Pompey Takeover Saga

[Gemmel]

Chainrai agreed to pay the small creditors. It's a matter of public record. So let him pay them

 

I'm no expert on financial law but, the 2.5k payments is documented within the CVA and the reports compiled from the administrators, as such they became a formal liability of pompey2010 ltd or whatever it is called.

 

I think it is safe to assume that part of the csi deal would be the fact that they would assume responsibility of all liabilities (CVA etc etc.) so I can't see any reason why the new guys wouldn't be responsible for it.

 

Well see - It might give us an indication of their intentions towards the first CVA payment.

[Minsk]

"Similarly the fact that we have now paid in full the three main charities (Tom Prince, Harbour Cancer Trust and Faith & Football) that were owed money by the old company is part of that same process. We said that we wanted to have this done by Christmas and we have now, I hope, put to bed one of the most shameful aspects of the legacy we inherited. Our best wishes go out to each of those charities for the coming year."

http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/David-Lampitt-s-January-Diary-1771.aspx

 

 

So, Lampitt says, THE THREE MAIN CHARITIES were paid.

 

What about the rest of them??????

[Weston Super Saint]

So, Lampitt says, THE THREE MAIN CHARITIES were paid.

 

What about the rest of them??????

 

NOT paid.

[Corporate Ho]

So, Lampitt says, THE THREE MAIN CHARITIES were paid.

 

What about the rest of them??????

 

What other ones were there? The only one I'm aware of is the St John's Ambulance and that was paid before January thanks to the fans. If you can tell me the names of other charities that haven't been paid I'll try and find out for you

 

Anyway, what about your low gates and not going/ boycotting because Lowe was trying to get you trading within your means. Let's get back to that. That is what the "boycott" was about wasn't it? No-one seems to have voiced any vehement disagreement to Depressed's post explaining it to me

[Sevvy]

All this Cr4p about whose attendance is bigger than the other is a waste of time, all attendances go up and down depending on a lot of different things,does it really matter,

 

Ho, I think Minsk meant the rest of the £2500 brigade, but that may or maybe not paid by this new lot if they feel like starting payments to the CVA,

 

Anyway when is the court case going to get re-started, then the fun may begin.

[Gemmel]

Anyway, what about your low gates and not going/ boycotting because Lowe was trying to get you trading within your means. Let's get back to that. That is what the "boycott" was about wasn't it? No-one seems to have voiced any vehement disagreement to Depressed's post explaining it to me

 

People were boycotting mainly just because of the fact that lowe as back. The "Club" had become a toy, being passed around a group of businessmen. The "living within our means", would have happnened (And was happening) whoever was in charge so it wasn't really that, although as per any club, there would have been people that wouldnt go just beacuse the club werent winning, as much.

[saintjay77]

What other ones were there? The only one I'm aware of is the St John's Ambulance and that was paid before January thanks to the fans. If you can tell me the names of other charities that haven't been paid I'll try and find out for you

 

Anyway, what about your low gates and not going/ boycotting because Lowe was trying to get you trading within your means. Let's get back to that. That is what the "boycott" was about wasn't it? No-one seems to have voiced any vehement disagreement to Depressed's post explaining it to me

 

I must have misheard all the anti lowe songs and misread the anti lowe banners all over the place then. People just stopped going because it wasnt very good at saints and had naff all to do with lowe being at the club. I also must of imagined the gates increasing during the time that lowe was out of the club, or maybe it was pure coincedence?

 

The club was doing bad and everyone pointed the finger at Lowe. many of the fans that boycotted home matches did so because Lowe was at the club and it was down to him that we were in the position that we were.

 

We have our fair share of plastics that didnt go because they didnt want to see our youth team get stuffed by 3rd teir teams and plenty of people that prefered to spend their hard earned on more worthwhile things. But how you can argue that there was no boycott associated with lowe is beyond me. I know you follow a lesser club that was having its 5 mins in the spot light n all but I am amazed that you choose not to see the wood through the trees on this.

 

Argueing for the sake of it just makes you look like a tool so i suggest its probably worth dropping and finding something else to debate about.

 

How do your supporters feel about the club spending out on expensive players while it continues to side step paying back the locals?

[JackFrost]

What other ones were there? The only one I'm aware of is the St John's Ambulance and that was paid before January thanks to the fans. If you can tell me the names of other charities that haven't been paid I'll try and find out for you

 

Anyway, what about your low gates and not going/ boycotting because Lowe was trying to get you trading within your means. Let's get back to that. That is what the "boycott" was about wasn't it? No-one seems to have voiced any vehement disagreement to Depressed's post explaining it to me

 

Nope,

 

There was a civil war in the boardroom between Lowe Wilde and Crouch (not Peter Crouch, Leon Crouch to make it clear for you) and each were alternating in ****ing the club up. Wilde's empty promises, his appointment of Hone & Dulieu who nearly got us involved with SISU (Ask Coventry City fans what they think of them). Then shortly after Wilde promised he would never have anything to do with Lowe again, he returned in a joint bid with Lowe to oust Crouch. They then proceeded to get rid of Nigel Pearson (who many thought had done a very good job here) and employ two clueless Dutchmen namely Poortvliet and Wotte to bring "Total Football" to st Mary's when they actually bought "total crap" for most of the season.

 

The protests were against Lowe, Wilde & Crouch and other people like hangers-on like Trant, over the mismanagement of the club. The fans' boycott was against all of them (ie. the 'conspiracy' that Sky, the BBC and various other national and local media all bought into which resulted in our attendances plummeting)

 

You are clearly woefully ignorant about our history in that period.

Edited 22 August, 2011 by JackFrost

[JackFrost]

I must have misheard all the anti lowe songs and misread the anti lowe banners all over the place then. People just stopped going because it wasnt very good at saints and had naff all to do with lowe being at the club. I also must of imagined the gates increasing during the time that lowe was out of the club, or maybe it was pure coincedence?

 

The club was doing bad and everyone pointed the finger at Lowe. many of the fans that boycotted home matches did so because Lowe was at the club and it was down to him that we were in the position that we were.

 

We have our fair share of plastics that didnt go because they didnt want to see our youth team get stuffed by 3rd teir teams and plenty of people that prefered to spend their hard earned on more worthwhile things. But how you can argue that there was no boycott associated with lowe is beyond me. I know you follow a lesser club that was having its 5 mins in the spot light n all but I am amazed that you choose not to see the wood through the trees on this.

 

Argueing for the sake of it just makes you look like a tool so i suggest its probably worth dropping and finding something else to debate about.

 

How do your supporters feel about the club spending out on expensive players while it continues to side step paying back the locals?

 

"Swing Lowe" anyone?

 

a 1 2 3, All together now. . .

[Minsk]

Harbour cancer support,here in Gosport,are still owed monies by PFC.

 

Portsmouth FC disgust me,in every way possible.

 

And defending them is tantamount to condoning their actions.

 

What other ones were there? The only one I'm aware of is the St John's Ambulance and that was paid before January thanks to the fans. If you can tell me the names of other charities that haven't been paid I'll try and find out for you

 

Anyway, what about your low gates and not going/ boycotting because Lowe was trying to get you trading within your means. Let's get back to that. That is what the "boycott" was about wasn't it? No-one seems to have voiced any vehement disagreement to Depressed's post explaining it to me

 

Well, there's one! And, as you say, the fans paid St John Ambulance NOT the club. Do you not think the club should make a 'donation' at least equivalent to the money they owed? Once more, THE CLUB DID NOT pay said charity.

 

I am certain there are also others, otherwise Lampitt would have rephraed his statement. If there were no other charities he would have said the three main ones.

 

As for boycotting, it's a bit hard to do so from Belarus. I always take in matches that I can when visiting the UK, no matter how well or badly Saints are doing. I can understand the reasoning behind those who did boycott matches, but it is something I could never do.

 

Anyway, attendances is a pointless arguement - unless you are willing to make a bet with me? Money to charity? If the Skates get a higher average attendance than Saints this season I will pay £100 to a cancer charity; if saints have the highest attendane you pay £100 to a cancer charity. You up for the bet? I mean, it doesn't reallt matter whether you are or not does it? You can just say you are and then refuse to pay the cancer charity at a later date; just like the sh!tty team you support!!!!

[scott_saints]

I actually "kind of" agree with Ho. IMO, more people stayed away because we were s**t, rather than in protest of Lowe.

 

Attendance not being so good when team is doing s**t..... Shock.

[Wes Tender]

Anyway, what about your low gates and not going/ boycotting because Lowe was trying to get you trading within your means. Let's get back to that. That is what the "boycott" was about wasn't it? No-one seems to have voiced any vehement disagreement to Depressed's post explaining it to me

 

Look, several posters have explained it to you in plain English, so that even a simpleton could understand it. If you choose to ignore their explanations or to refute them, then bully for you. But you cannot really continue to claim that nobody has attempted to respond about the falling attendance numbers during the boycotts.

 

I suspect that there is a parallel element of your fanbase, some more honourable and moral fans (you must have at least a few), who are also boycotting your matches. Otherwise, you would have to admit that all of your falling attendance was due to the fact that JCL fans were deserting the sinking ship that is Pompey. But of course, if you accept that some of those fans are boycotting your matches on a matter of principle, then it shouldn't be a great feat of imagination to accept that we also had similar fans here, should it?

[holepuncture]

Did those dirty skate bastards ever pay us for our £35k debt which we kindly let go soft?

 

Cortese was a real gent to our skate neighbours, maybe its time the Don turns the heat up a bit and throws a winding up order against them.

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/8111491.Pompey_s_creditor_report_released/

[dingbattigger]

Funny but I thought this thread was about Pompey not Saints

[Micky]

Chainrai agreed to pay the small creditors. It's a matter of public record. So let him pay them

 

Couple of other points. Lampitt says the charities were paid back in January. Would be surprised if they weren't given he's made a public statement:

 

"Similarly the fact that we have now paid in full the three main charities (Tom Prince, Harbour Cancer Trust and Faith & Football) that were owed money by the old company is part of that same process. We said that we wanted to have this done by Christmas and we have now, I hope, put to bed one of the most shameful aspects of the legacy we inherited. Our best wishes go out to each of those charities for the coming year."

http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/David-Lampitt-s-January-Diary-1771.aspx

 

And in that one line you sum it up so neatly. Well neatly for you. Did you not read your own Trusts stance on this whole sorry saga? It's here:

 

http://www.pompeytrust.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=297%3Apompey-trust-on-small-creditors-situation&catid=34%3Ademo-category

 

You are correct. PFC (it would appear) have no legal obligation to pay these outstanding debts. You can wash you hands of them - they are gone.

 

Happy to wallow in the success whilst racking up these debts, you now find it very easy to point the finger at an abscent owner, now that he has left the building.

 

Read the statement again - I think your Trust are trying to highlight a lesson in morals. I could be wrong, but give it a shot anyway eh.

[rallyboy]

without us seeing the precise detail of the most recent takeover it would be standard for the new owners to have taken responsibility for ALL aspects of the business, ie any due income, and any due debt.

 

To think that Chanrai would have made a special effort to retain responsibility for a certain portion of the debt just stretches reality.

 

The club owed the small creditors, so the present owners of the club now owe the small creditors.

 

In the same way, just because Storrie ordered certain items or agreed contracts doesn't mean he owes it not the football club.

 

The club stole the charity money, the club shafted the businesses, the owners bought that responsibility via the CVA they agreed to honour.

Just pay up pompey.

 

And anyone who continues to defend the current regime's lack of activity when it comes to debt clearance by passing blame or saying, yes we don't know the details of the latest change of hands.....

Well I would wager Ben Haim's wagepacket on the Russians being legally responsible for all debt, and if they aren't and £120K is outstanding from Chanrai, they could be local heroes by paying it off themselves from their HUGE fortune, and ripping into those that haven't.

Simple.

 

It seems they haven't done that, so I reckon the circus is still in town - same old show, just different clowns.

Roll up, roll up! - Lampitt and Cotterill dancing like little monkey boys on strings, and the few lapping up every spun word as gospel.

 

 

One little set of figures they can't spin - the league table.

[JackFrost]

Look, several posters have explained it to you in plain English, so that even a simpleton could understand it. If you choose to ignore their explanations or to refute them, then bully for you. But you cannot really continue to claim that nobody has attempted to respond about the falling attendance numbers during the boycotts.

 

I suspect that there is a parallel element of your fanbase, some more honourable and moral fans (you must have at least a few), who are also boycotting your matches. Otherwise, you would have to admit that all of your falling attendance was due to the fact that JCL fans were deserting the sinking ship that is Pompey. But of course, if you accept that some of those fans are boycotting your matches on a matter of principle, then it shouldn't be a great feat of imagination to accept that we also had similar fans here, should it?

 

to which he sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "la la la la la la" and then claims no has explained it.

 

The funniest thing is he just doesn't stop digging

[sidthesquid]

Let's be clear, when I said your boycott was "mythical" I was referring to an something organised and orchestrated en masse by one group rather than people just getting fed up and voting with their feet which is clearly what happened. Nothing wrong with that, you didn't like the "product" so stopped going. Pompey fans had to put up with that for 20 years or so, is it any wonder our gates dropped. Yours halved in a couple of years.

 

But back to depressed's post. What you seem to be saying is that you stopped going because you'd been overspending on players (by £700K a month according to one of your own fans in the replies section to The Echo article) and when Lowe tried to balance the books and you had to play some youth players you didn't like it because you weren't competitive and protested/ boycotted/ stopped going. That is what you wrote, isn't it?

 

 

 

So what you're saying Phil is that Pompey fans you know feel this may be yet another false dawn and aren't prepared to pay £30 for tickets until the new owners prove they're not just another bunch of chancers. That's your reasoning, isn't it? Which is what I've been saying. Thanks for backing my stance, good to know you agree with me

 

 

 

Your "protests" are the same as our "protests". Get taken for a ride, poor value for money/ entertainment - vote with your feet. like I said, we had to put up with that from a succession of owners for 20 years. You try it for that long and see the effect on your gates

 

 

 

Chainrai agreed to pay the small creditors. It's a matter of public record. So let him pay them

 

Couple of other points. Lampitt says the charities were paid back in January. Would be surprised if they weren't given he's made a public statement:

 

"Similarly the fact that we have now paid in full the three main charities (Tom Prince, Harbour Cancer Trust and Faith & Football) that were owed money by the old company is part of that same process. We said that we wanted to have this done by Christmas and we have now, I hope, put to bed one of the most shameful aspects of the legacy we inherited. Our best wishes go out to each of those charities for the coming year."

http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/David-Lampitt-s-January-Diary-1771.aspx

 

Also, on the subject of attendences, I can't believe none of you felt you could share with me the fact that anyone with a ticket can bring along someone under 11 free of charge in the family section. Not knocking it, think it's a great initiative. Just surprised no-one mentioned it in the attendence talk

 

Is it just me or does your heart sink when he comes on here, cluesslessly nit-picking to try to justify some arcane point. I have actually, after avidly reading 800+ pages odd, reached the point where, when I see he is posting again, that I skip the whole section, replies and all.

[Corporate Ho]

People were boycotting mainly just because of the fact that lowe as back. The "Club" had become a toy, being passed around a group of businessmen. The "living within our means", would have happnened (And was happening) whoever was in charge so it wasn't really that, although as per any club, there would have been people that wouldnt go just beacuse the club werent winning, as much.

 

"A toy being passed around a group of businessmen", that would surely describe PFC over the years. So you should understand why so many Pompey fans have become disillusioned with the club and new owner after new owner. But because it suits you you use it as a club to beat us with. Hypocritical of you? You bet

 

I'm not having a go at you for your crowds dipping, just trying to get someone/ anyone on here to recognise the parallels between what happened/ is happening at our clubs and admit that if Saints were in our position with crap owner after crap owner your crowds would suffer too. It's the ridiculous blind assertions by most of your fans on here that things would be different that makes me laugh. If Lowe had come back in and invested loads of cash do you really expect me to believe the "boycotts" would have gone ahead? Of course they wouldn't

 

Nope,

 

There was a civil war in the boardroom between Lowe Wilde and Crouch (not Peter Crouch, Leon Crouch to make it clear for you) and each were alternating in ****ing the club up. Wilde's empty promises, his appointment of Hone & Dulieu who nearly got us involved with SISU (Ask Coventry City fans what they think of them). Then shortly after Wilde promised he would never have anything to do with Lowe again, he returned in a joint bid with Lowe to oust Crouch. They then proceeded to get rid of Nigel Pearson (who many thought had done a very good job here) and employ two clueless Dutchmen namely Poortvliet and Wotte to bring "Total Football" to st Mary's when they actually bought "total crap" for most of the season.

 

The protests were against Lowe, Wilde & Crouch and other people like hangers-on like Trant, over the mismanagement of the club. The fans' boycott was against all of them (ie. the 'conspiracy' that Sky, the BBC and various other national and local media all bought into which resulted in our attendances plummeting)

 

You are clearly woefully ignorant about our history in that period.

 

Like I've said, if Lowe had brought money to the club the crowds wouldn't have suffered. I understand you didn't like him (although that wasn't the case when I first started coming on here) but the vast majority of your fans were staying away because of the crap football and league position. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous. If you'd been near the bottom and Lowe hadn't come back you're telling me you'd still have been averaging what you did the year before?

 

Well, there's one! And, as you say, the fans paid St John Ambulance NOT the club. Do you not think the club should make a 'donation' at least equivalent to the money they owed? Once more, THE CLUB DID NOT pay said charity.

 

I am certain there are also others, otherwise Lampitt would have rephraed his statement. If there were no other charities he would have said the three main ones.

 

If the Skates get a higher average attendance than Saints this season I will pay £100 to a cancer charity; if saints have the highest attendane you pay £100 to a cancer charity. You up for the bet? I mean, it doesn't reallt matter whether you are or not does it? You can just say you are and then refuse to pay the cancer charity at a later date; just like the sh!tty team you support!!!!

 

You'll get higher average attendences. It's a no brainer for all the reasons I've already stated (club doing well gets bigger crowds - it's a no brainer). But PFC have paid the charities they owed. It's not a pleasant part of our recent history but it's been paid.

 

I actually "kind of" agree with Ho. IMO, more people stayed away because we were s**t, rather than in protest of Lowe.

 

Attendance not being so good when team is doing s**t..... Shock.

 

And that's my whole point. Not to say anyone's support is better, just to get people on here to accept that your crowds dropped because the "product" was worse than they were used to. If Lowe came in with a billionaire there would have been the odd dissenting voice but do you really expect me to believe that your crowds would still have dropped?

 

Look, several posters have explained it to you in plain English, so that even a simpleton could understand it. If you choose to ignore their explanations or to refute them, then bully for you. But you cannot really continue to claim that nobody has attempted to respond about the falling attendance numbers during the boycotts.

 

I suspect that there is a parallel element of your fanbase, some more honourable and moral fans (you must have at least a few), who are also boycotting your matches. Otherwise, you would have to admit that all of your falling attendance was due to the fact that JCL fans were deserting the sinking ship that is Pompey. But of course, if you accept that some of those fans are boycotting your matches on a matter of principle, then it shouldn't be a great feat of imagination to accept that we also had similar fans here, should it?

 

See above. Lowe coming back with money would have meant no "boycott" other than by a minority of Lowe haters. You know it and I know it.

 

And in that one line you sum it up so neatly. Well neatly for you. Did you not read your own Trusts stance on this whole sorry saga? It's here:

 

http://www.pompeytrust.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=297%3Apompey-trust-on-small-creditors-situation&catid=34%3Ademo-category

 

You are correct. PFC (it would appear) have no legal obligation to pay these outstanding debts. You can wash you hands of them - they are gone.

 

Happy to wallow in the success whilst racking up these debts, you now find it very easy to point the finger at an abscent owner, now that he has left the building.

 

Read the statement again - I think your Trust are trying to highlight a lesson in morals. I could be wrong, but give it a shot anyway eh.

 

I'm not saying PFC/ the new owners shouldn't pay the small creditors at all. What I meant was that as Chainrai agreed to pay them, he should be held to account and made to pay. IF part of the sale of the club included CSI taking over that debt then of course they should pay it. And before any of you say "but that DIDN'T happen" if Lowe had agreed to pay your creditors out of his own pocket and then left the debt to Liebherr would you really be saying Lowe shouldn't be made to dip his hand in his pocket? No-one's "washing their hands of them". They're creditors and legally entitled to their money

[JackFrost]

"A toy being passed around a group of businessmen", that would surely describe PFC over the years. So you should understand why so many Pompey fans have become disillusioned with the club and new owner after new owner. But because it suits you you use it as a club to beat us with. Hypocritical of you? You bet

 

I'm not having a go at you for your crowds dipping, just trying to get someone/ anyone on here to recognise the parallels between what happened/ is happening at our clubs and admit that if Saints were in our position with crap owner after crap owner your crowds would suffer too. It's the ridiculous blind assertions by most of your fans on here that things would be different that makes me laugh. If Lowe had come back in and invested loads of cash do you really expect me to believe the "boycotts" would have gone ahead? Of course they wouldn't

 

 

 

Like I've said, if Lowe had brought money to the club the crowds wouldn't have suffered. I understand you didn't like him (although that wasn't the case when I first started coming on here) but the vast majority of your fans were staying away because of the crap football and league position. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous. If you'd been near the bottom and Lowe hadn't come back you're telling me you'd still have been averaging what you did the year before?

 

 

 

You'll get higher average attendences. It's a no brainer for all the reasons I've already stated (club doing well gets bigger crowds - it's a no brainer). But PFC have paid the charities they owed. It's not a pleasant part of our recent history but it's been paid.

 

 

 

And that's my whole point. Not to say anyone's support is better, just to get people on here to accept that your crowds dropped because the "product" was worse than they were used to. If Lowe came in with a billionaire there would have been the odd dissenting voice but do you really expect me to believe that your crowds would still have dropped?

 

 

 

See above. Lowe coming back with money would have meant no "boycott" other than by a minority of Lowe haters. You know it and I know it.

 

 

 

I'm not saying PFC/ the new owners shouldn't pay the small creditors at all. What I meant was that as Chainrai agreed to pay them, he should be held to account and made to pay. IF part of the sale of the club included CSI taking over that debt then of course they should pay it. And before any of you say "but that DIDN'T happen" if Lowe had agreed to pay your creditors out of his own pocket and then left the debt to Liebherr would you really be saying Lowe shouldn't be made to dip his hand in his pocket? No-one's "washing their hands of them". They're creditors and legally entitled to their money

 

But he didn't and the fans knew he wouldn't hence why the boycott continued during this period. I'm glad you finally acknowledge there was a boycott and it wasn't all a conspiracy by the major national and local news and our fans pretending it was. Course there were also plenty of fans who stayed away because we were doing badly, it would be the same with any club but there was a well documented boycott which I'm glad you've finally acknowledged.

 

Considering Lowe brought bugger all investment since 1997 why the hell would he have brought any when he came back? Especially when he had Michael "we got our club back" Wilde by his side who promised and spectacularly failed to invest any of his money into the club when he was chairman. With this and after all Lowe, Wilde and Crouch had been more concerned with their personal egos than this club that is why during this entire period there was a boycott.

 

It's no good trying to say we're wrong when your own responses are now backing up our replies, especially when you post the words "I know it" and then prove completely the opposite with the rest of your post.

[Gingeletiss]

"A toy being passed around a group of businessmen", that would surely describe PFC over the years. So you should understand why so many Pompey fans have become disillusioned with the club and new owner after new owner. But because it suits you you use it as a club to beat us with. Hypocritical of you? You bet

 

The difference, which escapes you, is that Saints fans were, on the whole, disgusted by the goings on at St Mary's, whereas, you lot have glorified in what went on at your 'arena'. That includes you, gobbing off about your great cup win, and how you 'demolished' us 1-4, all bought and paid for with taxpayer/charities/small business moneys, as yet not refunded in any way.

[dubai_phil]

So what you're saying Phil is that Pompey fans you know feel this may be yet another false dawn and aren't prepared to pay £30 for tickets until the new owners prove they're not just another bunch of chancers. That's your reasoning, isn't it? Which is what I've been saying. Thanks for backing my stance, good to know you agree with me

 

 

 

Let's just say that there are some very historically long standing fans who get it. They don't try and justify their existence. They will stand up in the pub and defend their right to support their club but at no time have they ever gloated or tried to defend the indefensible.

 

They haven't renewed their ST's for 2 years now they have not heard anything to tell them that they have not fallen into the hands of another ongoing disaster of ownership. they are not boycotting the club or it's owners, they just want to know what the plans are, because right now they simply don't believe anything that comes out of there.

 

They drink most weekends with a bunch of Saints fans showing understanding and respect for what each have been through.

 

What they are NOT are Trolls with multiple persona who enjoy screwing up internet forums.

 

They have sympathy. You are just ITK with your contact that you meet sociably every week or so.

 

Oh and they understand they cheated. Unlike you.

[Wes Tender]

 

If Lowe had come back in and invested loads of cash do you really expect me to believe the "boycotts" would have gone ahead? Of course they wouldn't

 

Like I've said, if Lowe had brought money to the club the crowds wouldn't have suffered.

 

If Lowe came in with a billionaire there would have been the odd dissenting voice but do you really expect me to believe that your crowds would still have dropped?

 

You're either an idiot, or otherwise you know very little of the internal financial structure of Saints during the Lowe years. Which is it? If the second, then you're in the company of the majority of Saints fans who up until the return of Lowe with the Quisling, knew very little about the structure of the PLC and the shareholdings, although by then, many on here were pretty savvy about it.

 

Most were not aware that before Wilde's intervention, the major shareholders had less than 30% of the club, Lowe holding just 6% or so and that changed with Wilde when at the time of the EGM, had it gone ahead, the balance between the pro and anti-Lowe factions was on a knife edge, but probably with a majority against Lowe and his cronies. That is obviously why he moved aside.

 

Had you been aware of this, then surely you would not be making such ridiculous statements as those you make above, as even somebody with a basic grasp of finances would realise that a billionaire or anybody with more than £15 million in fact, could buy a controlling share of the club. Lowe always tried to insinuate that £25 million would get him to move aside, but that was bluff and guff. Nobody with serious money would take over to allow Lowe to continue and he certainly did not have the money to invest himself.

 

So your argument that had somebody with money taken over we would have stopped the boycotts is totally spurious,as with Lowe gone, there would not be the need for boycotts. Attendances rose when he went, even in the third division, proof positive that numbers had declined because Lowe was a significant factor in that decline.

[View From The Top]

So Ho's pathetic argument is that we wouldn't have had a boycott if Lowe had brought money to the table.

 

He didn't, and we did, get over it.

[rallyboy]

and the funniest thing of all is that however unpopular Rupert was, and whatever ludicrous financial decisions he made, compared with the insolvent trading and blatant criminality that has gone on down the road he now looks like a financial genius and an honourable gentleman.

 

pompey have improved Rupert's PR image ten fold.

 

He drove us into a wall because he made mistakes.

They drove over the cliff because they were greedy and twisting the rules.

They then did it again.

And are still doing it now.

 

Or as Ho will point out, there is no difference between the two situations.

Yeah, whatever.

 

zzzzzzzzz........Ho continues to try and bore the thread into submission.

And what hurts most is he didn't quote me today, I can't have been offensive enough, this one will qualify for a response surely.....

[mack rill]

Now that you stripy knuts are the Heavy Dippers, er can we have are duck back this crimbo? TA,

[Wes Tender]

Now that you stripy knuts are the Heavy Dippers, er can we have are duck back this crimbo? TA,

 

Not only is it a very dead duck, but it is well and truly stuffed, a bit like your club. And as a goodwill gesture, we'll throw in a goose, as yours was well and truly cooked some time ago.

[Minsk]

Well, there's one! And, as you say, the fans paid St John Ambulance NOT the club. Do you not think the club should make a 'donation' at least equivalent to the money they owed? Once more, THE CLUB DID NOT pay said charity.

 

I am certain there are also others, otherwise Lampitt would have rephraed his statement. If there were no other charities he would have said the three main ones.

 

As for boycotting, it's a bit hard to do so from Belarus. I always take in matches that I can when visiting the UK, no matter how well or badly Saints are doing. I can understand the reasoning behind those who did boycott matches, but it is something I could never do.

 

Anyway, attendances is a pointless arguement - unless you are willing to make a bet with me? Money to charity? If the Skates get a higher average attendance than Saints this season I will pay £100 to a cancer charity; if saints have the highest attendane you pay £100 to a cancer charity. You up for the bet? I mean, it doesn't reallt matter whether you are or not does it? You can just say you are and then refuse to pay the cancer charity at a later date; just like the sh!tty team you support!!!!

 

You'll get higher average attendences. It's a no brainer for all the reasons I've already stated (club doing well gets bigger crowds - it's a no brainer). But PFC have paid the charities they owed. It's not a pleasant part of our recent history but it's been paid.

 

 

 

Harbour Cancer Support, in Gosport, please show me a link where it says they have been paid by Portsmouth Football Club.

 

St John Ambulance - please show me a link proving Portsmouth Football Club (not its fans) have paid the monies owed to them.

 

Also, please explain why Lampitt would use the phrase 'three main charities have been paid' if there were no others. Oh, and whilst you are posting links to prove the previous 2 charities have been paid BY THE CLUB, please also post a link where lampitt states ALL charities have been paid. If this were the case Lampitt would be crowing about from the rooftops and thus it will be easy to find the quote.

 

As for attendances this season, i thought we were playing in the same division? Therefore on an equal footing. Okay, so we currently have 7 points more than you, are you saying that is all that's required to get bigger crowds? Or are you actually conceding that Saints are far superior to the Skates?

 

Come on Corpy, back your team. Surely whichever team finishes the highest this season would have done better than the other? Therefore, surely they would have the biggest crowds? So, one more chance, I will give £100 to a cancer charity if Pompey have a higher average attendance than Saints - and will post evidence on this site to prove it - IF you agree to do the same if the roles are reversed; OR DO YOU JUST CONCEDE THAT SAINTS ARE THE BETTER CLUB, WITH THE BETTER TEAM AND BETTER FANS?

[Depressed of Shirley]

I think that Corpy misunderstood what I was saying. Crap results and crap football never stopped me going to watch my team. Knowing that it was the only way to remove Lowe and Wilde was why I stopped, the football, as crap as it was, had no bearing on it.

The difference with the shambles down the road is that they have never tried the no money on the team principle, so we don't know if their fans would boycott on those grounds.

[spyinthesky]

harbour cancer support, in gosport, please show me a link where it says they have been paid by portsmouth football club.

 

St john ambulance - please show me a link proving portsmouth football club (not its fans) have paid the monies owed to them.

 

Also, please explain why lampitt would use the phrase 'three main charities have been paid' if there were no others. Oh, and whilst you are posting links to prove the previous 2 charities have been paid by the club, please also post a link where lampitt states all charities have been paid. If this were the case lampitt would be crowing about from the rooftops and thus it will be easy to find the quote.

 

As for attendances this season, i thought we were playing in the same division? Therefore on an equal footing. Okay, so we currently have 7 points more than you, are you saying that is all that's required to get bigger crowds? Or are you actually conceding that saints are far superior to the skates?

 

Come on corpy, back your team. Surely whichever team finishes the highest this season would have done better than the other? Therefore, surely they would have the biggest crowds? So, one more chance, i will give £100 to a cancer charity if pompey have a higher average attendance than saints - and will post evidence on this site to prove it - if you agree to do the same if the roles are reversed; or do you just concede that saints are the better club, with the better team and better fans?

 

minsk

that bet is so unfair the gaming board will be after you

don't you realise that since the restart of league fixture after the second world war pompey have only exceeded saints average crowds for 17 out of 65 seasons, the majority of the former were during the time when pompey were a top side.

Fair play to them for this, of course, but even when they were winning their two consecutive titles their average gates were 37,000 at a time when the capacity of fratton park was 50,000+. And post war crowdes were at record levels

they also had the benefit of a large royal naval contingent just after the war and quite a few people from southampton used to go and watch their games so their support has not been as 'loyal' as saints in recent times

dont forget also that fratton park had a higher capacity until season 2001/2

[jawillwill]

Harbour Cancer Support, in Gosport, please show me a link where it says they have been paid by Portsmouth Football Club.

 

St John Ambulance - please show me a link proving Portsmouth Football Club (not its fans) have paid the monies owed to them.

 

Also, please explain why Lampitt would use the phrase 'three main charities have been paid' if there were no others. Oh, and whilst you are posting links to prove the previous 2 charities have been paid BY THE CLUB, please also post a link where lampitt states ALL charities have been paid. If this were the case Lampitt would be crowing about from the rooftops and thus it will be easy to find the quote.

 

As for attendances this season, i thought we were playing in the same division? Therefore on an equal footing. Okay, so we currently have 7 points more than you, are you saying that is all that's required to get bigger crowds? Or are you actually conceding that Saints are far superior to the Skates?

 

Come on Corpy, back your team. Surely whichever team finishes the highest this season would have done better than the other? Therefore, surely they would have the biggest crowds? So, one more chance, I will give £100 to a cancer charity if Pompey have a higher average attendance than Saints - and will post evidence on this site to prove it - IF you agree to do the same if the roles are reversed; OR DO YOU JUST CONCEDE THAT SAINTS ARE THE BETTER CLUB, WITH THE BETTER TEAM AND BETTER FANS?

 

I hope you win and the cancer charity gets no money!

[Corporate Ho]

But he didn't and the fans knew he wouldn't hence why the boycott continued during this period. I'm glad you finally acknowledge there was a boycott and it wasn't all a conspiracy by the major national and local news and our fans pretending it was. Course there were also plenty of fans who stayed away because we were doing badly, it would be the same with any club but there was a well documented boycott which I'm glad you've finally acknowledged.

 

I think you'll find whenever I've mentioned your "boycott" I've used inverted commas because as I've said many times now the majority of your stay away fans did so because of crap "product" not en masse because of an orchestrated and co-ordinated boycott. Or do you insist that it was an orchestrated campaign that people bought into as a group that resulted in your crowds dropping? That's the question no-one seems to want to answer

 

Let's just say that there are some very historically long standing fans who get it. They don't try and justify their existence. They will stand up in the pub and defend their right to support their club but at no time have they ever gloated or tried to defend the indefensible.

 

They haven't renewed their ST's for 2 years now they have not heard anything to tell them that they have not fallen into the hands of another ongoing disaster of ownership. they are not boycotting the club or it's owners, they just want to know what the plans are, because right now they simply don't believe anything that comes out of there.

 

So, yours was a boycott because of you didn't like the state your club was in but ours is just the result of our fans not being as super duper as yours. That's what everyone seems to be telling me. Which of course is ******. If a team starts to do well crowds rise and when they drop down crowds fall. That's the simple fact of the matter and it's exactly what happened to you

 

You're either an idiot, or otherwise you know very little of the internal financial structure of Saints during the Lowe years. Which is it? If the second, then you're in the company of the majority of Saints fans who up until the return of Lowe with the Quisling, knew very little about the structure of the PLC and the shareholdings, although by then, many on here were pretty savvy about it.

 

Most were not aware that before Wilde's intervention, the major shareholders had less than 30% of the club, Lowe holding just 6% or so and that changed with Wilde when at the time of the EGM, had it gone ahead, the balance between the pro and anti-Lowe factions was on a knife edge, but probably with a majority against Lowe and his cronies. That is obviously why he moved aside.

 

Had you been aware of this, then surely you would not be making such ridiculous statements as those you make above, as even somebody with a basic grasp of finances would realise that a billionaire or anybody with more than £15 million in fact, could buy a controlling share of the club. Lowe always tried to insinuate that £25 million would get him to move aside, but that was bluff and guff. Nobody with serious money would take over to allow Lowe to continue and he certainly did not have the money to invest himself.

 

So your argument that had somebody with money taken over we would have stopped the boycotts is totally spurious,as with Lowe gone, there would not be the need for boycotts. Attendances rose when he went, even in the third division, proof positive that numbers had declined because Lowe was a significant factor in that decline.

 

It was hypothetical situation. No need to come on like the governor of rthe bank of England about it. the point I was making was that IF (hypothetically remember) Lowe had come back with big investment and bought a load of good players and you'd risen up the league your crowds wouldn't have fallen like they did. Or are you telling me if that happened (no responses of "but it didn't" thank you) your fans would have all stayed away because of their dislike of Lowe?

 

Harbour Cancer Support, in Gosport, please show me a link where it says they have been paid by Portsmouth Football Club.

 

St John Ambulance - please show me a link proving Portsmouth Football Club (not its fans) have paid the monies owed to them.

 

Also, please explain why Lampitt would use the phrase 'three main charities have been paid' if there were no others. Oh, and whilst you are posting links to prove the previous 2 charities have been paid BY THE CLUB, please also post a link where lampitt states ALL charities have been paid. If this were the case Lampitt would be crowing about from the rooftops and thus it will be easy to find the quote.

 

As for attendances this season, i thought we were playing in the same division? Therefore on an equal footing. Okay, so we currently have 7 points more than you, are you saying that is all that's required to get bigger crowds? Or are you actually conceding that Saints are far superior to the Skates?

 

Come on Corpy, back your team. Surely whichever team finishes the highest this season would have done better than the other? Therefore, surely they would have the biggest crowds? So, one more chance, I will give £100 to a cancer charity if Pompey have a higher average attendance than Saints - and will post evidence on this site to prove it - IF you agree to do the same if the roles are reversed; OR DO YOU JUST CONCEDE THAT SAINTS ARE THE BETTER CLUB, WITH THE BETTER TEAM AND BETTER FANS?

 

I already posted a link proving harbour cancer trust have been paid. Go back and look at the original post. And PFC didn't pay St John's ambulance, the fans did, again as I've already posted.

 

As for the bet, I accept you'll have higher crowds than us this year. You have a bigger stadium, lower ticket prices (plus free tickets for under 11's) and have a couple of good years behind you that have rallied your fans. We have new owners (again) and a set of disillusioned fans who, as Dubai Phil has pointed out have a distinct sense of deja vu and need convincing to part with £30 a match to watch football that has been very uninspiring for the past year not to mention that, as many have pointed out on here, not even got a full squad yet. So not a "boycott" by Pompey fans, just people needing convincing they should part with their hard earned cash in a dodgy economic climate

[Gingeletiss]

I think you'll find whenever I've mentioned your "boycott" I've used inverted commas because as I've said many times now the majority of your stay away fans did so because of crap "product" not en masse because of an orchestrated and co-ordinated boycott. Or do you insist that it was an orchestrated campaign that people bought into as a group that resulted in your crowds dropping? That's the question no-one seems to want to answer

 

People are answering you, but you don't want to listen. For myself, I was a Lowe hater, I acknowledge he done some good, but imho he done a lot of bad. Enough was enough, and I stayed away, I'd had a season ticket for years at the Dell, and carried that over at St M's. The "boycott" took ages to have any kind of organisation, but before it did, fans were staying away in their droves.

[JackFrost]

I think you'll find whenever I've mentioned your "boycott" I've used inverted commas because as I've said many times now the majority of your stay away fans did so because of crap "product" not en masse because of an orchestrated and co-ordinated boycott. Or do you insist that it was an orchestrated campaign that people bought into as a group that resulted in your crowds dropping? That's the question no-one seems to want to answer

 

 

It's been answered many times but each time you've stuck your fingers in your ears and gone "la la la la la la". Hence why you get laughed at so much on here unlike other Pompey fans.

 

Actually I'm going to use some of your logic, I'm going to pretend Pompey never won the FA Cup. All the TV coverage, the tens of thousands of fans who attended the 'final', and all the teams you beat along the way were all part of one big conspiracy. No matter how much the local and national news report it I'm going to pretend it never happened and it was entirely a coincidence that thousands of Pompey fans decided to go and do some sightseeing in London, all on the same day

[gaz]

Is Vlad the next Rupert Murdoch? Seems like he wants to own anything and everything.

 

http://www.sportzpower.com/?q=content/uk-internet-tv-channel-gbsport-launch-september

[rallyboy]

more like the next Maxwell.

[Doctoroncall]

Harbour Cancer Support, in Gosport, please show me a link where it says they have been paid by Portsmouth Football Club.

 

I already posted a link proving harbour cancer trust have been paid. Go back and look at the original post. And PFC didn't pay St John's ambulance, the fans did, again as I've already posted.

 

That's a no then.

[holepuncture]

I think you'll find whenever I've mentioned your "boycott" I've used inverted commas because as I've said many times now the majority of your stay away fans did so because of crap "product" not en masse because of an orchestrated and co-ordinated boycott. Or do you insist that it was an orchestrated campaign that people bought into as a group that resulted in your crowds dropping? That's the question no-one seems to want to answer

 

Here is a bit of background as to how the ''product'' was becoming crap (only two players above 22 y.o in the starting XI, Lowe being an arse etc):

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4119454.Is_there_time_left_to_save_Saints_after_Lo we_s_grand_vision_fails_/

 

OK, that bit supports what you are saying...

 

Here is an article which demonstrates how, like you with Faraj/Vlad/Fahim et al, we didnt like Rupert, and we publically shamed him, supporters and shareholders:

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/3998485.Coins_thrown_at_Lowe_during_Saints_AGM/

 

Here is a facebook group which I believe was the one at the time used by the teenager to organise 1-2k protests before matches:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5347905947&v=wall#!/group.php?gid=5347905947&v=wall

 

Here is a picture of fans protesting inside the stadium, as not everyone wanted to boycott and miss games/supporting the young cheap team, so they protested inside the ground:

 

Here is a picture of an organised protest away from the ground. You can tell it is an organised demonstration, as it is being policed protected:

 

Here is an article of a protest in Jan 09:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7862734.stm

 

Here is an article organising a protest where season ticket holders leave the ground after five minutes. Regular/non ST fans were arranging to meet outside the stadium reception, and then leave before the game starts:

http://www.southampton.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=143140

 

Here is a picture of some demonstration material:

 

Here is an article featuring a video of a demonstration in February 09, fans brough banners, others brough a coffin, symbolic of our clubs demise under the dodgy directors:

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/4090871.1000_fans_in_Saints_protest/

 

http://bcove.me/n9vqnzvb

 

A good couple of thousand in that video... forgot how impressive that was.

 

Still, you skates managed about 50 blokes walking from Portsmouth & Southsea station to the ground, so fair play to the bestest, most passionate fans about.

 

You also called Harry 'judus' on the first day or two of his return, so credit for that too.

 

It was almost as compelling as singing 'theres only on Peter Storrie' at Fratton Park - we had a similar, 'Swing Lowe'...

 

You also sung for Ali Al Faraj, with your 'you can stick your fuking arabs up your arse'... which genuinely made me chuckle, so well done there.

 

 

So there you go, lots of (your favourite) links, and even some piccys too... so lets change the subject now because this is getting tiresome now and we have alot of scandal surrounding the skates we need to discuss...

 

YOU DIRTY, CHEATING SKATE BASTARD

[Wes Tender]

I think you'll find whenever I've mentioned your "boycott" I've used inverted commas because as I've said many times now the majority of your stay away fans did so because of crap "product" not en masse because of an orchestrated and co-ordinated boycott. Or do you insist that it was an orchestrated campaign that people bought into as a group that resulted in your crowds dropping? That's the question no-one seems to want to answer

 

Several people have responded to this challenge, but you either do not comprehend the English language, or choose to ignore them because it doesn't suit you to have your argument shot down in flames.

 

So, yours was a boycott because of you didn't like the state your club was in but ours is just the result of our fans not being as super duper as yours. That's what everyone seems to be telling me. Which of course is ******. If a team starts to do well crowds rise and when they drop down crowds fall. That's the simple fact of the matter and it's exactly what happened to you

 

With the additional factor that many didn't attend matches because they boycotted the Lowe / Wilde regime. I repeat again, the fact that numbers increased in the third division when Lowe left is indicative of that. Unless you can give some other credible explanation for it.

 

It was hypothetical situation. No need to come on like the governor of rthe bank of England about it. the point I was making was that IF (hypothetically remember) Lowe had come back with big investment and bought a load of good players and you'd risen up the league your crowds wouldn't have fallen like they did. Or are you telling me if that happened (no responses of "but it didn't" thank you) your fans would have all stayed away because of their dislike of Lowe?

 

There seems to be every reason to come on like the governor of the Bank of England about it, as otherwise I don't know how else the facts might penetrate your thick skull. I'll explain it to you point by point.

 

Lowe never had sufficient investment himself. During his entire tenure, he actually took out more than he put in.

He only had about 6% of the total shares.

Had anybody been introduced by him with real money to invest, do you seriously believe that they would have allowed Lowe to run the club? Or would you accept what I have trying to get you to understand, that they would take over control themselves?

If so, then there would be no further need of a Lowe boycott, would there?

 

As for the bet, I accept you'll have higher crowds than us this year. You have a bigger stadium, lower ticket prices (plus free tickets for under 11's) and have a couple of good years behind you that have rallied your fans. We have new owners (again) and a set of disillusioned fans who, as Dubai Phil has pointed out have a distinct sense of deja vu and need convincing to part with £30 a match to watch football that has been very uninspiring for the past year not to mention that, as many have pointed out on here, not even got a full squad yet. So not a "boycott" by Pompey fans, just people needing convincing they should part with their hard earned cash in a dodgy economic climate

 

OK, you can only fill the capacity that you have, but when we are now on a level playing field, same division, how come you can't even do that? The fact remains that we were producing higher attendances than you often when we were two divisions below you and certainly a lot more often again last season when a division below.

[gaz]

Pompey always have been, and always will be a nothing club. Pretending to play Billy Big Boys but even Brighton are bigger than them. Bournemouth too. Noth enough fans to fill a stadium, not enough support to take away from home, they are nobodies.

 

Now, can we stop the willy-waving and move on to more important things like...

 

- not enough players to fill the bench

- no facilities

- ****-poor training ground (do they even own one?)

- Cotterill making a fool of himself on a weeky basis

- average results with players of above average ability

- no real plan of action from those in charge.

- CVA repayments to come

- suspected big wages again

- Vlad disqualified from taking over a large company for not being a FAPP

- Silence from Dubov and Akers....have they even attended yet?

 

Can't wait for ''the billionaire saviours of Portsmouth'' are turned into ''those evil onwers''. The tide is turning already.

[Corporate Ho]

It's been answered many times but each time you've stuck your fingers in your ears and gone "la la la la la la". Hence why you get laughed at so much on here unlike other Pompey fans.

 

They've answered but completely missed the point. There were some protests etc but as Hole Punctures post proves, the vast majority of people partaking in them did so inside the ground. And your crowd figures still fell.

 

That's not rocket science for anyone to grasp, is it?

 

OK, you can only fill the capacity that you have, but when we are now on a level playing field, same division, how come you can't even do that? The fact remains that we were producing higher attendances than you often when we were two divisions below you and certainly a lot more often again last season when a division below.

 

Because we were being run by a chancer who was running the club into the ground. You seem to be saying it's Ok for your fans to stay away in that situation but not ours?

 

 

Several people have responded to this challenge, but you either do not comprehend the English language, or choose to ignore them because it doesn't suit you to have your argument shot down in flames.

See my point about Hole Punctures post. There were proteste but most of them were in the ground. Despite that, you were still getting 14K crowds. That means those numbers included the protesters. Do you not get that?

 

 

With the additional factor that many didn't attend matches because they boycotted the Lowe / Wilde regime. I repeat again, the fact that numbers increased in the third division when Lowe left is indicative of that. Unless you can give some other credible explanation for it.

Err, just a guess but maybe because you'd just been taken over by a billionaire who spunked several million on your team making you everyone's favourites for promotion?

 

There seems to be every reason to come on like the governor of the Bank of England about it, as otherwise I don't know how else the facts might penetrate your thick skull. I'll explain it to you point by point.

 

Lowe never had sufficient investment himself. During his entire tenure, he actually took out more than he put in.

He only had about 6% of the total shares.

Had anybody been introduced by him with real money to invest, do you seriously believe that they would have allowed Lowe to run the club? Or would you accept what I have trying to get you to understand, that they would take over control themselves?

If so, then there would be no further need of a Lowe boycott, would there?

Jeezus, how many more times. IT WAS HYPOTHETICAL. Pointing out that if Lowe had by some miracle come into money and invested it in the club your fans would have flooded back. If that had happened and your form improved crowds would have improved also. Fans are fickle. many would have forgiven Lowe if he'd brought investment into the club. To deny that is laughable

 

Pompey always have been, and always will be a nothing club. Pretending to play Billy Big Boys but even Brighton are bigger than them. Bournemouth too. Noth enough fans to fill a stadium, not enough support to take away from home, they are nobodies.

 

Now, can we stop the willy-waving and move on to more important things like...

 

- not enough players to fill the bench

- no facilities

- ****-poor training ground (do they even own one?)

- Cotterill making a fool of himself on a weeky basis

- average results with players of above average ability

- no real plan of action from those in charge.

- CVA repayments to come

- suspected big wages again

- Vlad disqualified from taking over a large company for not being a FAPP

- Silence from Dubov and Akers....have they even attended yet?

 

Can't wait for ''the billionaire saviours of Portsmouth'' are turned into ''those evil onwers''. The tide is turning already.

 

Thanks for backing up what I've been saying. The new owners have a lot to do to convince Pompey fans that they're the real deal and not yet another false dawn. hence a a lot of Pompey fans are not going to (or boycotting if you'd prefer) games, especially at £30 a ticket. Which was the whole point of my original post on the. You lot laughed because we only got 13,500 but your crowds were not far off that. Call it a boycott, call it what you like but dissatisfaction with the way a club is run means fans not going. But somehow it has to be turned into a moral standpoint by you weirdo bunch of new puritans

[um pahars]

They've answered but completely missed the point. There were some protests etc but as Hole Punctures post proves, the vast majority of people partaking in them did so inside the ground. And your crowd figures still fell.

 

No they didn't.

 

I helped organise the boycotts and personally recieved 2,500 season ticket renewal forms completed (all bar the money details) but sent to our protest group, and not to the Club for processing. On top of that we would regularly attract hundreds for protests outside the ground (who can forget the drawing of the curtains). The main reason for the drop in attendances was due to the organised boycotts, stay aways and protests.

 

Once Lowe had left the group announced that everyone should return to St Mary's.

 

Game before Lowe left: 18,000

 

Game after Lowe left: 27,000 (dwindling to 24,00 after that)

 

HTH

 

(There were of course those who protested inside the stadium, their perogative as they just found it impossible to do without thedir Saints fix)

[BigShadow]

FFS, Two fu[king pages of 'We've got better fans than you....'

This thread has legendary status. Stop the p!ssing contest.

 

We all know, even Corp, that we get better support than them, even when two divisions below them. We all know they cheated their way to two FA Cup finals. We all know their stadium (Ha,Ha) is falling down. We all know that they remain on the precipice of extinction. Corp knows all of this, but has the right to use whatever bu11sh!t at his disposal to defend his club. DON'T FEED THE TROLL. If you really want to annoy the likes of Corp - just completely ignore his posts.

 

Now back on track.....

 

The takeover has happened, but cannot be considered final until the obligations of the CVA have been met. That gives this thread another 4 years to run. In the meantime, there will be quiet, uneventful periods but that shouldn't be seen as an opportunity to start/continue the p!ssing contest.

 

We are never far away from another horrendous result, cotterill whinge or lampitt fabrication (or hopefully a court decision or two) to keep us entertained. Keep this thread sacred as the ultimate record of PFC's downfall.

[St Chalet]

Agree, this thread is about laughing at the plight of the Skates. The who is bigger argument is classic 'watch the rabbit' trick whilst the charities get screwed, the CVA gets delayed and the squad gets filled again by mercenaries.

 

A real question for you Corpy, how many of the Pompey Trust who complained to the FA about the SAF, Al-Mirage and Chiiny being Fit and Proper with their 20:20 hindsight have done the same about your new lot?

[Minsk]

 

I already posted a link proving harbour cancer trust have been paid. Go back and look at the original post. And PFC didn't pay St John's ambulance, the fans did, again as I've already posted.

 

As for the bet, I accept you'll have higher crowds than us this year.

 

Thank you for confirming that PFC HAVE NOT paid all the charities they owed monies to, and for conceding that we have the better fan base!!

[Wes Tender]

Jeezus, how many more times. IT WAS HYPOTHETICAL. Pointing out that if Lowe had by some miracle come into money and invested it in the club your fans would have flooded back. If that had happened and your form improved crowds would have improved also. Fans are fickle. many would have forgiven Lowe if he'd brought investment into the club. To deny that is laughable

 

If the moon was made of cheese, do you think that it would be a suitable proposition to mine the stuff and send it back to Earth to feed the starving masses on our planet?

 

I'm only posing it as a hypothetical question, you understand.

 

It's only slightly more preposterous than your hypothetical scenario.

 

Corp Hoho. If Lowe came in with a billionaire there would have been the odd dissenting voice but do you really expect me to believe that your crowds would still have dropped?

 

And I note that you have seen the fault in your reasoning above, that if a billionaire was found by Lowe to invest, we'd stop the protest against Lowe. Because as I pointed out, the billionaire would assume control, not allow Lowe to continue. Did the penny finally drop?

[Dark Munster]

Is it just me or does your heart sink when he comes on here, cluesslessly nit-picking to try to justify some arcane point. I have actually, after avidly reading 800+ pages odd, reached the point where, when I see he is posting again, that I skip the whole section, replies and all.

 

Corpse's cunning plan.

[Johnny Bognor]

They've answered but completely missed the point. There were some protests etc but as Hole Punctures post proves, the vast majority of people partaking in them did so inside the ground. And your crowd figures still fell.

 

That's not rocket science for anyone to grasp, is it?

 

 

No they didn't.

 

I helped organise the boycotts and personally recieved 2,500 season ticket renewal forms completed (all bar the money details) but sent to our protest group, and not to the Club for processing. On top of that we would regularly attract hundreds for protests outside the ground (who can forget the drawing of the curtains). The main reason for the drop in attendances was due to the organised boycotts, stay aways and protests.

 

Indeed. We tried to organise our aerial protest in the ground. We looked at the possibility of taking off from the pitch, flying around inside the stadium and landing on the pitch again, all during a game. Unfortunately the Health and safety brigade wouldn't allow it, so we had to take it outside.

 

We all talk about who has the best stadium, fans etc, however when it comes to protests, we are a class above the rest.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Several people have responded to this challenge, but you either do not comprehend the English language, or choose to ignore them because it doesn't suit you to have your argument shot down in flames.

 

Corp Who? said:

 

See my point about Hole Punctures post. There were proteste but most of them were in the ground. Despite that, you were still getting 14K crowds. That means those numbers included the protesters. Do you not get that?

So, we were having protests, during some of the darkest days of our club's history. In acknowledging that some protesters still attended games (e.g. the banners in the ground pics) I have to ask why then did we still get more than you lot get now? Considering the majority of you lot are not protesting, OK TCWTB and some 50 others did have a march.

[Corporate Ho]

Corp - I've never been on so don't know, but is there an equivalent of you on your Portsmouth forums? i.e. A Saints fan making a tit of himself but deciding he needs to represent the club every 5 seconds? If there is, tell him he's a **** from me. ta.

 

There are bloody loads of them. POL ban them instantly (as Guided Missile found out when he "cunningly" posed as a Pompey fans and was spotted first post) but on TBA and others there are plenty. And they make me look like Bertrand Russell

 

I helped organise the boycotts and personally recieved 2,500 season ticket renewal forms completed (all bar the money details) but sent to our protest group, and not to the Club for processing. On top of that we would regularly attract hundreds for protests outside the ground (who can forget the drawing of the curtains). The main reason for the drop in attendances was due to the organised boycotts, stay aways and protests.

 

Once Lowe had left the group announced that everyone should return to St Mary's.

 

Game before Lowe left: 18,000

 

Game after Lowe left: 27,000 (dwindling to 24,00 after that)

 

 

The ST form is a lovely symbolic gesture but I wonder how many who gave you the form still attended games anyway paying on the day? The fact the gates went up doesn't show much other than a sense of relief he'd gone. Otherwise how do you explain that if it was only Lowe keeping your fans away you only got an average of 21K the season before this one when Lowe wasn't there?

 

A real question for you Corpy, how many of the Pompey Trust who complained to the FA about the SAF, Al-Mirage and Chiiny being Fit and Proper with their 20:20 hindsight have done the same about your new lot?

 

The trust brought the article from the Rumafia.com website (along with other information) to the attention of the FL when CSI were doing due diligence. As you might remember a couple of Pompey fans unvovered the link months before it appeared on here. teh FL said they were aware of the stories but a lot of the rumours on te website had been proven to be completely bogus in Russia (the FL had apparently already checked it out). HTH

 

If the moon was made of cheese, do you think that it would be a suitable proposition to mine the stuff and send it back to Earth to feed the starving masses on our planet?

 

I'm only posing it as a hypothetical question, you understand.

 

It's only slightly more preposterous than your hypothetical scenario.

 

And I note that you have seen the fault in your reasoning above, that if a billionaire was found by Lowe to invest, we'd stop the protest against Lowe. Because as I pointed out, the billionaire would assume control, not allow Lowe to continue. Did the penny finally drop?

 

No doubt even if the whole world were starving and a cost effective way of mining moon cheese had been found all 6bn of the warth's population would boycott the foodstuff as Rupert Lowe once chose the cheeseboard as a dessert.

 

Your refusal to answer my hypothetical question says more about what you really think than words probably ever could.

 

Again, most of you seem to have completely ignored what I've actually written and seem to suggest this is a "which club is bigger" argument when all I pointed out was that after you laughed at us getting a crowd of 13,500 you got similar crowds a couple of seasons back. You've then blustered on justifying it as it was all protests and boycotts ad nauseum when all I'm pointing out is that if fans of any club are unhappy at the way their club is being run they'll vote on their feet and not attend matches. You've talked about lack of trust in your board etc but Pompey have had no stability for years yet somehow you seem to suggest this shouldn't affect attendences for us.

 

Let's just point out that your crowds were already falling after relegation from the PL and that resulted as you slipped down the table in more fans staying away. Just accept it