Pompey Takeover Saga

[eurosaint]

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

 

20% over 4 weeks, except for the Red Cross who get f#ck all

[Saint_John]

hope they can afford the refunds!

If reports are to be believed they had only sold 3,000 tickets (well at least they beat the 2,731 for the LC game on 26 Sept 2000).

The biggest cost will be for bringing the Spanish side over for the game unless of course they try to pass that off on H&W to pay.

[Colinjb]

If reports are to be believed they had only sold 3,000 tickets (well at least they beat the 2,731 for the LC game on 26 Sept 2000).

The biggest cost will be for bringing the Spanish side over for the game unless of course they try to pass that off on H&W to pay.

 

Wow, just wow. And that wasn't against a Shrewsbury or Hereford. It was Blackburn Rovers!!! Pathetic support.

[pfc123]

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.

 

Basic history lesson: Pompey win the FA cup May 17th 2008.

 

World financial crisis begins: October 2008- five months LATER.

 

Gaydamak had no problem at all financing the club until the Russian stock market trades he earned his commission money on started to tail off and then virtually stop in October.

 

Standard bank then got nervous and called in the £30m loan hence beginning the downward spiral.

 

And the reason our relative debt levels at the time of administration are so disproportionate is that you went under as a CCC club- you'd already been forced to downgrade the size of the business accordingly, hence the smaller debt at meltdown.

 

Premiership clubs all run on a massively larger turnover. All the numbers are bigger including the debt if it all goes wrong, as happened to us.

 

So to say we 'cheated our way to FA cup glory' is just plain wrong. As usual you're all just looking for an excuse to erase the scar of us winning the cup by claiming it was null and void.

 

IT WASN'T, GET USED TO IT........

 

tip: Try to argue against the above point without adding words such as: cock, ****, ******, thick, arsehole, dickhead, tosser, and tired, tired phrases such as "This thick skate just does not get it". Holepuncture in particular has honed these terms of abuse to a fine point. Your argument is instantly devalued once you resort to plain old abuse. I assure you I do 'get it', I just happen to have a different opinion that's all....

[OldNick]

Basic history lesson: Pompey win the FA cup May 17th 2008.

 

World financial crisis begins: October 2008- five months LATER.

 

Gaydamak had no problem at all financing the club until the Russian stock market trades he earned his commission money on started to tail off and then virtually stop in October.

 

Standard bank then got nervous and called in the £30m loan hence beginning the downward spiral.

 

And the reason our relative debt levels at the time of administration are so disproportionate is that you went under as a CCC club- you'd already been forced to downgrade the size of the business accordingly, hence the smaller debt at meltdown.

 

Premiership clubs all run on a massively larger turnover. All the numbers are bigger including the debt if it all goes wrong, as happened to us.

 

So to say we 'cheated our way to FA cup glory' is just plain wrong. As usual you're all just looking for an excuse to erase the scar of us winning the cup by claiming it was null and void.

 

IT WASN'T, GET USED TO IT........

 

tip: Try to argue against the above point without adding words such as: cock, ****, ******, thick, arsehole, dickhead, tosser, and tired, tired phrases such as "This thick skate just does not get it". Holepuncture in particular has honed these terms of abuse to a fine point. Your argument is instantly devalued once you resort to plain old abuse. I assure you I do 'get it', I just happen to have a different opinion that's all....

Lol, dont forget he was just a front for his father and his money. Pompey was chosen because its systems were so outdated it was easy to pass money through.

The players you had were never going to be able to be afforded on 15k gates.

[Wes Tender]

Basic history lesson: Pompey win the FA cup May 17th 2008.

 

World financial crisis begins: October 2008- five months LATER.

 

Gaydamak had no problem at all financing the club until the Russian stock market trades he earned his commission money on started to tail off and then virtually stop in October.

 

Standard bank then got nervous and called in the £30m loan hence beginning the downward spiral.

 

And the reason our relative debt levels at the time of administration are so disproportionate is that you went under as a CCC club- you'd already been forced to downgrade the size of the business accordingly, hence the smaller debt at meltdown.

 

Premiership clubs all run on a massively larger turnover. All the numbers are bigger including the debt if it all goes wrong, as happened to us.

 

So to say we 'cheated our way to FA cup glory' is just plain wrong. As usual you're all just looking for an excuse to erase the scar of us winning the cup by claiming it was null and void.

 

IT WASN'T, GET USED TO IT........

 

tip: Try to argue against the above point without adding words such as: cock, ****, ******, thick, arsehole, dickhead, tosser, and tired, tired phrases such as "This thick skate just does not get it". Holepuncture in particular has honed these terms of abuse to a fine point. Your argument is instantly devalued once you resort to plain old abuse. I assure you I do 'get it', I just happen to have a different opinion that's all....

 

Yes, you have an opinion and it is distorted by your blinkered view of your club. Read the list of players I listed above that were at your club and then if you wish to justify your position, tell me how much they were being paid and what their transfer fees were. Then tell me what the club's income was. That is the only way that you can convince us that you could afford them.

[Seaford Saint]

Basic history lesson: Pompey win the FA cup May 17th 2008.

 

World financial crisis begins: October 2008- five months LATER.

 

Gaydamak had no problem at all financing the club until the Russian stock market trades he earned his commission money on started to tail off and then virtually stop in October.

 

Standard bank then got nervous and called in the £30m loan hence beginning the downward spiral.

 

And the reason our relative debt levels at the time of administration are so disproportionate is that you went under as a CCC club- you'd already been forced to downgrade the size of the business accordingly, hence the smaller debt at meltdown.

 

Premiership clubs all run on a massively larger turnover. All the numbers are bigger including the debt if it all goes wrong, as happened to us.

 

So to say we 'cheated our way to FA cup glory' is just plain wrong. As usual you're all just looking for an excuse to erase the scar of us winning the cup by claiming it was null and void.

 

IT WASN'T, GET USED TO IT........

 

tip: Try to argue against the above point without adding words such as: cock, ****, ******, thick, arsehole, dickhead, tosser, and tired, tired phrases such as "This thick skate just does not get it". Holepuncture in particular has honed these terms of abuse to a fine point. Your argument is instantly devalued once you resort to plain old abuse. I assure you I do 'get it', I just happen to have a different opinion that's all....

 

Apologies for calling you a dickhead, I don't really think that you are.....I really like all the Pompey fans that I have met and a few months ago I went to the funeral of a family member on my wife's side. The lady who had died in her 90s was an example to us all....and she was Pompey through and through.

 

Tell me about the £30 million loan, when was this taken out? Was it before or after the FA cup final? I am angry when I read that the 2 clubs respective administrations are equivalent when its clear that they are not. Why do you think Gaydamark bought Pompey? Why do you think he bank rolled it? Did he get anything in return for doing so?

[saint si]

Basic history lesson: Pompey win the FA cup May 17th 2008.

 

World financial crisis begins: October 2008- five months LATER.

 

Gaydamak had no problem at all financing the club until the Russian stock market trades he earned his commission money on started to tail off and then virtually stop in October.

 

Ah, it had to happen eventually. Pompey's troubles were caused by the world financial crisis! Of course, it all makes sense, how stupid of us all.

[Weston Super Saint]

Premiership clubs all run on a massively larger turnover. All the numbers are bigger including the debt if it all goes wrong, as happened to us.

 

I beg to differ!

 

Take a look at your attendance figures, those were not bigger than most CCC clubs

 

That, right there is the reason you went bust! You spent more than you earned, you racked up masses of debts you couldn't afford. Simple economics really. Trying to blame it on the world banking crisis, ebola, the garden gnomes stealing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, or any other ludicrous excuse is just plain stupid!

 

If you'd have had a more astute CEO than storyteller, you may have avoided most of the problems you ended up with.

 

Still, at least he's got the freedom of the city

[the colonel]

 

And the reason our relative debt levels at the time of administration are so disproportionate is that you went under as a CCC club- you'd already been forced to downgrade the size of the business accordingly, hence the smaller debt at meltdown.

 

.

 

So please tell us when, since the formation of the premier league in 1992, did any club with a 15-20k stadium think to themselves 'I tell you what we can afford to go into £100m debit so let’s do it'?....ermmm, doh silly me pompey.

You say our debit was lower because we were in the championship.....we had only been out of the premiership for 3 years. So you are saying we had a massive premier debit that we reduced to £4m in 3 yrs...fool!

Please let us know when Saints were ever in debit to £100m and I will bow to superior knowledge!

[trousers]

Ah, it had to happen eventually. Pompey's troubles were caused by the world financial crisis! Of course, it all makes sense, how stupid of us all.

 

Indeed. Pompey fans are starting to sound like the Labour Party. Another reason to detest them.

 

;-)

[dronskisaint]

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

 

For psychology students this is a classic case of clinical delusion:facepalm:

[redkeith]

Gaydmark was funding it all from trading on the Russian Stock Market (if I can make money on a falling market I'm sure Sacha could) ? It was obviously pure coincidence that he stopped being able to provide this support after his dads bank accounts got frozen .

 

And to imagine that having to pay back £30M tipped the skates over the edge is laughable. They were already behind on their Tax and NI payments before Standard Bank called the loan in. Standard were just ensuring that they wouldn't be involved in any CVA when it all went boobies up.

 

On top of all this, after this loan was repaid they carried on racking up bills signing such talents as Dindane, and Ben Haim on big wages and hiding behind the excuse that the Premiership needs to be competitive, so they had no choice. I can't recall the PL ordering Derby to go on a spending spree when they were rock bottom.

 

But no, have it your way. If standard hadn't called in that loan, it would have all been ok. You would have been able to avoid relegation, and would now be sitting pretty in the PL, ( apart maybe from the other £120M that you owed to other clubs, HRMC and various charities ).

[sidthesquid]

Basic history lesson: Pompey win the FA cup May 17th 2008.

 

World financial crisis begins: October 2008- five months LATER.

 

Gaydamak had no problem at all financing the club until the Russian stock market trades he earned his commission money on started to tail off and then virtually stop in October.

 

Don't you just love Skate history lessons....

The world financial crisis may well have been in October 2008, but Poopey's problems didn't start till a year later when Gaydamak senior - the one with the money - had his financial assets frozen by a French court. (Even Storrie admitted this.) As soon as the child-maimer no longer had dirty cash to launder the chickens came home to roost. Not a co-incidence, a fact. No more dirty money, no more 'glory'.

[eurosaint]

Basic history lesson: Pompey win the FA cup May 17th 2008.

 

World financial crisis begins: October 2008- five months LATER.

 

Gaydamak had no problem at all financing the club until the Russian stock market trades he earned his commission money on started to tail off and then virtually stop in October.

 

Standard bank then got nervous and called in the £30m loan hence beginning the downward spiral.

 

And the reason our relative debt levels at the time of administration are so disproportionate is that you went under as a CCC club- you'd already been forced to downgrade the size of the business accordingly, hence the smaller debt at meltdown.

 

Premiership clubs all run on a massively larger turnover. All the numbers are bigger including the debt if it all goes wrong, as happened to us.

 

So to say we 'cheated our way to FA cup glory' is just plain wrong. As usual you're all just looking for an excuse to erase the scar of us winning the cup by claiming it was null and void.

 

IT WASN'T, GET USED TO IT........

 

tip: Try to argue against the above point without adding words such as: cock, ****, ******, thick, arsehole, dickhead, tosser, and tired, tired phrases such as "This thick skate just does not get it". Holepuncture in particular has honed these terms of abuse to a fine point. Your argument is instantly devalued once you resort to plain old abuse. I assure you I do 'get it', I just happen to have a different opinion that's all....

 

There are 3 options :

 

a) You are incredibly naive !

b) You are in denial !

c) You are a thick Skate !

 

I think I'll go for 'c' !

[gaz]

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.

 

The delays in the takeover were attributed to an investigation by the Swedish monetary agency Riksgälden and the Swedish security police Säpo, where the agencies found connections between the family of major shareholder Vladimir Antonov and organized crime, as well as involvement in money laundering. Säpo reported their findings to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, and shortly thereafter GM dropped further talks about the deal, until a company controlled by Victor Muller called Tenaci purchased Antonov's share in the company. Antonov also announced that $25mn has been given to Spyker as a loan to purchase Saab Automobile from General Motors. He confirmed that the loan will be provided by Convers Bank a bank owned by the Antonovs' and that GM was fully aware of that.[15] Antonov cannot invest in Spyker until 2016; when GM's preference share holding ends. Another way he could enter earlier would be permission by General Motors. Antonov stated, "I'm not involved in crime and I've initiated an investigation as to why GM thinks I am."[15]

 

Vladimir Antonov is president of the Russian bank Convers Group. He is a son of the Russian tycoon Aleksandr Antonov who was injured in a shooting in Moscow in March 2009.[16]

 

On February 23, 2010, Spyker Cars closed the deal to buy Saab Automobile from General Motors, since when Spyker and Saab operate under the parent company Swedish Automobile, named Spyker Cars N.V. until June 2011.[17]

 

On February 25, 2011, Spyker Cars N.V. announced the impending sale of the sports supercar unit to Vladimir Antonov for an initial amount of 15 million euros. The reported reason for the sale was to reduce the car maker's debt load.[18][19]

 

Wikipedia, but sources given. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Automobile

[Saint 76er]

Don't you just love Skate history lessons....

The world financial crisis may well have been in October 2008, but Poopey's problems didn't start till a year later when Gaydamak senior - the one with the money - had his financial assets frozen by a French court. (Even Storrie admitted this.) As soon as the child-maimer no longer had dirty cash to launder the chickens came home to roost. Not a co-incidence, a fact. No more dirty money, no more 'glory'.

 

Haven't the numpties just jumped back on to that merry-go-round? .....

[aintforever]

Premiership clubs all run on a massively larger turnover. All the numbers are bigger including the debt if it all goes wrong, as happened to us.

 

Unfortunately that is the classic Skate view, the dumb f*ckers actually believe they were run like any other Prem club and it just happened to "go wrong".

 

The years and years of being bankrolled have screwed with their brains. Even before the Russian gun-runner rocked up they were bankrolled by Manderic, they have lost all sense of reality.

 

They think the club owner exists purely to pour money into the club - that is their reality. No doubt they will be moaning like a bunch of babies if this current lot don't start splashing the cash.

Edited 30 July, 2011 by aintforever

[mack rill]

their friendly now called off!

 

Hmmm oh well at least you pony boys manèged to frighten the lives out of Yeovil today,,,,,,He He He.

Edited 30 July, 2011 by mack rill

[dronskisaint]

Hmmm oh well at least you pony boys manèged to frighten the lives out of Yeovil today,,,,,,He He He.

 

And I can understand why your fondlers didn't want to come back....political asylum perhaps?

[K,Billy's supersound]

ok own up who's been posting on sky transfer rumour's page?

 

Jacob Tate (Portsmouth) says...

 

Scott Parker seen in KFC in Portsmouth perhaps a possible deal to be around a record breaking 6 million

 

Simon Pearce (Portsmouth) says...

 

My son was attending a wedding reception at Port Solent yesterday and bumped into Ricardo Fuller. A return to either Pompey or Saints? My money's on Pompey!

[mcjwills]

Hmmm oh well at least you pony boys manèged to frighten the lives out of Yeovil today,,,,,,He He He.

 

At least we could field a team and not give away a plum tie to our more honest neighbour unlike you

[benjii]

Basic history lesson: Pompey win the FA cup May 17th 2008.

 

World financial crisis begins: October 2008- five months LATER.

 

Gaydamak had no problem at all financing the club until the Russian stock market trades he earned his commission money on started to tail off and then virtually stop in October.

 

Standard bank then got nervous and called in the £30m loan hence beginning the downward spiral.

 

And the reason our relative debt levels at the time of administration are so disproportionate is that you went under as a CCC club- you'd already been forced to downgrade the size of the business accordingly, hence the smaller debt at meltdown.

 

Premiership clubs all run on a massively larger turnover. All the numbers are bigger including the debt if it all goes wrong, as happened to us.

 

So to say we 'cheated our way to FA cup glory' is just plain wrong. As usual you're all just looking for an excuse to erase the scar of us winning the cup by claiming it was null and void.

 

IT WASN'T, GET USED TO IT........

 

tip: Try to argue against the above point without adding words such as: cock, ****, ******, thick, arsehole, dickhead, tosser, and tired, tired phrases such as "This thick skate just does not get it". Holepuncture in particular has honed these terms of abuse to a fine point. Your argument is instantly devalued once you resort to plain old abuse. I assure you I do 'get it', I just happen to have a different opinion that's all....

 

You're thick as fook.

[Crab Lungs]

You're thick as fook.

 

Seriously, what a retard. I wish I had the time and the reserve to respond to that b0ll0cks but I haven't so excuse me if I just laugh my head off at another thick skate who quite simply, doesn't get it - and by the looks of things, never will.

 

As for your "blind hatred" theory, is that the same blind hatred that inspired the best fans in the worldTM to smash up their own city?

 

Roflcopters@Skates

[Windmill Arm 2]

Basic history lesson: Pompey win the FA cup May 17th 2008.

 

World financial crisis begins: October 2008- five months LATER.

 

Gaydamak had no problem at all financing the club until the Russian stock market trades he earned his commission money on started to tail off and then virtually stop in October.

 

Standard bank then got nervous and called in the £30m loan hence beginning the downward spiral.

 

And the reason our relative debt levels at the time of administration are so disproportionate is that you went under as a CCC club- you'd already been forced to downgrade the size of the business accordingly, hence the smaller debt at meltdown.

 

Premiership clubs all run on a massively larger turnover. All the numbers are bigger including the debt if it all goes wrong, as happened to us.

 

So to say we 'cheated our way to FA cup glory' is just plain wrong. As usual you're all just looking for an excuse to erase the scar of us winning the cup by claiming it was null and void.

 

IT WASN'T, GET USED TO IT........

 

tip: Try to argue against the above point without adding words such as: cock, ****, ******, thick, arsehole, dickhead, tosser, and tired, tired phrases such as "This thick skate just does not get it". Holepuncture in particular has honed these terms of abuse to a fine point. Your argument is instantly devalued once you resort to plain old abuse. I assure you I do 'get it', I just happen to have a different opinion that's all....

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! Always trying to shift the blame. Fook off you lying skate skaghead.

[Windmill Arm 2]

Hmmm oh well at least you pony boys manèged to frighten the lives out of Yeovil today,,,,,,He He He.

Do stand the concept of pre-season friendlies ? Multiple substitutions can lead to unbalanced performances, but in the main they are purely fitness exercises. Of course you wouldn't know about multiple substitutions, are you above 12 players yet?

How did you get on against Charleston ? oh yeah, you frightened the lives out of them didn't you.........at least we have been free scoring in pre-season, Varney and Kitson etc have been toothless, and Clotterill is more than a bit worried.

[spyinthesky]

Hmmm oh well at least you pony boys manèged to frighten the lives out of Yeovil today,,,,,,He He He.

 

How did ther mighty blues do on their high profile tour of the US of A?

[rallyboy]

they lost their no claims bonus after Cotterill pranged a catering truck.

 

Though they did seriously worry two school teams while they were over there, even scored against one of them I believe, the boss declared they were tired after that.

Which bodes well.

[suewhistle]

Hmmm oh well at least you pony boys manèged to frighten the lives out of Yeovil today,,,,,,He He He.

 

:-), well, I actually laugh at some or your sallies Mack. Corp and co just annoy me intensely.

 

Our second team could have put up a decent show, so why didn't Pompey play theirs, they surely didn't take their whole squad to the US, surely?? For starters doubt they could have afforded to although I have to admit I've lost track on how many players they have at the club.

[mack rill]

:-), well, I actually laugh at some or your sallies Mack. Corp and co just annoy me intensely.

 

Our second team could have put up a decent show, so why didn't Pompey play theirs, they surely didn't take their whole squad to the US, surely?? For starters doubt they could have afforded to although I have to admit I've lost track on how many players they have at the club.

 

Simples Sue,,,,we avent got a first team Yet! Looks like we could be playing the old (capinand) game with the footy league, It worked well last year,

[Seaford Saint]

I propose a creating another thread as a sticky on Pompeys finances based on what we know.....transfers of players with dates and next to it Pompeys finances....how much they owed at teh time of each transfer.

 

There must be verifiable information within this thread that could be extracted for such a purpose.

[70's Mike]

Simples Sue,,,,we avent got a first team Yet! Looks like we could be playing the old (capinand) game with the footy league, It worked well last year,

 

so no truth in the rumour that you pleaded with the FA to reduce subs to 5 to be fair to you

[Corporate Ho]

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.

 

Read the list of players I listed above that were at your club and then if you wish to justify your position, tell me how much they were being paid and what their transfer fees were. Then tell me what the club's income was. That is the only way that you can convince us that you could afford them.

 

OK, you asked for it.

 

Your list of players is misleading regarding the cup win because quite a few of them didn't play in the cup for us or just for one game (e.g. Defoe was cup tied, Benjani went to Man City that January). Plus it's hard to take you entirely seriously when you say we had "international players" like Djimi Traore available. However, you asked for their transfer fees and wages so here you go. Wages are roughly what has been reported they were on

 

James cost £1.2m and was on £40K a week

Campbell came on a free and his wages included the infamous image rights but as estimated at about £70K a week

Johnson £4m/ £40K

Defoe £6m/ £50K

Diarra £5.5m/ £50K

Pamarot £2.5m/ £25K

Hreidarsson Free/ £25K

Utaka £7m (FFS)/ £30K

Diop £3.5m/ £25K

Distin Free/ £50K

Lauren £500K/ £40K

Muntari £7m/ £50K

Kranjcar £3.5m/ £30K

Benjani £4m/ £25K

Traore £1m/ £20K

Mendes £2.5M/ £25K

 

Our wage bill that season was £54.7m according to this article

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt

 

by David Conn in The Guardian and places our wages to turnover ratio at 76% (too high but worth noting well below your ration in winning promotion last year). Also worth noting that Pompey were just one of 13 clubs whose wages to turnover ratio was above the 60% suggested. Our debts were estimated at £57.7m which are high but well below or about on par with the likes of Villa (£73m) Bolton (£53m) Fulham (£197m!!) Boro (93m) Newcastle (£106m) Sunderland (£69m) and Wigan (66.4m). Of course, it depends if the debt is serviceable but the likes of Fulham, Boro & Wigan look very vulnerable should their benefactors bail out.

 

The cost of bringing those players into the club was around £48m but that was spread over three or four years.

 

Now, that's a lot of money. However, according to the same article, our turnover that season was £70.5m, up from £40.2m the previous year, mostly due to the increase in SKY money but also partly due to money from the cup run. So, whilst the ratio of wages to T/O was too high it wasn't impossibly high given the money coming in.

 

The question is, if the debt then was £58m, how did we get to the huge debt that took us into administration? Of course we paid wages but a lot of those players left a season later, especially the big earners so how did the debt keep increasing to the levels they did? Look at the fees we got for some of those players:

 

Johnson £17.5m

Defoe £15.75m

Diarra £18.9m

Muntari £13m

Kranjcar £2.5m

Benjani £4m

Mendes £3m

 

By my reckoning those sales brought somewhere close to £75m into the club which should have been more than enough to scale the debt down to manageable levels.

 

So to answer your question whilst the wages were high, they were roughly in line with what other PL clubs wages to T/O ratio was and by losing two or three of the really high earners and using their transfer fees sensibly should have seen us continue in the top flight. But the scale of the wages certainly weren't out of line with what most other PL clubs were paying

 

HTH

[eurosaint]

OK, you asked for it.

 

Your list of players is misleading regarding the cup win because quite a few of them didn't play in the cup for us or just for one game (e.g. Defoe was cup tied, Benjani went to Man City that January). Plus it's hard to take you entirely seriously when you say we had "international players" like Djimi Traore available. However, you asked for their transfer fees and wages so here you go. Wages are roughly what has been reported they were on

 

James cost £1.2m and was on £40K a week

Campbell came on a free and his wages included the infamous image rights but as estimated at about £70K a week

Johnson £4m/ £40K

Defoe £6m/ £50K

Diarra £5.5m/ £50K

Pamarot £2.5m/ £25K

Hreidarsson Free/ £25K

Utaka £7m (FFS)/ £30K

Diop £3.5m/ £25K

Distin Free/ £50K

Lauren £500K/ £40K

Muntari £7m/ £50K

Kranjcar £3.5m/ £30K

Benjani £4m/ £25K

Traore £1m/ £20K

Mendes £2.5M/ £25K

 

Our wage bill that season was £54.7m according to this article

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt

 

by David Conn in The Guardian and places our wages to turnover ratio at 76% (too high but worth noting well below your ration in winning promotion last year). Also worth noting that Pompey were just one of 13 clubs whose wages to turnover ratio was above the 60% suggested. Our debts were estimated at £57.7m which are high but well below or about on par with the likes of Villa (£73m) Bolton (£53m) Fulham (£197m!!) Boro (93m) Newcastle (£106m) Sunderland (£69m) and Wigan (66.4m). Of course, it depends if the debt is serviceable but the likes of Fulham, Boro & Wigan look very vulnerable should their benefactors bail out.

 

The cost of bringing those players into the club was around £48m but that was spread over three or four years.

 

Now, that's a lot of money. However, according to the same article, our turnover that season was £70.5m, up from £40.2m the previous year, mostly due to the increase in SKY money but also partly due to money from the cup run. So, whilst the ratio of wages to T/O was too high it wasn't impossibly high given the money coming in.

 

The question is, if the debt then was £58m, how did we get to the huge debt that took us into administration? Of course we paid wages but a lot of those players left a season later, especially the big earners so how did the debt keep increasing to the levels they did? Look at the fees we got for some of those players:

 

Johnson £17.5m

Defoe £15.75m

Diarra £18.9m

Muntari £13m

Kranjcar £2.5m

Benjani £4m

Mendes £3m

By my reckoning those sales brought somewhere close to £75m into the club which should have been more than enough to scale the debt down to manageable levels.

 

So to answer your question whilst the wages were high, they were roughly in line with what other PL clubs wages to T/O ratio was and by losing two or three of the really high earners and using their transfer fees sensibly should have seen us continue in the top flight. But the scale of the wages certainly weren't out of line with what most other PL clubs were paying

 

HTH

 

So you sold players for £75mil and soon after went under with unpaid debts of around £100mil !!!

Most people would smell a rat here, but you seem to think that all was hunky dory !

And you wonder why we refer to you as 'thick Skates' !

[aintforever]

LOL at Corp Ho's make-believe figures.

 

Typical thick skate, he was probably looking at Blackpool last season not understanding why they havn't splashed out on 5 current England internationals to keep them up!

[sidthesquid]

So you sold players for £75mil and soon after went under with unpaid debts of around £100mil !!!

Most people would smell a rat here, but you seem to think that all was hunky dory !

And you wonder why we refer to you as 'thick Skates' !

 

To be fair, with the bullsh1t-filter on, there is a grain of truth in what he says, and he does 'get it' that all was not right. Incidentally, Ho, what do you suppose our wage/turnover ratio was last season, and how did you reach the figure you suggest you know? Genuinely interested.

[Weston Super Saint]

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt

 

by David Conn in The Guardian Our debts were estimated at £57.7m

 

By my reckoning those sales brought somewhere close to £75m into the club which should have been more than enough to scale the debt down to manageable levels.

 

That is of course if you believe that the debts were indeed £58m in the first place.

 

It would be much easier to tell if Pompey had followed the rules and published their accounts for the years in question, but since they didn't I guess the only source for those figures is a reporter from the Guardian!

 

I'm guessing the reporter was told those figures by someone at the club, maybe a certain Mr Storyteller, who let's face it had no reason not to lie

 

May I be so bold as to suggest that the debt figure was probably closer to at least £100m, for the simple reason that the gun runner had been syphoning off money from the company for a number of years, then when he did a runner from the bankrupt company, still had the cheek to demand many more millions

 

For the record Ho, I have no proof that the gun runner was taking the money, but even you and pfc would have to agree that it's a far more sensible suggestion to explain where the missing millions went!

[rallyboy]

A valid post from Ho!....

And finally I think we all agree.

 

 

 

Yes it does look like financial irregularities - bring on the hefty points deduction and the trip to Luton Town.

[Wes Tender]

OK, you asked for it.

 

Your list of players is misleading regarding the cup win because quite a few of them didn't play in the cup for us or just for one game (e.g. Defoe was cup tied, Benjani went to Man City that January). Plus it's hard to take you entirely seriously when you say we had "international players" like Djimi Traore available.

 

Well, even against feeble opposition in the cup, you were able to field James, Johnson, Campbell, Distin, Hreidarsson and Krancjar in every match. Then there were several other quality players that played several matches, players like Utaka (4), Mendes (3), Diarra (5), Diop (5), Muntari (4), Kanu (5). Other players like Baros, Lauren, Pamarot etc either came on as subs or were on the bench, so don't come this attitude that my list was misleading.

 

Our debts were estimated at £57.7m which are high but well below or about on par with the likes of Villa (£73m) Bolton (£53m) Fulham (£197m!!) Boro (93m) Newcastle (£106m) Sunderland (£69m) and Wigan (66.4m). Of course, it depends if the debt is serviceable but the likes of Fulham, Boro & Wigan look very vulnerable should their benefactors bail out.

 

You've just got to laugh at the comparisons between you and those clubs, nearly all of whom have much larger stadium capacities, better stadiums (apart from Fulham's, which is almost as crappy as Pompey's), better facilities and infrastructure and generally a better class of owner than the gun runners, fake sheiks, Russian mafia, that is attracted to you.

 

 

But thanks for answering on behalf of pfc123 and at the same time exposing the very reason why we pour scorn on the Skates, whose figures according to you, should have been sustainable and yet you went under owing £130 million and cheated the taxpayer, local businesses, charities and schools.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

OK, you asked for it.

 

Your list of players is misleading regarding the cup win because quite a few of them didn't play in the cup for us or just for one game (e.g. Defoe was cup tied, Benjani went to Man City that January). Plus it's hard to take you entirely seriously when you say we had "international players" like Djimi Traore available.

 

Well, even against feeble opposition in the cup, you were able to field James, Johnson, Campbell, Distin, Hreidarsson and Krancjar in every match. Then there were several other quality players that played several matches, players like Utaka (4), Mendes (3), Diarra (5), Diop (5), Muntari (4), Kanu (5). Other players like Baros, Lauren, Pamarot etc either came on as subs or were on the bench, so don't come this attitude that my list was misleading.

 

Our debts were estimated at £57.7m which are high but well below or about on par with the likes of Villa (£73m) Bolton (£53m) Fulham (£197m!!) Boro (93m) Newcastle (£106m) Sunderland (£69m) and Wigan (66.4m). Of course, it depends if the debt is serviceable but the likes of Fulham, Boro & Wigan look very vulnerable should their benefactors bail out.

 

You've just got to laugh at the comparisons between you and those clubs, nearly all of whom have much larger stadium capacities, better stadiums (apart from Fulham's, which is almost as crappy as Pompey's), better facilities and infrastructure and generally a better class of owner than the gun runners, fake sheiks, Russian mafia, that is attracted to you.

 

HTH

 

But thanks for answering on behalf of pfc123 and at the same time exposing the very reason why we pour scorn on the Skates, whose figures according to you, should have been sustainable and yet you went under owing £130 million and cheated the taxpayer, local businesses, charities and schools.

 

Methinks the thick skate will finally realise he's got it when he's read this.

 

A big thanks to the Crack Whore for the evidence which should finally help the courts/FL etc. and lead to the closing/relegation/points deduction of DFCSB FC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's more to come? How remiss of me.

[Frank's cousin]

A couple of points:

 

1. Yes many Premiership clubs have major debt and in many of these cases, just like Pompey, the debt has been accumulated through buying players they simply could not afford and paying wages beyond what is reasonable for a club of that size. The excuse that others are doing the same, is not one that washes with me. Most Saints fans will probably hate me for saying this, but its probably the one thing I admire Rupert Lowe for. He refused to borrow money to buy players or play stupid wages - preferring to invest in infrastructure and the acedemy. As a result we tended to break even each year, had cash reserves and paid dividends on any small profits we made - and Saints fans must acknowledge that they hated Lowe for it - wanting to see the kind of spending seen at other clubs. Ultimately because we did not borrow (cheat ( and yes I consider all clubs that borrow amounts greater than their asset values in stupid attempts to gain success or stay up to be cheats)), and spend big coupled with a some seriously stupid errors in the manager department by the board - getting in cheque book (prefer cash)Charlie in form your place being one of them - it cost us a place in the prem - see we were relegated BECAUSE we lived within our means...

 

Yes we had a change of board that decided to spend a bit of cash (that we had) IMHO stupidly on a promotion bid, with it not working, we lost 3 mil or so as we still had some players on prem contracts that we had not been able to sell, or had the 50% salary clause -.... so what did we do then... did we spend more? Did we sign up more players on wages that would increase the debt? NO, Lowe came back, shipped out everybody, and ordered a cheap dutch duo to play kids as they were cheap... now he may have been doing this to save his shareholding, rather than through morals, but the FACT is that the club did everything it could to not only live within its means but also REDUCE the small debt we had - all the time, as previously stated, never missing a mortgage payment, never missing a TAX/HMRC payment or players/staff wages or bills... which agin meant we spent feck all on players and were relegated again... ARE YOU getting it now?

 

Its not about your FA cup run, or your warped thinking that somehow we are envious... its about your inabilty to accept that IT WAS WRONG, just as its wrong that those other clubs mentioned are building debts beyond what is acceptable and are also 'cheating' those clubs who live within their means from a place in the prem or in a cup competition - accept it. The FA and prem league had an opportunity to finnally get clubs to sort their finance out, yet were spineless... as always as dominated by other debt ridden cheats at the tree.... so you to date have gotten away with it and that is what makes me angry

 

I am sorry but your figures do not 'add up' - Your purchase prices for players only reflect what the other clubs received, not what else was paid in sign on fees, agent fees and whatever.. I have no idea whether anything dodgy happened as well to compound the situation, but frankly that is irrelevent - because a club with a 20K gate, even with the Sky monies and a cup run of 2m (yes they are LOW) must be out of its mind spending like you did to build that squad...absolutel stupidity.... and to say it was caused by the world financial crisis is absurd... the source of Gaydamaks 'wealth' - is at best 'ambiguous' and I suggest there was never a chance he would be in a position to bankroll 120mil of spending (remember spening on TOP of that, within your turnover)... which brings us nicely to the final moral/ethical point - were you happy celebrating a cup win funded by the Gaydamaks millions anyway, given the source of their family wealth?

[Sevvy]

A couple of points:

 

1. Yes many Premiership clubs have major debt and in many of these cases, just like Pompey, the debt has been accumulated through buying players they simply could not afford and paying wages beyond what is reasonable for a club of that size. The excuse that others are doing the same, is not one that washes with me. Most Saints fans will probably hate me for saying this, but its probably the one thing I admire Rupert Lowe for. He refused to borrow money to buy players or play stupid wages - preferring to invest in infrastructure and the acedemy. As a result we tended to break even each year, had cash reserves and paid dividends on any small profits we made - and Saints fans must acknowledge that they hated Lowe for it - wanting to see the kind of spending seen at other clubs. Ultimately because we did not borrow (cheat ( and yes I consider all clubs that borrow amounts greater than their asset values in stupid attempts to gain success or stay up to be cheats)), and spend big coupled with a some seriously stupid errors in the manager department by the board - getting in cheque book (prefer cash)Charlie in form your place being one of them - it cost us a place in the prem - see we were relegated BECAUSE we lived within our means...

 

Yes we had a change of board that decided to spend a bit of cash (that we had) IMHO stupidly on a promotion bid, with it not working, we lost 3 mil or so as we still had some players on prem contracts that we had not been able to sell, or had the 50% salary clause -.... so what did we do then... did we spend more? Did we sign up more players on wages that would increase the debt? NO, Lowe came back, shipped out everybody, and ordered a cheap dutch duo to play kids as they were cheap... now he may have been doing this to save his shareholding, rather than through morals, but the FACT is that the club did everything it could to not only live within its means but also REDUCE the small debt we had - all the time, as previously stated, never missing a mortgage payment, never missing a TAX/HMRC payment or players/staff wages or bills... which agin meant we spent feck all on players and were relegated again... ARE YOU getting it now?

 

Its not about your FA cup run, or your warped thinking that somehow we are envious... its about your inabilty to accept that IT WAS WRONG, just as its wrong that those other clubs mentioned are building debts beyond what is acceptable and are also 'cheating' those clubs who live within their means from a place in the prem or in a cup competition - accept it. The FA and prem league had an opportunity to finnally get clubs to sort their finance out, yet were spineless... as always as dominated by other debt ridden cheats at the tree.... so you to date have gotten away with it and that is what makes me angry

 

I am sorry but your figures do not 'add up' - Your purchase prices for players only reflect what the other clubs received, not what else was paid in sign on fees, agent fees and whatever.. I have no idea whether anything dodgy happened as well to compound the situation, but frankly that is irrelevent - because a club with a 20K gate, even with the Sky monies and a cup run of 2m (yes they are LOW) must be out of its mind spending like you did to build that squad...absolutel stupidity.... and to say it was caused by the world financial crisis is absurd... the source of Gaydamaks 'wealth' - is at best 'ambiguous' and I suggest there was never a chance he would be in a position to bankroll 120mil of spending (remember spening on TOP of that, within your turnover)... which brings us nicely to the final moral/ethical point - were you happy celebrating a cup win funded by the Gaydamaks millions anyway, given the source of their family wealth?

 

FC, I have to say, that is the best post in weeks.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

FC, I have to say, that is the best post in weeks.

 

Indeed, a very good post which sadly rather unravelled when morals and ethics were mentioned in conjunction with a skate FA cup win.

[trousers]

A couple of points:

 

1. Yes many Premiership clubs have major debt and in many of these cases, just like Pompey, the debt has been accumulated through buying players they simply could not afford and paying wages beyond what is reasonable for a club of that size. The excuse that others are doing the same, is not one that washes with me. Most Saints fans will probably hate me for saying this, but its probably the one thing I admire Rupert Lowe for. He refused to borrow money to buy players or play stupid wages - preferring to invest in infrastructure and the acedemy. As a result we tended to break even each year, had cash reserves and paid dividends on any small profits we made - and Saints fans must acknowledge that they hated Lowe for it - wanting to see the kind of spending seen at other clubs. Ultimately because we did not borrow (cheat ( and yes I consider all clubs that borrow amounts greater than their asset values in stupid attempts to gain success or stay up to be cheats)), and spend big coupled with a some seriously stupid errors in the manager department by the board - getting in cheque book (prefer cash)Charlie in form your place being one of them - it cost us a place in the prem - see we were relegated BECAUSE we lived within our means...

 

Yes we had a change of board that decided to spend a bit of cash (that we had) IMHO stupidly on a promotion bid, with it not working, we lost 3 mil or so as we still had some players on prem contracts that we had not been able to sell, or had the 50% salary clause -.... so what did we do then... did we spend more? Did we sign up more players on wages that would increase the debt? NO, Lowe came back, shipped out everybody, and ordered a cheap dutch duo to play kids as they were cheap... now he may have been doing this to save his shareholding, rather than through morals, but the FACT is that the club did everything it could to not only live within its means but also REDUCE the small debt we had - all the time, as previously stated, never missing a mortgage payment, never missing a TAX/HMRC payment or players/staff wages or bills... which agin meant we spent feck all on players and were relegated again... ARE YOU getting it now?

 

Its not about your FA cup run, or your warped thinking that somehow we are envious... its about your inabilty to accept that IT WAS WRONG, just as its wrong that those other clubs mentioned are building debts beyond what is acceptable and are also 'cheating' those clubs who live within their means from a place in the prem or in a cup competition - accept it. The FA and prem league had an opportunity to finnally get clubs to sort their finance out, yet were spineless... as always as dominated by other debt ridden cheats at the tree.... so you to date have gotten away with it and that is what makes me angry

 

I am sorry but your figures do not 'add up' - Your purchase prices for players only reflect what the other clubs received, not what else was paid in sign on fees, agent fees and whatever.. I have no idea whether anything dodgy happened as well to compound the situation, but frankly that is irrelevent - because a club with a 20K gate, even with the Sky monies and a cup run of 2m (yes they are LOW) must be out of its mind spending like you did to build that squad...absolutel stupidity.... and to say it was caused by the world financial crisis is absurd... the source of Gaydamaks 'wealth' - is at best 'ambiguous' and I suggest there was never a chance he would be in a position to bankroll 120mil of spending (remember spening on TOP of that, within your turnover)... which brings us nicely to the final moral/ethical point - were you happy celebrating a cup win funded by the Gaydamaks millions anyway, given the source of their family wealth?

 

In other words...

 

They. Just. Don't. Get. It.

[Gingeletiss]

In other words...

 

They. Just. Don't. Get. It.

 

Never have, and never will!

[southbourne saint]

Can anyone out there post when the the court case with Storrie and Mandaric is to be completed and also when Harry and the others case is due to start. Surely the future of the Skates is resting heavily on the results of these cases, also why has it gone so quiet on the court case front.

[suewhistle]

Just to highlight a bit from the press predictions thread - from The Guardian article:

 

Portsmouth are dark horses, with stability off the pitch and a talented, experienced manager in Steve Cotterill

 

;-)

[pfc123]

Can anyone out there post when the the court case with Storrie and Mandaric is to be completed and also when Harry and the others case is due to start. Surely the future of the Skates is resting heavily on the results of these cases, also why has it gone so quiet on the court case front.

 

No. Nothing will happen to the club.......

[Corporate Ho]

So you sold players for £75mil and soon after went under with unpaid debts of around £100mil !!!

Most people would smell a rat here, but you seem to think that all was hunky dory !

And you wonder why we refer to you as 'thick Skates' !

 

Err, the whole point that I was making was that money we should have received seemed to go missing, as others have pointed out to you. Who's the tick one here? LOL

 

To be fair, with the bullsh1t-filter on, there is a grain of truth in what he says, and he does 'get it' that all was not right. Incidentally, Ho, what do you suppose our wage/turnover ratio was last season, and how did you reach the figure you suggest you know? Genuinely interested.

 

I got the figures from your accounts released this year. Having checked they were actually from the season before but wages were £12.2m against a T/O of £14.28m. 85% of turnover

 

That is of course if you believe that the debts were indeed £58m in the first place.

 

It would be much easier to tell if Pompey had followed the rules and published their accounts for the years in question, but since they didn't I guess the only source for those figures is a reporter from the Guardian!

 

I'm guessing the reporter was told those figures by someone at the club, maybe a certain Mr Storyteller, who let's face it had no reason not to lie

 

If you'd bothered to read the article properly you'd have seen that at the top it says: "All details from most recently filed official information at Companies House."

 

A valid post from Ho!....

And finally I think we all agree.

 

Yes it does look like financial irregularities - bring on the hefty points deduction and the trip to Luton Town.

 

Big difference. if money was siphoned off then PFC were the victim, not the perpetrator. Read the PL administration guidelines which were quoted when we went into admin.

 

But thanks for answering on behalf of pfc123 and at the same time exposing the very reason why we pour scorn on the Skates, whose figures according to you, should have been sustainable and yet you went under owing £130 million and cheated the taxpayer, local businesses, charities and schools.

 

No idea of the point you're trying to make. So other clubs have bigger stadiums etc. So what? We paid £48m for players over three years, had income of at least £150m from SKY in that time and recouped (or should have) £75m+ from sales. They may have bigger stadiums but the figures are there in black and white. Our income was almost as substantial, if not more so, than many ofthose clubs

 

A couple of points:

 

1. Yes many Premiership clubs have major debt and in many of these cases, just like Pompey, the debt has been accumulated through buying players they simply could not afford and paying wages beyond what is reasonable for a club of that size. The excuse that others are doing the same, is not one that washes with me. Most Saints fans will probably hate me for saying this, but its probably the one thing I admire Rupert Lowe for. He refused to borrow money to buy players or play stupid wages - preferring to invest in infrastructure and the acedemy. As a result we tended to break even each year, had cash reserves and paid dividends on any small profits we made - and Saints fans must acknowledge that they hated Lowe for it - wanting to see the kind of spending seen at other clubs. Ultimately because we did not borrow (cheat ( and yes I consider all clubs that borrow amounts greater than their asset values in stupid attempts to gain success or stay up to be cheats)), and spend big coupled with a some seriously stupid errors in the manager department by the board - getting in cheque book (prefer cash)Charlie in form your place being one of them - it cost us a place in the prem - see we were relegated BECAUSE we lived within our means...

 

Yes we had a change of board that decided to spend a bit of cash (that we had) IMHO stupidly on a promotion bid, with it not working, we lost 3 mil or so as we still had some players on prem contracts that we had not been able to sell, or had the 50% salary clause -.... so what did we do then... did we spend more? Did we sign up more players on wages that would increase the debt? NO, Lowe came back, shipped out everybody, and ordered a cheap dutch duo to play kids as they were cheap... now he may have been doing this to save his shareholding, rather than through morals, but the FACT is that the club did everything it could to not only live within its means but also REDUCE the small debt we had - all the time, as previously stated, never missing a mortgage payment, never missing a TAX/HMRC payment or players/staff wages or bills... which agin meant we spent feck all on players and were relegated again... ARE YOU getting it now?

 

Its not about your FA cup run, or your warped thinking that somehow we are envious... its about your inabilty to accept that IT WAS WRONG, just as its wrong that those other clubs mentioned are building debts beyond what is acceptable and are also 'cheating' those clubs who live within their means from a place in the prem or in a cup competition - accept it. The FA and prem league had an opportunity to finnally get clubs to sort their finance out, yet were spineless... as always as dominated by other debt ridden cheats at the tree.... so you to date have gotten away with it and that is what makes me angry

 

I am sorry but your figures do not 'add up' - Your purchase prices for players only reflect what the other clubs received, not what else was paid in sign on fees, agent fees and whatever.. I have no idea whether anything dodgy happened as well to compound the situation, but frankly that is irrelevent - because a club with a 20K gate, even with the Sky monies and a cup run of 2m (yes they are LOW) must be out of its mind spending like you did to build that squad...absolutel stupidity.... and to say it was caused by the world financial crisis is absurd... the source of Gaydamaks 'wealth' - is at best 'ambiguous' and I suggest there was never a chance he would be in a position to bankroll 120mil of spending (remember spening on TOP of that, within your turnover)... which brings us nicely to the final moral/ethical point - were you happy celebrating a cup win funded by the Gaydamaks millions anyway, given the source of their family wealth?

 

You need to read the stats again. Whilst I agree that the figures don’t show agents fees etc the fact is that across just a two year period our turnover was in excess of £110m so whilst the turnover to wages ratio was high it wasn’t in excess of 100% as many have stated on here. The fact that we only had £20K gates is almost irrelevant because if you look at the gate receipts from all PL clubs Pompey’s income from this revenue stream was actually higher than a lot of other clubs, especially the northern based ones partly due to the Wembley gate money but also because we were charging so much for tickets at Fratton back then. Incidentally, where does your figure of £120m of spending come from? I don’t understand where you’ve pulled that from. And to contradict you, the figures do “add up”. The fact that we pulled in £75m+ in transfer fees show that while we spent a lot on players and wages, our total income across three years (including the fees we got when we sold some of those players) was around £220m (adding in another year’s SKY money to what I’ve already quoted). And if that money was siphoned off from the club then PFC are a victim of a crime.

Onto your second point about the source of Gaydamak’s wealth, again I think you need to check your facts. I’m assuming that you believe that Gaydamak Snr built his wealth through arms dealing. In fact, he built his fortune largely through oil in Angola, not arms. The arms deal was a by product of his relationship with the Angolan government. If you feel so strongly about arms dealing I suggest you emigrate to a different country because UK arms companies, fully sanctioned by British governments that you vote for are responsible for far more death and misery than the arms that Gaydamak brokered to Angola. So if Gaydamak’s money contributed to our cup win then I have no problem with celebrating it

The constant “they don’t get it” thing is silly. You think we should be punished for spending beyond our means but we were punished to the full extent that the football authorities allowed. Just because that didn’t include PFC being dissolved and all our assets burned and scattered to the four corners of the earth that you’d have liked to have seen doesn’t mean we “got away with it”. We were punished within the rules, same as you were. If you don’t like that, bad luck I’m afraid. Your wage bill is incredibly high compared to your income and you still don’t know how that’s being funded, if the Liebherr’s are giving you the money or if it’s a loan to be paid back some time. Your fans were very keen for Paul Allen to buy you and spunk millions on turning you into a “global brand” – there weren’t too many dissenting voices back then.

 

 

Can anyone out there post when the the court case with Storrie and Mandaric is to be completed and also when Harry and the others case is due to start. Surely the future of the Skates is resting heavily on the results of these cases, also why has it gone so quiet on the court case front.

 

It's been postponed until December because the judge fell ill. Posted this at least three times now

[rallyboy]

Despite the rules suggesting otherwise, I'd be surprised if they get hit as a result of the current tax cases (if there are convictions) - BUT what of the forensic investigation into the accounts - any sign of wrongdoing yet?

After all that was included as a key element to the joke CVA and AA's involvement.

The financial world is still watching - and awaiting explanations of AA's amazing increasing and decreasing debt mountain, as well as the whole insolvent trading issue.

That could be a likelier source of trouble.