Pompey Takeover Saga

[rallyboy]

not all pompey fans understand that they haven't dealt with the debt, some know, but don't care.

 

Hardly any fans of other clubs realise that pompey have still not addressed their debt, and very few of those are aware of the blatant theft from cancer charities.

I believe one has been paid back, but there has been mention of another still waiting.

 

Paying back those debts along with the small creditors could be done today if the owners wanted to, the time for excuses is long gone.

 

Lampitt should hang his head in shame, and fans should be demanding answers rather than signings.

People can blur issues, dress up reasons or point fingers at the past - but it is a current disgrace being overseen by the current management and current owners.

Chanrai sold them this business with debts to clear, but they haven't.

 

Some clubs are easy to like, others implore you to dislike them.

Pay up pompey.

[benjii]

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....

 

Dear oh dear.

 

Idiot.

[Wes Tender]

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.

 

Is this true? I'm scandalised. There ought to be a campaign to at least have the proceeds of the sale of their old ground being put towards the loss that the taxpayer bears.

[OldNick]

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.

another nonsense that the Government did to waste our money. I can see very few positives having the Olympics. It will be good for Dominoes Pizza, Coca Cola, Chinese takeaways, the supermarket beer sales and the like but the general retailers and businesses throughout Gb will suffer.

[Corporate Ho]

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.

 

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.

 

It's a fabulous, long post but misses the whole point of the original post which was MLG saying that the clubs I mentioned didn't see attendences rise when they moved to new stadiums. But in most cases they did. As my stats proved.

 

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.

 

According to one of your own (Clapham Saint) who has knowledge of the CVA process we are currently servicing the CVA. Argue with him (and all you others who say we're not servicing it can join in)

 

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.

 

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.

 

If I have a house valued at £500K and I spend £500K can I "afford" to spend it? You had £7m in the bank and spunked the lot. You spent money that was yours but couldn't afford it. You say this may have been because you believed new funds were coming in and you only went into administration because Barclays pulled the plug.Our problems happened because Standard Bank called in loans of somewhere between £30 - £40m overnight. And I assume we didn't pull the plug right then because Storrie thought that if we could struggle through to the end of the season we'd have either another year's PL money or the Parachute payments to see us through. Different to you certainly but still similarities. We also tried to offload the high wage earners but had problems doing that as some couldn't get the same money elsewhere so refused to go (like Nugent refusing to go to Blackpool last year).

 

Yes it was different but you still gambled money you couldn't afford to try and buy your way back to the PL

 

not all pompey fans understand that they haven't dealt with the debt, some know, but don't care.

 

Hardly any fans of other clubs realise that pompey have still not addressed their debt, and very few of those are aware of the blatant theft from cancer charities.

I believe one has been paid back, but there has been mention of another still waiting.

 

Paying back those debts along with the small creditors could be done today if the owners wanted to, the time for excuses is long gone.

 

Lampitt should hang his head in shame, and fans should be demanding answers rather than signings.

People can blur issues, dress up reasons or point fingers at the past - but it is a current disgrace being overseen by the current management and current owners.

Chanrai sold them this business with debts to clear, but they haven't.

 

Some clubs are easy to like, others implore you to dislike them.

Pay up pompey.

 

The cancer charity situation (as you say only one now, the other's been paid) is a disgrace but then Chainrai promised to pay those, along with the smaller creditors, out of his own pocket. As for the CVA, as has already been said (many times in fact) whilst it's been put back there is a timetable to the repayments. If CSI default on those payments the club will be folded, so why not wait and see what happens. The creditors agreed to the new timetable so it's al legal agreement.

 

So to keep saying, as you do, that the debt hasn't been addressed is wrong. It has. There's a CVA and a timetable in place. If CSI default on those payments and that timetable THEN the debt won't have been addressed.

[stevegrant]

So to keep saying, as you do, that the debt hasn't been addressed is wrong. It has. There's a CVA and a timetable in place. If CSI default on those payments and that timetable THEN the debt won't have been addressed.

While most of your points there are valid, are you not somewhat concerned that various people seem to keep moving the goalposts in terms of when the creditors will start to receive some of the money they're owed?

 

In the original CVA proposal that was agreed by creditors (and I fully accept that they have since agreed to a rescheduling), the first payment of £2m should have been made in September last year, with a further £3m payable in January 2011, so on that basis, you're £5m behind, a position which will have to be recovered at some point over the next 4 years - no mean feat, I'm sure you'll agree, given the relatively small number of revenue streams the club has.

 

A third of the CVA could have been paid off already, which would have left the club in a much healthier position long-term. I would argue that Chainrai had no intention of paying any of the CVA knowing that the schedule could be amended, and it'll be interesting to see whether the Russians have similar intentions. At least they don't seem to have been spouting their gob off since they arrived about how they were going to turn Pompey into Champions League winners within 5 years or other similar nonsense that previous owners have come out with.

[Corporate Ho]

While most of your points there are valid, are you not somewhat concerned that various people seem to keep moving the goalposts in terms of when the creditors will start to receive some of the money they're owed?

 

In the original CVA proposal that was agreed by creditors (and I fully accept that they have since agreed to a rescheduling), the first payment of £2m should have been made in September last year, with a further £3m payable in January 2011, so on that basis, you're £5m behind, a position which will have to be recovered at some point over the next 4 years - no mean feat, I'm sure you'll agree, given the relatively small number of revenue streams the club has.

 

A third of the CVA could have been paid off already, which would have left the club in a much healthier position long-term. I would argue that Chainrai had no intention of paying any of the CVA knowing that the schedule could be amended, and it'll be interesting to see whether the Russians have similar intentions. At least they don't seem to have been spouting their gob off since they arrived about how they were going to turn Pompey into Champions League winners within 5 years or other similar nonsense that previous owners have come out with.

 

Steve, always happy to get into a genuine debate about this stuff. You say "various people" keep moving the goalposts but it's not various people - it was Chainrai (or his pet poodle Andronikou on his behalf). As you said, the creditors themselves agreed to the rescheduling so whilst they should have started to receive their monies by now it's clear, again as you say, that Chainrai had no intention of putting his hand in his pocket to pay these poor people back. He promised to pay the charities and the smaller creditors out of his own pocket, said publically at a creditors meeting and then reneged on that promise.

 

Now, CSI could also not pay but as I said above that would effectively result in the club folding - I can't see the FA/ FL allowing us to go on should that happen. And CSI, whatever your theories or beliefs about money laundering/ mafia connections etc do seem to run some pretty successful businesses so it would seem odd that they'd take us on for a year only to not pay the CVA and make themselves look stupid. Because they don't come across as stupid people to me. Time will obviously tell but the way they're going about things seems promising so far

[Wes Tender]

It's a fabulous, long post but misses the whole point of the original post which was MLG saying that the clubs I mentioned didn't see attendences rise when they moved to new stadiums. But in most cases they did. As my stats proved.

 

But then you have missed the entire point of my post, which was that regardless of the figures put up by MLG and those put up to counter them by you, statistical comparisons on attendances between those clubs are largely futile, for the reasons I gave. Even comparing the attendances between us and the Skates has been deemed by pfc123 to be unfair because in his opinion a level playing field does not exist, so quite how increasing the number of clubs whose attendances are analysed will make those comparisons somehow more viable, I don't know.

 

Your statistics prove nothing, but neither do MLG's. All they demonstrate is numbers attending, which might have been increased or decreased for any number of reasons rather than the building of a new stadium.

[eurosaint]

Steve, always happy to get into a genuine debate about this stuff. You say "various people" keep moving the goalposts but it's not various people - it was Chainrai (or his pet poodle Andronikou on his behalf). As you said, the creditors themselves agreed to the rescheduling so whilst they should have started to receive their monies by now it's clear, again as you say, that Chainrai had no intention of putting his hand in his pocket to pay these poor people back. He promised to pay the charities and the smaller creditors out of his own pocket, said publically at a creditors meeting and then reneged on that promise.

 

Now, CSI could also not pay but as I said above that would effectively result in the club folding - I can't see the FA/ FL allowing us to go on should that happen. And CSI, whatever your theories or beliefs about money laundering/ mafia connections etc do seem to run some pretty successful businesses so it would seem odd that they'd take us on for a year only to not pay the CVA and make themselves look stupid. Because they don't come across as stupid people to me. Time will obviously tell but the way they're going about things seems promising so far

 

Surely, if these guys are so smart, they would make the grand gesture of paying off the cancer charities (a very small amount for so-called mega wealthy oligarchs!) as an immediate priority before spending big money on signing players, wages etc.. ????

It's all well and good blaming Chanrai, but these chancers have bought the commitments of the club, therefore in all conscience, they should do the right thing (and let it be known) otherwise they belong in the same cesspit as their predecessors !!

[stevegrant]

I do wonder whether there is legal recourse back to Portpin from the charities and small creditors, given that Portpin agreed in writing to reimburse all of them in full. As far as the CVA is concerned, I think technically these debts fall on Portpin's shoulders now (the CVA proposal states that , not PFC 2010 Ltd.

 

Subject to the approval of the CVA, Portpin Limited has undertaken to pay all unsecured creditors with claims of up to £2,500 in full and to pay any amounts owed to Charitable Organisations in full. Upon repayment, the claims of these creditors will be subrogated to Portpin Limited.

[stevegrant]

Now, CSI could also not pay but as I said above that would effectively result in the club folding - I can't see the FA/ FL allowing us to go on should that happen.

Some would argue they've let the club get away with everything to date, so why should that stop now?

 

And CSI, whatever your theories or beliefs about money laundering/ mafia connections etc do seem to run some pretty successful businesses so it would seem odd that they'd take us on for a year only to not pay the CVA and make themselves look stupid. Because they don't come across as stupid people to me. Time will obviously tell but the way they're going about things seems promising so far

Things do seem to be a bit more above-board with this new lot (although clearly that's not saying much), but the Saab situation would concern me. With what is presumably their largest asset struggling for its day-to-day cashflow, it doesn't take much imagination to envisage a situation where they're moving money between each of their interests to prop them up on a short-term basis until they either get lucky and a load of cash comes in (Saab gets a big order, for example, or Pompey get promoted) or they realise they can't juggle it all around anymore and something eventually has to give.

 

I still don't see what they aim to achieve, business-wise, at Pompey. It seems to be a gamble on promotion this season (although without a Leicester-esque mental spending spree), which would then allow them to sell up in a year's time at a sizeable profit, but what beyond that assuming you don't go up? They're clearly not stupid men (perhaps unlike one or more who came before them), so why would they leave themselves open to such exposure and risk?

[Fowllyd]

If I have a house valued at £500K and I spend £500K can I "afford" to spend it? You had £7m in the bank and spunked the lot. You spent money that was yours but couldn't afford it. You say this may have been because you believed new funds were coming in and you only went into administration because Barclays pulled the plug.Our problems happened because Standard Bank called in loans of somewhere between £30 - £40m overnight. And I assume we didn't pull the plug right then because Storrie thought that if we could struggle through to the end of the season we'd have either another year's PL money or the Parachute payments to see us through. Different to you certainly but still similarities. We also tried to offload the high wage earners but had problems doing that as some couldn't get the same money elsewhere so refused to go (like Nugent refusing to go to Blackpool last year).

 

Yes it was different but you still gambled money you couldn't afford to try and buy your way back to the PL

 

Your first point here is just plain wrong - it's a false opposition. Can you really not see the difference between illiquid assets, which are almost certainly encumbered (such as a house), and liquid assets which are not owed to anybody else and are thus available to do with as you please (such as money in the bank)? To put it simply: if you have a house valued at £500K (and let's say you own it outright) but nothing in the bank, you can only spend £500K if you sell the house first. If, on the other hand, you have £500K in a savings account, money which nobody else has any claim on, you can spend it if you so choose.

 

Did we gamble money that we couldn't afford? I don't think that we did; yes, we spent money on players (and wages) but even once the play-off semi-final had been lost it would have been possible to rein in expenditure. The failure to do this was the start of our real problems, I would say. But our debt was pretty piffling by football standards, and the great majority of what we did owe was on the stadium, not to banks or other lenders. Nor, for that matter, to HMRC.

 

You did indeed have a debt of £30M+ called in, which would have been unhelpful I'm sure (yes, that's deliberate understatement). But you went into administration with debts of £130M - so where did the other £100M come from? You'd hardly have been free and clear if the £30M hadn't been called in. And let's not forget that, when faced with a winding-up petition from HMRC (which you lied in court to get out of) your response was to get more players in - players with loan fees attached and high wages to pay. Regarding the winding-up petition, it's worth noting that HMRC are not in the habit of serving these the moment a single payment to them is missed, and this was true in Pompey's case. I recall HMRC making it very clear that PFC's debt to them had been built up over a considerable time, and that PFC had missed a number of agreed deadlines to start paying that debt. And let's not forget either that trading whilst insolvent is illegal; Storrie must have been aware of the financial position, and of Pompey's inabilities to meet their obligations, yet he kept right on as if everything were just hunky-dory.

 

Your key argument seems to be that our cases were different only in a quantitative sense. I disagree. Our cases were both massively and qualitatively different. We got into financial difficulties and did our utmost to get out of them. We failed, we paid the price, in the end we got lucky. You, on the other hand, got into far, far greater difficulties - and tried to get out of them by a mixture of lies, deceit and (probably) illegal practice. As others on here have said, there really is no valid comparison to be drawn.

[for_heaven's_Saint]

According to their website, they only have 14 players in their squad. Surely this can't be right?!

[Chin Strain]

 

I still don't see what they aim to achieve, business-wise, at Pompey. It seems to be a gamble on promotion this season (although without a Leicester-esque mental spending spree), which would then allow them to sell up in a year's time at a sizeable profit, but what beyond that assuming you don't go up? They're clearly not stupid men (perhaps unlike one or more who came before them), so why would they leave themselves open to such exposure and risk?

 

This is the bit I don't get Steve. What exactly are they trying to achieve? Maybe they, as with the other previous owners, have been 'unlucky' with timing (for that read 'stupid') and think they're onto a cash winner because PL riches will mean big profits. Unfortunately the NPC is probably one of the strongest for many years this year.

 

Even if Pompey did get promoted, and they brought in a load of PL cash, that's not even going to touch the sides for an organisation like Saab. Football might be big bucks, but car manufacturing on that scale needs massive investment.

 

So, I just don't get it. Is it just another rich mans play thing?

[mcjwills]

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.

 

I think if they miss 2 payments the Administrator will be obliged to bankrupt the club

[Pedro]

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...

 

Northampton CC is for online claims, have used it successfully a few times, easy to do.

[Crab Lungs]

It doesn't matter how you (Pompey fans) try to spin it, you're still and always will be a corrupt bunch of f()ckers.

[The Majestic Channon]

why why why do we always refer to the ****s as pompey?????? they are SKATES .

 

Thanks

[Jimmy_D]

Apparently, according to Cotterill, all the players are 'knackered' after their exausting trip out to the US.

 

It's ok though, because they'll probably miss their final friendly due to their flight back from the US being cancelled.

[warsash saint]

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/great-matches/betis_clash_in_doubt_as_pompey_are_left_stranded_in_us_1_2912125

 

Genuine or an elaborate way of getting out of their friendly tomorrow due to lack of players to field ??

[Sevvy]

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/great-matches/betis_clash_in_doubt_as_pompey_are_left_stranded_in_us_1_2912125

 

Genuine or an elaborate way of getting out of their friendly tomorrow due to lack of players to field ??

 

Some of the fans are wanting refunds if they dont play or they choose to play the Kids,

 

Whats the odds that money has already been spent.

[eurosaint]

Apparently, according to Cotterill, all the players are 'knackered' after their exausting trip out to the US.

 

It's ok though, because they'll probably miss their final friendly due to their flight back from the US being cancelled.

 

This will be a disaster for the 19,000 or so who would be expected to turn up !

(remember they said that it was nothing to do with the opposition being Chelsea, just their usual mega support!).

Looks to me like they fecked up good and proper once again on an unnecessary US trip !

[Weston Super Saint]

Some of the fans are wanting refunds if they dont play or they choose to play the Kids,

 

Whats the odds that money has already been spent.

 

Forgive me, but didn't they get rid of all of those last season, claiming they weren't good enough?

[Sevvy]

Forgive me, but didn't they get rid of all of those last season, claiming they weren't good enough?

 

Thats what i thought, but thats what the Pompey news are saying which i take with a pinch of salt.

[tony13579]

Much LOLage

[Saint_John]

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/great-matches/betis_clash_in_doubt_as_pompey_are_left_stranded_in_us_1_2912125

 

Genuine or an elaborate way of getting out of their friendly tomorrow due to lack of players to field ??

 

I had to laugh this morning somebody said to me that the Cheats FC were probably trying to do "a runner" from the States without paying their bills and the Catering Company parked a van in front of the plane to stop them escaping.

He said they told the Catering Co that they were PFC and it is normal in the UK for them not to pay their bills.

(joke).

[rallyboy]

It's all gone a bit homo-erotic down the road....theyv'e been away from 'home comforts' too long...

 

It’s a remarkable claim for a player whose sculptured frame and strapping physique comfortably sets him apart from the rest of Steve Cotterill’s squad.

 

Yet such has been the effectiveness of his pre-season, Ashdown oozes confidence in his body.

[gaz]

The answer is simple for the Few....chuck a few shirts into the crowd (lol) and make up the starting XI. They might just get enough fans turning up every week to cover them for the season too, away trips might be a struggle though!

[Foxstone]

The answer is simple for the Few....chuck a few shirts into the crowd (lol) and make up the starting XI. They might just get enough fans turning up every week to cover them for the season too, away trips might be a struggle though!

 

Cott the Clot will have to ring the changes away from home - W******d on the wing perhaps !

[bridge too far]

Nice to see a little mention of them here

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14342703.stm

[Sleaford_Saint]

Unnamed but clearly directed at the blue few (nice reference to St John Ambulance).

 

http://www.football365.com/news/21554/7066870/?

[Corporate Ho]

Things do seem to be a bit more above-board with this new lot (although clearly that's not saying much), but the Saab situation would concern me. With what is presumably their largest asset struggling for its day-to-day cashflow, it doesn't take much imagination to envisage a situation where they're moving money between each of their interests to prop them up on a short-term basis until they either get lucky and a load of cash comes in (Saab gets a big order, for example, or Pompey get promoted) or they realise they can't juggle it all around anymore and something eventually has to give.

 

Steve, they don't own SAAB. They have no way of moving money between the companies

 

Your first point here is just plain wrong - it's a false opposition. Can you really not see the difference between illiquid assets, which are almost certainly encumbered (such as a house), and liquid assets which are not owed to anybody else and are thus available to do with as you please (such as money in the bank)? To put it simply: if you have a house valued at £500K (and let's say you own it outright) but nothing in the bank, you can only spend £500K if you sell the house first. If, on the other hand, you have £500K in a savings account, money which nobody else has any claim on, you can spend it if you so choose.

 

Did we gamble money that we couldn't afford? I don't think that we did; yes, we spent money on players (and wages) but even once the play-off semi-final had been lost it would have been possible to rein in expenditure. The failure to do this was the start of our real problems, I would say. But our debt was pretty piffling by football standards, and the great majority of what we did owe was on the stadium, not to banks or other lenders. Nor, for that matter, to HMRC.

 

You did indeed have a debt of £30M+ called in, which would have been unhelpful I'm sure (yes, that's deliberate understatement). But you went into administration with debts of £130M - so where did the other £100M come from? You'd hardly have been free and clear if the £30M hadn't been called in. And let's not forget that, when faced with a winding-up petition from HMRC (which you lied in court to get out of) your response was to get more players in - players with loan fees attached and high wages to pay. Regarding the winding-up petition, it's worth noting that HMRC are not in the habit of serving these the moment a single payment to them is missed, and this was true in Pompey's case. I recall HMRC making it very clear that PFC's debt to them had been built up over a considerable time, and that PFC had missed a number of agreed deadlines to start paying that debt. And let's not forget either that trading whilst insolvent is illegal; Storrie must have been aware of the financial position, and of Pompey's inabilities to meet their obligations, yet he kept right on as if everything were just hunky-dory.

 

Your key argument seems to be that our cases were different only in a quantitative sense. I disagree. Our cases were both massively and qualitatively different. We got into financial difficulties and did our utmost to get out of them. We failed, we paid the price, in the end we got lucky. You, on the other hand, got into far, far greater difficulties - and tried to get out of them by a mixture of lies, deceit and (probably) illegal practice. As others on here have said, there really is no valid comparison to be drawn.

 

I'm not saying our cases were almost the same. I'm just pointing out that you had £7m and decided to spunk the lot on a return to the big time and the gamble didn't come off. In any walk of life that would be irresponsible so you effectively spent money you couldn't afford.

 

As for us, the whole situation is murky to say the least. Our debts should have been much lower considering the amount we pulled in for transfers like Diarra, Muntari, Defoe, Crouch etc. Also, you'll remember that the independent investigation said our debt was around £85m. Now that's a lot of money by anyone's standards BUT some of it was transfer fees covered by parachute payments and some was to HMRC but the biggest chunk was owed to either previous or the the then owner, much of which was dubious to say the least (Chainrai's £17m "loan" to a non existent al Faraj for example). Debt was loaded onto the club by people like Gaydamak and Chainrai to line their own pockets, you guys seem to conveniently forget that.

 

This is the bit I don't get Steve. What exactly are they trying to achieve? Maybe they, as with the other previous owners, have been 'unlucky' with timing (for that read 'stupid') and think they're onto a cash winner because PL riches will mean big profits. Unfortunately the NPC is probably one of the strongest for many years this year.

 

Even if Pompey did get promoted, and they brought in a load of PL cash, that's not even going to touch the sides for an organisation like Saab. Football might be big bucks, but car manufacturing on that scale needs massive investment.

 

So, I just don't get it. Is it just another rich mans play thing?

 

Why does anyone buy a football club?

 

No-one's going to make mega millions out of any club are they. Even most of the "Big 4" lose money every year. FWIW, I think CSI bought the club because they wanted a football club to add to their portfolio of sports businesses, because we're rel;atively high profile because of the two cup finals (and the admin/ CVA) and they could pick us up relatively cheaply compared to some other clubs. I don't expect them to spend massively on us and think they'll hope to build steadily for a couple of years and hope to make it into the PL

 

Genuine or an elaborate way of getting out of their friendly tomorrow due to lack of players to field ??

 

Because we haven't had enough players to play in our pre season games against Chelsea etc have we?

 

Game's been called off now anyway due to the delay in getting back

[stevegrant]

Steve, they don't own SAAB. They have no way of moving money between the companies

Do they not own Spyker Cars, which owns Saab?

[NickG]

their friendly now called off!

[NickG]

hope they can afford the refunds!

[gaz]

Steve, they don't own SAAB. They have no way of moving money between the companies

 

According to this: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15184622,00.html

 

SAAB has been owned by Spyker since Feb 2010.

[holepuncture]

Steve, they don't own SAAB. They have no way of moving money between the companies

 

Because we haven't had enough players to play in our pre season games against Chelsea etc have we?

 

Game's been called off now anyway due to the delay in getting back

 

Pahahahahahahahaha

 

When Saints were facing tight schedules in league one due to game postponements etc... Markus Liebherr chartered private jets for us!

 

I say us, I mean the first team... Dubious and Limpitt did a runner from your lads!

 

What a joke of a club! I remember Cotteroll banging on about how his US tour would be a smooth operation now that he is in control! His has demonstrated fantastic organisational skills here by arranging transport with no scope for delays or problems whatsoever... still, at least there were only 17 supporters, the usual away following numbers.

[Gingeletiss]

Steve, they don't own SAAB. They have no way of moving money between the companies

 

 

As for us, the whole situation is murky to say the least. Our debts should have been much lower considering the amount we pulled in for transfers like Diarra, Muntari, Defoe, Crouch etc. Also, you'll remember that the independent investigation said our debt was around £85m. Now that's a lot of money by anyone's standards BUT some of it was transfer fees covered by parachute payments and some was to HMRC but the biggest chunk was owed to either previous or the the then owner, much of which was dubious to say the least (Chainrai's £17m "loan" to a non existent al Faraj for example). Debt was loaded onto the club by people like Gaydamak and Chainrai to line their own pockets, you guys seem to conveniently forget that.

 

Think you just proved, that there is in fact a way to move money, it's called the Poopey transference system!

[mcjwills]

their friendly now called off!

 

Hey the skates nearly made me crash my car, I was laughing so much when I heard Real Bettis are going to play Havant & Waterlooville as the skates cant get back from USA, are all first class flight on BA, Virgin or American Airlines taken up or was the Ryan Air flight cancelled.

 

At least Real Bettis will play an honourable team

[Seaford Saint]

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....

 

Repeat after me PFC123...Pompey went bust owing millions (60, I think) having bought players they had no intention of paying for, running up debts they had no intention of paying. Southampton on the other hand went bust having Lloyd James in midfield etc in an attempt to stay afloat in both a footballing and a financial sense....don't be such a dickhead to think that you can make any comparison between the clubs. Your club cheated its way to FA cup glory.....ours didn't.

[Corporate Ho]

Do they not own Spyker Cars, which owns Saab?

 

According to this: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15184622,00.html

 

SAAB has been owned by Spyker since Feb 2010.

 

Spyker indeed own SAAB. But Antonov doesn't own Spyker. Antonov bought the sports car division of Spyker, not the whole company. So he has no way of transferring any monies between SAAB and PFC.

 

hope they can afford the refunds!

 

Details of how people can get their refunds were already on the PFC OS by the time you posted this

 

Pahahahahahahahaha

 

When Saints were facing tight schedules in league one due to game postponements etc... Markus Liebherr chartered private jets for us!

 

I say us, I mean the first team... Dubious and Limpitt did a runner from your lads!

 

What a joke of a club! I remember Cotteroll banging on about how his US tour would be a smooth operation now that he is in control! His has demonstrated fantastic organisational skills here by arranging transport with no scope for delays or problems whatsoever... still, at least there were only 17 supporters, the usual away following numbers.

 

If Liebherr had to charter private jets when you had delays it would seem that you had no contingency plans either wouldn't it. So, crap organisation on your clubs part too? On the subject of the team getting back, do you really think it would be worth chartering a private jet to play a meaningless friendly?

 

Think you just proved, that there is in fact a way to move money, it's called the Poopey transference system!

 

Except when the transfer money went missing they owned the club and so had access to the transfer cash. As they don't own SAAB how are you suggesting this transference system would work?

[Corporate Ho]

Repeat after me PFC123...Pompey went bust owing millions (60, I think) having bought players they had no intention of paying for, running up debts they had no intention of paying. Southampton on the other hand went bust having Lloyd James in midfield etc in an attempt to stay afloat in both a footballing and a financial sense....don't be such a dickhead to think that you can make any comparison between the clubs. Your club cheated its way to FA cup glory.....ours didn't.

 

So, who were these players we bought that we had no intention of paying for?

 

When we won the cup there was no mention on here of us having cheated our way to it, you all said we only won because we only played lower league opposition all the way through (coveniently forgetting Man Utd of course). Now, we "bought it" with players we couldn't afford. The fact of the matter is that if we only won it because of understrength opposition we didn't buy it. And if you say we only won it because we "paid" for it surely any of the other clubs who spent much more on players than we did would have won it? The fact is we won it because we had the luck of the draw most of the way through and fate conspired ridiculously against Man Utd in the Old Trafford game (the chances they missed that they would have scored any other day, their replacement keeper getting sent off for the penalty etc).

 

We won the cup fair and square. And it drives you lot insane with jealousy

[rallyboy]

jealous?

fair and square?

Ho you little tease.

 

 

 

And your glorious captain that historic day had to take you to court for unpaid wages.

A bit like your current squad, there is no defence - we all wondered how you had done it, then the accounts became public.

 

See you in December.

[Wes Tender]

So, who were these players we bought that we had no intention of paying for?

 

When we won the cup there was no mention on here of us having cheated our way to it, you all said we only won because we only played lower league opposition all the way through (coveniently forgetting Man Utd of course). Now, we "bought it" with players we couldn't afford. The fact of the matter is that if we only won it because of understrength opposition we didn't buy it. And if you say we only won it because we "paid" for it surely any of the other clubs who spent much more on players than we did would have won it? The fact is we won it because we had the luck of the draw most of the way through and fate conspired ridiculously against Man Utd in the Old Trafford game (the chances they missed that they would have scored any other day, their replacement keeper getting sent off for the penalty etc).

 

We won the cup fair and square. And it drives you lot insane with jealousy

 

The truth of the matter of the FA Cup was in fact a mix of the two. Firstly, you had an easy run apart from the Man Utd match, when as you say, Lady Luck shone on Cheats United. You even had an easy final too. Teams like Ipswich, Plymouth, Preston, West Brom and Cardiff are hardly deemed to be the hardest to beat. Especially when you consider item number two, the team that you had that season. Apart from England team players like James, Campbell, Johnson and Defoe, you also had several other quality international standard players in your squad. These include the likes of Diarra,Pamarot, Hreidersson, Utaka, Diop, Lauren, Muntari, Krancjar, Benjani, Traore and Mendez.

 

Now, I'm sure that in common with most Skates, you are in denial about how your train crash happened and who was to blame, but I would say that the squad I have just listed was one that you could not afford, because the wage levels and transfer fees were at a level way beyond your income.

[Colinjb]

We won the cup fair and square.

 

And ignorance is no doubt bliss.

[eurosaint]

So, who were these players we bought that we had no intention of paying for?

 

When we won the cup there was no mention on here of us having cheated our way to it, you all said we only won because we only played lower league opposition all the way through (coveniently forgetting Man Utd of course). Now, we "bought it" with players we couldn't afford. The fact of the matter is that if we only won it because of understrength opposition we didn't buy it. And if you say we only won it because we "paid" for it surely any of the other clubs who spent much more on players than we did would have won it? The fact is we won it because we had the luck of the draw most of the way through and fate conspired ridiculously against Man Utd in the Old Trafford game (the chances they missed that they would have scored any other day, their replacement keeper getting sent off for the penalty etc).

 

We won the cup fair and square. And it drives you lot insane with jealousy

 

I realise that it is only a minor detail to you, but having gone down the pan owing over £100 million within 2 years of this historic cup triumph, do you honestly feel that it was 'affordable' or are you really too thick to comprehend this ???

Ps. please don't answer, as your response may incite further vomit inducing reactions from those of us who (unlike you!) are not in denial !!

Edited 29 July, 2011 by eurosaint
Tautology !

[sfc1971]

So, who were these players we bought that we had no intention of paying for?

 

When we won the cup there was no mention on here of us having cheated our way to it, you all said we only won because we only played lower league opposition all the way through (coveniently forgetting Man Utd of course). Now, we "bought it" with players we couldn't afford. The fact of the matter is that if we only won it because of understrength opposition we didn't buy it. And if you say we only won it because we "paid" for it surely any of the other clubs who spent much more on players than we did would have won it? The fact is we won it because we had the luck of the draw most of the way through and fate conspired ridiculously against Man Utd in the Old Trafford game (the chances they missed that they would have scored any other day, their replacement keeper getting sent off for the penalty etc).

 

We won the cup fair and square. And it drives you lot insane with jealousy

 

In modern day football (I would call modern day post 1960`s) I have seen my team play the old Wembley, Cardiff Millenium and the new Wembley in actual Finals. Why would I be insane with jealosy? you *King Moron.

[Dark Munster]

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....

 

I see that Corpse Whore has some serious competition on who can write the biggest load of bollocks.

[rallyboy]

I say, that's a bit harsh old chap, it's just a little rewriting of history to blur the issue.....doncha know.

 

Anyway, that title was awarded to recognise lifetime achievement - and well deserved it was too.

[hutch]

Details of how people can get their refunds were already on the PFC OS by the time you posted this

Are they servicing the refunds, or are they actually giving people their money back?