up petition! So, knowing full well that they were trading insolvently, they set about increasing those costs which they were already unable to meet, all the while bleating on about the sheer unfairness of it all. Now then, can you see the difference between these two stories? You may dispute the details, but only at a minor level. The simple fact remains that Saints did their best to reduce costs and return to a stable trading state, in spite of the on-pitch problems this caused, and entered administration as soon as we became insolvent. Pompey traded insolvently for months, and did everything they could to avoid the consequences; furthermore, they deliberately worsened their trading position during this time. Why don't we go on about Plymouth, Birmingham or anyone else in the same way? Why do you bloody think? Yes, you can call it hypocritical if you like, but we're always going to be far more interested in the doings of our rivals that those of any other club. However, if evidence emerges of wrongdoing on a similar level at any other club (as it almost certainly will at West Ham should they fail to go up this season) the I for one will be outraged - in fact, looking at West Ham, I already feel that way. As for the CVA, we'll see when payments start, if ever. The "lies" you claim are interpretation as much as anything else; no payments have been made, but it's only being serviced because it was written in terms which enabled this to happen. One could claim that this is one further piece of dishonest dealing, though I'm sure you'd deny that. What can't be denied is the fiddling of the sums owed by Andronikou to ensure that HMRC weren't able to enforce a veto on the CVA. If HMRC had played their hand better in court a year ago, the CVA could easily have been overturned; as it was it stands, in all its glory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 28 July, 2011 Share Posted 28 July, 2011 No. Because of your twisted view of us (as highlighted above) you try to make it sound like your board were all jolly good chaps, nay pillars of the community doncha know, and golly gosh they were so unlucky to take the club into administration by spending £7m that-they-couldn't-actually-afford-to-spend. Ooops. That's the bottom line- you spent what little reserves you had left on a reckless gamble to get back up and when it failed, there was nothing left. It doesn't matter that it was only a 4k bill that took you over the edge. Barclays pulled the plug because you weren't a good bet anymore. You simply weren't generating the income to cover the bills. Banks don't take their clients down for no reason- it's not good publicity. You were insolvent, end of. Wrong. We were not insolvent because we were paying our bills when presented, unlike your club. Struggling, yes, but paying them. Incidentally (facts furnished previously in this thread) it seems odd that the guy from Barclays who pushed us found employment, within a short space of time, with our administrators. Furthermore they were so embarassed by this that they removed information from their web site about him. Lowe et al chose administration because of the knowledge that a payment would be dishonoured (not able to pay our bill) to avoid insolvency. That's the crux, we acted legally and sensibly (no matter how much it hurt at the time). Your lot carried on, spending big while gaily raping this country and charities of their money. If this attempt by most of you on here to grab the moral high ground was genuine dismay at profligate spending by football clubs, why isn't there a Birmingham city thread on this forum? What about a Plymouth Argyle thread? Why? Because nobody has done insolvency better than you lot! Jeez, you even outdid Risdale and Dirty Leeds! pfc..the epitome of slime, grime and crime. No, you'd rather all whip each other into a frenzy of outrage with a load of lies peddled as fact about Pompey. For example, the "they're not even servicing the CVA...." lie from the other week was an absolute classic.... As to your last line about servicing the CVA, have you made a payment yet? No (despite making a million profit). It's like standing in the pub mid afternoon with your car mechannic. Are you servicing my car? How the feck can he be when he's nowhere near it! Will you make a payment? ....That's up for debate. Do you intend making a payment?.....Errr........Ho? Most. Of. You. Really. Don't. Get. It. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 28 July, 2011 Share Posted 28 July, 2011 I used to think that pfc123 was a borderline okay skate, but if he truly cannot see the difference between the way we went into admin and the way they did, well he has the morality of a genuine Poopey fan through and through. Trying to explain to him is like trying to lecture the dog on the folly of chasing cats. It's in his blood and he is too dim to understand. At least Corps and one or two others 'get it', and I used to think this guy was just on a wind-up, but I'm not so sure any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 28 July, 2011 Share Posted 28 July, 2011 I Aviva had already put forward a settlement figure as they had already received approx £24m in payments and didn't want the stadium on land that couldn't be developed. Exactly. They got all of their capital back, they only dipped out on the interest. Same principal as paying your own mortgage off early. I accept that owning something and paying for it is an alien concept for skates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 28 July, 2011 Share Posted 28 July, 2011 I used to think that pfc123 was a borderline okay skate, but if he truly cannot see the difference between the way we went into admin and the way they did, well he has the morality of a genuine Poopey fan through and through. Trying to explain to him is like trying to lecture the dog on the folly of chasing cats. It's in his blood and he is too dim to understand. At least Corps and one or two others 'get it', and I used to think this guy was just on a wind-up, but I'm not so sure any more. He's a gutless c**k who wouldn't dare post when things were grim, unlike a couple of decent skates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 28 July, 2011 Share Posted 28 July, 2011 Why don't we go on about Plymouth, Birmingham or anyone else in the same way? Why do you bloody think? Yes, you can call it hypocritical if you like, but we're always going to be far more interested in the doings of our rivals that those of any other club. However, if evidence emerges of wrongdoing on a similar level at any other club (as it almost certainly will at West Ham should they fail to go up this season) the I for one will be outraged - in fact, looking at West Ham, I already feel that way. I am in two minds about WHU. Gold & Sullivan went in saying that there were huge debts and that they needed to be sorted. They seemingly have put in a lot of their own money and are try to strike a balance between keeping costs down and getting promoted. If it wasn't for those two, who I have to presume are guaranteeing the debt, they would have folded by now. Therefore I can't categorise them as being the same as Pompey. Or am I reading that totally wrong? As for the CVA, we'll see when payments start, if ever. The "lies" you claim are interpretation as much as anything else; no payments have been made, but it's only being serviced because it was written in terms which enabled this to happen. One could claim that this is one further piece of dishonest dealing, though I'm sure you'd deny that. What can't be denied is the fiddling of the sums owed by Andronikou to ensure that HMRC weren't able to enforce a veto on the CVA. If HMRC had played their hand better in court a year ago, the CVA could easily have been overturned; as it was it stands, in all its glory. Yes it will be interesting to see when the CVA payments start. I do feel that they will because having done HMRC over once already, I am not so sure that it is a good idea to diddle them out of their 20%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 28 July, 2011 Share Posted 28 July, 2011 And when exactly did we spend £7M that we couldn't afford to spend? I assume you mean the 2006/7 season; if so, then we did indeed have the money to spend, as we had the second (and final) instalment of parachute payments at that time. Massive mistakes were made at the end of that season, with overpaid players being brought in when the money wasn't there to pay their wages; it's been speculated that those running the club at the time (chiefly Jim Hone) believed that a deal with Sisu was about to be reached and sanctioned spending on that basis. During the 2007/8 season, we found ourselves in crisis, so what did we do? We loaned out two of our better players to cut down on wages, and took further measures to reduce costs as much as possible. Lowe then returned and, love him or loathe him, he did his damnedest to pare costs to the bone, getting rid of several players, loaning out any higher earners he could, and putting out a team of youngsters and cheap acquisitions. Our overdraft with Barclays was reduced from £6M to £4M during this period (this is from memory, so may not be exact, but the reduction was large). When we went into administration, it was as a result of Barclays refusing to honour small payments. Personally, I think it came as a huge shock to Lowe, who thought he had the bank's backing to carry on as he was doing. Reasons for Barclays acting as they did are unknown - there are quasi-conspiracy theories about our account manager at the time and our administrator, though I'm never too keen on conspiracy stuff. It may simply be that the bank looked at diminishing attendance and dissatisfaction with Lowe, then decided that it was time to pull the plug. I don't know; only a handful of people do, and I'm willing to bet the Lowe isn't one of them. So yes, we were indeed insolvent (at least the holding company was, but I'm not one of those who thought that we should avoid penalty because of that technicality). However, we went into administration voluntarily as soon as this happened. The whole episode is nothing to be proud of, but my own view is that those running the club did their utmost to keep it running honestly, but failed in the attempt. How does this compare with Pompey? Well, we can wait for the results of the liquidators' examination to get the full gen, but I think it's safe to say that they were trading whilst insolvent, knowingly and for several months at least, before going into administration. During that time they faced a winding-up petition and (please do correct me if I'm wrong here) deliberately presented false information to the court in order to avoid being wound up - massively inflated estimates of player values, supposed evidence of a takeover just around the corner. They had also come under a transfer embargo; to get out of this, they made promises of repayment they must have known they had no chance of keeping. Once the embargo was lifted, they stretched and bent the rules laid down as to what transfers they could bring in by getting loans which entailed large fees, not to mention the increase in wages this brought about. It was remarked on by a few Premier League managers that they'd been unable to get certain players because they couldn't match the wages Pompey were offering at that time - this from a business facing a winding-up petition! So, knowing full well that they were trading insolvently, they set about increasing those costs which they were already unable to meet, all the while bleating on about the sheer unfairness of it all. Now then, can you see the difference between these two stories? You may dispute the details, but only at a minor level. The simple fact remains that Saints did their best to reduce costs and return to a stable trading state, in spite of the on-pitch problems this caused, and entered administration as soon as we became insolvent. Pompey traded insolvently for months, and did everything they could to avoid the consequences; furthermore, they deliberately worsened their trading position during this time. Why don't we go on about Plymouth, Birmingham or anyone else in the same way? Why do you bloody think? Yes, you can call it hypocritical if you like, but we're always going to be far more interested in the doings of our rivals that those of any other club. However, if evidence emerges of wrongdoing on a similar level at any other club (as it almost certainly will at West Ham should they fail to go up this season) the I for one will be outraged - in fact, looking at West Ham, I already feel that way. As for the CVA, we'll see when payments start, if ever. The "lies" you claim are interpretation as much as anything else; no payments have been made, but it's only being serviced because it was written in terms which enabled this to happen. One could claim that this is one further piece of dishonest dealing, though I'm sure you'd deny that. What can't be denied is the fiddling of the sums owed by Andronikou to ensure that HMRC weren't able to enforce a veto on the CVA. If HMRC had played their hand better in court a year ago, the CVA could easily have been overturned; as it was it stands, in all its glory. I only occasionally read this thread because I can't stand the vitriol dished out by Saints fans most of whom have limted knowledge and low IQs. Occasionally a post like this one, reasoned and well thought out makes reading this thread worthwhile. I can't believe how lightly Pompey have been treated, I can't believe the depths they sank to. A lot of you Saints loonies won't like my next comment either. I work with a few Pompey fans, my wife's family are lifelong Pompey fans....and I have an awful lot of respect for them Most of them say that all they want is their club back. So I don't go in for hating the Pompey fans for what has happened....it must be obvious that most of the activities at the club for the few years before Pompey went into admin were not done by Pompey fans but by those who obviously were not. And to any of the Pompey posters we played by the rules, got into difficulties, cut our cloth and all that...you owners did anything but that. There is no equivalence in the clubs' administration episodes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 28 July, 2011 Share Posted 28 July, 2011 good explanations there in the last couple of pages. If some people still cannot see the difference in the two businesses' failures then they are outside of reasonable debate. The CVA has not been defaulted on. But until it starts, it has not been serviced. Legally delaying the start of it while continuing to spend and declaring a profit (however achieved!) is technically okay. But morally it's a mighty punch in the face to local charities and Portsmouth businesses - massively damaging the club within it's own community. And anyone who attempts to defend the ongoing abuse of the local economy is beyond help. Most likely outcome? They ignore all creditors bar the Taxman and only cough up his 4p less expenses when forced to by a new court order, blaming all woes and crimes on previous owners, with a little rewrite of history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 28 July, 2011 Share Posted 28 July, 2011 I am in two minds about WHU. Gold & Sullivan went in saying that there were huge debts and that they needed to be sorted. They seemingly have put in a lot of their own money and are try to strike a balance between keeping costs down and getting promoted. If it wasn't for those two, who I have to presume are guaranteeing the debt, they would have folded by now. Therefore I can't categorise them as being the same as Pompey. Or am I reading that totally wrong? West Ham had huge debts when the porno dwarves bought the club and they continue to have huge debts (probably bigger) now. However, they will get away with it if they go straight back up. Don't forget, they've got a £500m stadium built by the taxpayer which they are being gifted for £40m, and will also get to keep the proceeds of the sale of Upton Park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 28 July, 2011 Share Posted 28 July, 2011 I only occasionally read this thread because I can't stand the vitriol dished out by Saints fans most of whom have limted knowledge and low IQs. Occasionally a post like this one, reasoned and well thought out makes reading this thread worthwhile. I can't believe how lightly Pompey have been treated, I can't believe the depths they sank to. A lot of you Saints loonies won't like my next comment either. I work with a few Pompey fans, my wife's family are lifelong Pompey fans....and I have an awful lot of respect for them Most of them say that all they want is their club back. So I don't go in for hating the Pompey fans for what has happened....it must be obvious that most of the activities at the club for the few years before Pompey went into admin were not done by Pompey fans but by those who obviously were not. And to any of the Pompey posters we played by the rules, got into difficulties, cut our cloth and all that...you owners did anything but that. There is no equivalence in the clubs' administration episodes. Dont get me wrong... I also know plenty of Pompey fans who have become so dissilusioned with teh whole mess, they gave up their STs. For me this has never been about most fans - after what can fans do to influence the way the directors behave... no its the many seem to defend it... or suggest that what has happened elsewhere is on any kind of similar scale or principle. Yes we spent approx 7 mil on players do try and get promoted - but was money we had at teh time... yes it would have been more sensible (IMHO) to keep it for a rainy day, but it WAS MONEY WE HAD... no borrowed from dubious sources but a direct cash injection from the Crouch sale etc. How pfc123 can suggest that Saints doing everything they could to cut costs the moment we began struggling v PFCs continued spending and denial that there was even a problem are on the same moral plane is what I am critical of. I am sure there are many decent Pompey fans who are ashamed of what has happened and for them I have every sympathy - its those that are blind to the fact that their club has to date gotton away with (and actually gloat about that) that I find so distasteful - those prepared to stick two fingers up at the rest of football with their claim...' in years to come the record books will only show we won the cup... all the rest will be forgotten'.... that may well be true, and its what makes this so shameful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfc123 Posted 28 July, 2011 Share Posted 28 July, 2011 Yep, some fair points there. I agree that we let the situation get out of hand, and we pushed it to the limit to survive. The fact that no-one's been jailed (yet) and we haven't been closed down (yet), is maybe an indication that although we've pushed it ethically to the wire, we haven't done anything illegal. To be honest, I'm not proud of that unethical approach, and we're genuinely relieved that the club are paying back the small debtors, albeit too slowly I think. Overall, I think we just went into survival mode.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 28 July, 2011 Share Posted 28 July, 2011 and we're genuinely relieved that the club are paying back the small debtors, albeit too slowly I think. Really? I'm guessing you have a link to back up this statement, because, as yet, I believe that none of the small debtors, including the charities that you stole money from, have been repaid yet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 28 July, 2011 Share Posted 28 July, 2011 No, but apparently they've been serviced, so that's all OK then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 28 July, 2011 Share Posted 28 July, 2011 No, but apparently they've been serviced, so that's all OK then. That's service as a bull does to a cow? Yup, they've been fecked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts