eurosaint Posted 8 September, 2011 Share Posted 8 September, 2011 On your last question for Corp, sorry, I'll jump in here and give an answer and it's No, because there isn't a Notts County takeover thread with 842 pages, or a Plymouth Argyle thread with 842 pages, but there's a Pompey takeover thread with 842 pages almost entirely because it's Pompey. If you think these 842 pages worth of posts have been motivated by strong opinions about morals, the state of football, FA and FL governance and the FAPPT, you are naive in the extreme. This thread is nothing more than an abbatoir, free for anyone to come in and hack away at the Pompey carcass at leisure, with everyone baying for more blood in the background. The only problem is that it's now descended into fantasy. The reason Frank's Cousin is confused is that poster after poster on here, thinking he's Poirot, goes off on some long meandering trawl through cyberspace and comes back with yet another new invented scenario where nasty old Pompey are up to their dastardly tricks again. Poirot's, or more accurately, Clouseau's post is then taken as fact by all, generating huge uproar all round before everyone goes home for tea. Most of what is written on here is utter b*llocks, and most of you know it. People who are 'In The Know' generate bizarre flights of fancy as to who owns what in the car manufacturing industry. Sorry people, but most of you have too much time on your hands, time partly spent trawling the net for any small crumb of comfort that it's all a conspiracy that's about to implode any minute now. And of course when it doesn't implode, someone else pops up to reassure those remaining who haven't smelt the coffee, that it's ok, come back, implosion really is just around the next corner, honest! Desperate attempts to breath new life into the dead horse include: CVA non-payment, money laundering, the russian mafia, Spyker cars, Saab cars for Christs sake! Forthcoming gems laid squarely at Pompey's door will include mysteries such as Shergar, Lord Lucan, the Mary Celeste and the Bermuda Triangle. Get real, it aint gonna happen. We're financially the closest watched football club in the country, not by you, but by people who really ARE In The Know. If you still wanted to bleat about Pompey why not concentrate on the one stain that I will grant you is a disgrace- the still non-payment of sub £2500 small creditors. They've been saying for months that it will happen, but Chanrai clearly doesn't want to cough up and the new owners seem unwilling also. If Chanrai isn't going to, CSI should pay it in full right now. It's not big money to them. The rest is just rubbish, complete rubbish....... Bl##dy hell, you call us naive and then praise the football authorities ! Tell me again who allowed an invisible man (Ali al Mirage) to pass the 'fit and proper persons test' ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 8 September, 2011 Share Posted 8 September, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14839649 And news just in .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey-deacons-left-nut Posted 8 September, 2011 Share Posted 8 September, 2011 what about the bl00dy court case??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfc123 Posted 8 September, 2011 Share Posted 8 September, 2011 what about the bl00dy court case??? What about it? It won't affect the club whatever happens.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 8 September, 2011 Share Posted 8 September, 2011 What about it? It won't affect the club whatever happens.... What makes you so sure of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 8 September, 2011 Share Posted 8 September, 2011 Although to be fair, this is highly speculative at this point in time. Certainly the situation seems to be that the Old Co has gone and Newco exists. Nobody can tell what contracts and agreements are binding from the old to the new - we need one of our insolvency lawyers again - but if a company is wound up then it is pretty easy to ignore any agreements that company issued unless they really are cast in stone. Did the Russkies do due dilligence? Yes they were alomost certainly given all the facts and figures regarding poopey 18 months ago when they were shopping. They had discussions with sensible recognised football people, so it leaves us with a good few weeks of speculation now about whether they found a loophole, as certainly back when they were talking to the Bompey Echo, they did not see any financial way to look at poopey. Did something change? The old co has gone, a new co has managed to take over the Golden Share and gain a playing licence. While the FL rules are very strict regarding being in a CVA and exiting, if a loophole has been found to make that CVA non-binding, then it's time for a long dig of the FL rules. Now THAT would be amusing - they get around the rules and the FL cannot do anything about it, will keep this going for a few more weeks. Well, as Corpse Whore keeps reminding us, the rosy-cheeked bastard found a way around the points penalty rule when we went into administration. But the FL ignored that loophole and deducted the points anyway. One would expect the same thing to happen if this indeed is a loophole the DFCSBs can exploit. But we are talking about the Cheats here, so probably the FL will scurry away with their tail between their legs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 8 September, 2011 Share Posted 8 September, 2011 On your last question for Corp, sorry, I'll jump in here and give an answer and it's No, because there isn't a Notts County takeover thread with 842 pages, or a Plymouth Argyle thread with 842 pages, but there's a Pompey takeover thread with 842 pages almost entirely because it's Pompey. If you think these 842 pages worth of posts have been motivated by strong opinions about morals, the state of football, FA and FL governance and the FAPPT, you are naive in the extreme. This thread is nothing more than an abbatoir, free for anyone to come in and hack away at the Pompey carcass at leisure, with everyone baying for more blood in the background. The only problem is that it's now descended into fantasy. The reason Frank's Cousin is confused is that poster after poster on here, thinking he's Poirot, goes off on some long meandering trawl through cyberspace and comes back with yet another new invented scenario where nasty old Pompey are up to their dastardly tricks again. Poirot's, or more accurately, Clouseau's post is then taken as fact by all, generating huge uproar all round before everyone goes home for tea. Most of what is written on here is utter b*llocks, and most of you know it. People who are 'In The Know' generate bizarre flights of fancy as to who owns what in the car manufacturing industry. Sorry people, but most of you have too much time on your hands, time partly spent trawling the net for any small crumb of comfort that it's all a conspiracy that's about to implode any minute now. And of course when it doesn't implode, someone else pops up to reassure those remaining who haven't smelt the coffee, that it's ok, come back, implosion really is just around the next corner, honest! Desperate attempts to breath new life into the dead horse include: CVA non-payment, money laundering, the russian mafia, Spyker cars, Saab cars for Christs sake! Forthcoming gems laid squarely at Pompey's door will include mysteries such as Shergar, Lord Lucan, the Mary Celeste and the Bermuda Triangle. Get real, it aint gonna happen. We're financially the closest watched football club in the country, not by you, but by people who really ARE In The Know. If you still wanted to bleat about Pompey why not concentrate on the one stain that I will grant you is a disgrace- the still non-payment of sub £2500 small creditors. They've been saying for months that it will happen, but Chanrai clearly doesn't want to cough up and the new owners seem unwilling also. If Chanrai isn't going to, CSI should pay it in full right now. It's not big money to them. The rest is just rubbish, complete rubbish....... We're all quite content that this thread about the Skates' comical plight and dealings still has plenty of legs. Even if as you claim, much is speculative or driven by moral outrage or just an intense dislike of all things Skate, then so what? It's our forum. I don't see any clamour by Saints subscribers calling time on it. The only ones that are doing that, are you and the Corpse. By all means join in the debate, but frankly, it isn't up to you two to call for the thread's closure. If you find it all a bit unpalateable, then that is understandable, but then your poxy little club shouldn't have indulged in such unethical, immoral and criminal behaviour. A bit naive for them to give their main rivals so much ammunition and not expect to receive both barrels from us. You just know that there would be a similar thread on your sites if the situation were reversed. Well, actually, come to think of it, there wouldn't. A shortage of educated and literate posters in the PO postcode area would probably prevent that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfc123 Posted 8 September, 2011 Share Posted 8 September, 2011 We're all quite content that this thread about the Skates' comical plight and dealings still has plenty of legs. Even if as you claim, much is speculative or driven by moral outrage or just an intense dislike of all things Skate, then so what? It's our forum. I don't see any clamour by Saints subscribers calling time on it. The only ones that are doing that, are you and the Corpse. By all means join in the debate, but frankly, it isn't up to you two to call for the thread's closure. If you find it all a bit unpalateable, then that is understandable, but then your poxy little club shouldn't have indulged in such unethical, immoral and criminal behaviour. A bit naive for them to give their main rivals so much ammunition and not expect to receive both barrels from us. You just know that there would be a similar thread on your sites if the situation were reversed. Well, actually, come to think of it, there wouldn't. A shortage of educated and literate posters in the PO postcode area would probably prevent that. Fair enough, it's your forum. I'm only a barely tolerated guest at best. What's comical is the ever more desperate attempts to keep this going, but that's up to you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 8 September, 2011 Share Posted 8 September, 2011 What's comical is the ever more desperate attempts to keep this going. How many takeovers have Pompey been through since this thread started? What makes you so confident the disasters have stopped with this current one? You are owned by people that run Lithuanian banks ffs! Alarm bells should be ringing in your head! Also, still no answer to this... what about the bl00dy court case??? What about it? It won't affect the club whatever happens.... What makes you so sure of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfc123 Posted 8 September, 2011 Share Posted 8 September, 2011 How many takeovers have Pompey been through since this thread started? What makes you so confident the disasters have stopped with this current one? You are owned by people that run Lithuanian banks ffs! Alarm bells should be ringing in your head! Also, still no answer to this... Because the football authorities don't tend to come after clubs and hit them again and again once the dust settles. To be fair it's only an educated guess- yes, some of us have actually had an education, some of us even privately I just can't see the PL having any authority even if they wanted to hit us now that we're a FL club. As all those in court were long gone before relegation to the FL, I can't see how they would want to try imposing anything either. So unless m'lud has some legal right deduct points, and we know they don't, I can't see anything further than the original 9 point deduction biting us. The renegotiated CVA doesn't kick in until next April, and the money to pay it is ringfenced from the parachute payments with the FL watching very closely, so that's taken care of. The new owners have been very reasonable, not spent stupid amounts of money, not made wild claims about how well we're going to do in the next 12 months and have generally been a breath of fresh air. Foreign owners they may be, but it's just unfair to tarnish them all as 'bent' because they come from eastern europe. Maybe they are, but Pompey fans have to give them the benefit of the doubt, while you lot will immediately have another dig. As I said earlier the one area that the new people have to sort out is the sub £2500 small creditors which is a disgrace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 8 September, 2011 Share Posted 8 September, 2011 Fair enough, it's your forum. I'm only a barely tolerated guest at best. What's comical is the ever more desperate attempts to keep this going, but that's up to you.... Magnanimous of you...if I was in your position I'm sure I'd want it to go away....wake up in the morning and it's all better but you obviously fail to see how much sheer fun there is to be had in baiting you skates to come over here...put up your puerile defences of your putrid little fester pit. What, too, is evident is that you don't realise (or won't) that what your club epitomises is all that's bad in football....the overspending, the fleecing of the local businesses, the depriving of the tax funded institutions of their revenue with all that entails school, policing and hospital wise... the fact even that your 'club' is not just taking the p*ss out of the various footballing bodies but out of you. You turn up to a rusting sh*thole that if it was a public (rather than private) toilet it would have been condemned years ago...you pay through the nose to do so and stand under a leak next to a (admittedly dwindling) crowd of inbreds while they make sure that they pocket their fat salaries while you suffer. Until you and your bunch of fish fdondling mates realise that it's never going to change...and you'll then maybe you will realise that the world of football does despise you...this magnificent (thanks Nigel) thread is just the figurehead for the wave of loathing that exists for your rotting carcase of a diseased ex-club. Still, it's bacon butties tonight...fluck your luck...just don't even dream that this will go away whilst you still continue to be everything that I've described above...bye skate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 8 September, 2011 Share Posted 8 September, 2011 They can't sort out those sub £2500 as you can't make the decision as who is worthy of being paid 100% as opposed 20%. That is unless, I suppose, all the other creditors agree to it. Paying off the small ones would lead to a precedence being set and then HMRC might insist on being paid in full as well. Small creditors are going to have to suck the 20% like everyone else. I wonder when the offer of full repayment was made - was it pre or post the CVA vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporate Ho Posted 8 September, 2011 Share Posted 8 September, 2011 Another exciting day on the site that was once known as Saints Web Forum but has now changed it's name to Barrackroomlawyer.com. I'll answer some of your questions/ ridiculous theorising. If I miss any, do please let me know. 1. PFC haven't discovered a loophole around the CVA and aren't contravening it's agreements. The offer to pay the creditors under £2500 100% was made by Portpin (Chainrai) himself out of his own pocket (see link). This agreement was never part of the CVA, it was an offer Chainrai made. I agree it's not a massive amount in the scheme of things but the offer was made by Chainrai so do you think it's fair that he doesn't pay it himself? So, the CVA stands, still applies to Pompey (newco) but the agreemnent to pay the small creditors 100% was never a condition of the CVA so wouldn't lead to a points deduction. 2. Victor Muller isn't a co-founder and CEO of CSI. Look at the website again. The site lists the founders/ CEO of each company that are connected to or fall under the umbrella of the CSI organisation (eg Lampitt is listed as CEO of PFC). So yes Weston, yours was yet another mad conspiracy theory. http://www.converssport.com/structure 3. Nothing's being "muddied" over Spyker and SAAB other than you lot on here's inability to understand basic company structures (see point 2). As I've posted before, (http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?14620-Pompey-Takeover-Saga&p=1101851&highlight=saab#post1101851) there are two arms of Spyker, the main company and Spyker sports cars. Antonov bought the sports car division as a seperate entity from Spyker but isn't involved in the main business. Despite Philly making desperate attempts to say mentioning SAAB upsets me (it doesn't, it just frsutrates me that I have to keep telling you the same facts again and again) it's clear that he wasn't aware of the distinction between Spyker and Spyker sports cars which is why he kept on about Antonov using the EIB loan to fund the purchase of Pompey when he wrote: "Saab are owned by Spyker Cars , Spyker are owned by the few's great whiter than white hopes the Russkies, Spyker got 400 mil in loans from the EU to save Saab" http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?14620-Pompey-Takeover-Saga&p=1054987&highlight=spyker#post1054987 4. Ref queries about whether Victor Muller (who you thought was founder and CEO of CSI) had undergone the FAPPT, can I ask if everyone connected with the Estate of Markus Liebherr have passed it? 5. Storries and Mandaric's court cases were put back, originally until December but now brought forward (to October I think). Media can't report on the Redknapp case as it might impact on the other cases. Has been mentioned God knows how many times on here. 6. I'm still waiting for Phil, middle east buisnessman of the year and runner up in the sychophantic caddy with hot girlfriend category to answer my question about whether or not his budgets have changed at all over the past few years or whether the figure has been exactly the same, year after year since he started working for Ouds are Us. Any comment Philly baby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 8 September, 2011 Share Posted 8 September, 2011 Because the football authorities don't tend to come after clubs and hit them again and again once the dust settles. To be fair it's only an educated guess- yes, some of us have actually had an education, some of us even privately I just can't see the PL having any authority even if they wanted to hit us now that we're a FL club. As all those in court were long gone before relegation to the FL, I can't see how they would want to try imposing anything either. So unless m'lud has some legal right deduct points, and we know they don't, I can't see anything further than the original 9 point deduction biting us. QUOTE] Now that is what I call naive..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 8 September, 2011 Share Posted 8 September, 2011 They can't sort out those sub £2500 as you can't make the decision as who is worthy of being paid 100% as opposed 20%. That is unless, I suppose, all the other creditors agree to it. Paying off the small ones would lead to a precedence being set and then HMRC might insist on being paid in full as well. Small creditors are going to have to suck the 20% like everyone else. I wonder when the offer of full repayment was made - was it pre or post the CVA vote? Ah, now I see how loan sharks become loan sharks... Chinny intentionally put in this 'wooly' offer to the small creditors, knowing they'd fall for it, and knowing it would deem the whole cva as illegitimate! Shame about the cancer charities, chin thought to himself, as he hopped out the car and into the casino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted 8 September, 2011 Share Posted 8 September, 2011 I thought the promised payments of £2500 meant that they didn't have a vote and therefore HMRC were outvoted on the CVA, from memory Chanrai was worried these small creditors may have voted against the CVA due to the small amount so in effect, bought them off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 I thought the promised payments of £2500 meant that they didn't have a vote and therefore HMRC were outvoted on the CVA, from memory Chanrai was worried these small creditors may have voted against the CVA due to the small amount so in effect, bought them off. No. The total value of those claims are ~£150k and would not impact on the CVA vote. What is probably holding up the process is the additional claims of those below the £12.5k threshold at 20% that could get more at the £2.5k at 100%. It's certainly strange that considering the CVA vote was based on estimates and claims that were not verified but the payout is! As this was a private agreement (Portpin to the creditors) I don't think it shouldn't have been stated in the CVA (obligations of newco). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 This small creditor thing is a bit irrelevant really. It was done as a PR puff, like offering to pay off the charities. It didn't significantly affect the voting, as they've noted it was a 'woolly' promise, and now neither party feels like putting his hand in his pocket. (I can see some issue with the distorting effect this promise might have - any creditor under £10,000 & maybe more, might consider it worthwhile to claim the £2500 & get paid off now, rather than wait.) I don't think it has any impact on the CVA & if it did someone would cough up as the sum involved is relatively modest - only a few weeks wages for Ben Haim. What it does show, yet again, is the absence of any sort of morality & decency in those in charge of the club, including the likes of Lampitt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfc123 Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 Magnanimous of you...if I was in your position I'm sure I'd want it to go away....wake up in the morning and it's all better but you obviously fail to see how much sheer fun there is to be had in baiting you skates to come over here...put up your puerile defences of your putrid little fester pit. What, too, is evident is that you don't realise (or won't) that what your club epitomises is all that's bad in football....the overspending, the fleecing of the local businesses, the depriving of the tax funded institutions of their revenue with all that entails school, policing and hospital wise... the fact even that your 'club' is not just taking the p*ss out of the various footballing bodies but out of you. You turn up to a rusting sh*thole that if it was a public (rather than private) toilet it would have been condemned years ago...you pay through the nose to do so and stand under a leak next to a (admittedly dwindling) crowd of inbreds while they make sure that they pocket their fat salaries while you suffer. Until you and your bunch of fish fdondling mates realise that it's never going to change...and you'll then maybe you will realise that the world of football does despise you...this magnificent (thanks Nigel) thread is just the figurehead for the wave of loathing that exists for your rotting carcase of a diseased ex-club. Still, it's bacon butties tonight...fluck your luck...just don't even dream that this will go away whilst you still continue to be everything that I've described above...bye skate! Well, the above pint of bile merely proves my theory that most of you KNOW it's over.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 Because the football authorities don't tend to come after clubs and hit them again and again once the dust settles. To be fair it's only an educated guess- yes, some of us have actually had an education, some of us even privately I just can't see the PL having any authority even if they wanted to hit us now that we're a FL club. As all those in court were long gone before relegation to the FL, I can't see how they would want to try imposing anything either. So unless m'lud has some legal right deduct points, and we know they don't, I can't see anything further than the original 9 point deduction biting us. The renegotiated CVA doesn't kick in until next April, and the money to pay it is ringfenced from the parachute payments with the FL watching very closely, so that's taken care of. The new owners have been very reasonable, not spent stupid amounts of money, not made wild claims about how well we're going to do in the next 12 months and have generally been a breath of fresh air. Foreign owners they may be, but it's just unfair to tarnish them all as 'bent' because they come from eastern europe. Maybe they are, but Pompey fans have to give them the benefit of the doubt, while you lot will immediately have another dig. As I said earlier the one area that the new people have to sort out is the sub £2500 small creditors which is a disgrace... I honestly dont think there will be anything more than a fine that will come back to the club for the those in the court case. But if they are found guilty it will be of a crime that took place while they were still at your club. If that crime breaches any rules for the Prem or FL then actions should and would be taken. Like I said, it will be no more than a fine IMO as like others have already suggested, the possible crimes relate to a small number of things where are Luton was a shed load. Im surprised that the CVA is ringfenced by the parachute payments as I didnt think there was much of them left. Didnt Pompey get an advance on those payments to get them through the final year of the Prem? Then there is the football creditors that get paid 100%, I thought the parachute payments were kept back for some of that? Nothing factual in what I am saying though, just going on random bits and bobs from this thread that I seem to remember. Is there any accounts or statements over the past year or so that states where money is ringfenced? I know the CVA payments got defered to next April but there has been no speak of the football creditors. Have they been paid? Or do they also get defered till April? You seem to think there is a pot of cash just sitting there ready to pay the creditors in the CVA covered by the parachute payments. If thats the case why has it not been paid? Pompey are due the payments and the creditors are due their money. Why doesnt those holding these parachute payments just hand it straight over the the creditors and make everyone feel a little better? So while there are still no real facts from you or us you have to admit there are still plenty of questions that remain un-answered and its these questions that will keep this thread rolling on and on and on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 2. Victor Muller isn't a co-founder and CEO of CSI. Look at the website again. The site lists the founders/ CEO of each company that are connected to or fall under the umbrella of the CSI organisation (eg Lampitt is listed as CEO of PFC). So yes Weston, yours was yet another mad conspiracy theory. http://www.converssport.com/structure 4. Ref queries about whether Victor Muller (who you thought was founder and CEO of CSI) had undergone the FAPPT, can I ask if everyone connected with the Estate of Markus Liebherr have passed it? So, why is Victor Muller on the CSI company structure web page? What does he do for CSI? You asked for a link between CSI [or PFCs owners], and Saab. I have presented one. Unless of course Victor Muller has absolutely nothing to do with CSI, in which case why is he on the company structure website? Have they put his name and picture there for some sort of weird 'kudos'? If that's the case why not put a picture of the Queen on there with the title 'monarch'? Even you must admit it's a little strange to have Victor Muller's picture in the company structure of CSI if he doesn't actually hold a position with them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 Well, the above pint of bile merely proves my theory that most of you KNOW it's over.... Or indeed the opposite....it depends on whether you have an intellect or not:facepalm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 Well, the above pint of bile merely proves my theory that most of you KNOW it's over.... Maybe you are right. But for those wanting to debate this sensibly, the whole escapade does ask some very serious questions about how far our loyalty to our clubs often over shadows what is wrong/right/ethical/moral with football. Whether there was criminal goings on or not, whether there have been those who exploited the rules and finances or not, whether the current owners are going to be great or not or how much money they still have... is all really irrelevent. What is important is that at the end of the day we have a club that was allowed to (either within or not the regulations) through various reasons get into debt to the tune of 120 mil. whether this was contributed to by the accounting practices of loans and other things should not distract attention away from the fact that a) they were able to procure and pay wages for a highly competitive squad, that gave them for a 2 year period a competitive advantage. Yes many clubs do this and as long as the debt is serviceable , whilst i do not agree with it, its certainly acceptable. The issue is that as soon as it becomes clear that it is NOT serviceable, the club SHOULD be under not only a moral and legal obligation but also stringent FA/PL/FL regulations to do everyting it can to reduce the debt burden. Now corps says they sold players which is fair enough, but its not an excuse to say 'where did this go' because if it is not known then something dodgy was going on... if it is known and above board and the money was used to pay of director loans or whatever, then why was this not factored into the budget? why at a time when it was reported that pompey were already 30 mil debt (not on infrastructure or mortgages on tangible assets) but as a result of high transfers and exceptional player contracts for a club of that size (the competitive advantage) - did they continue the spending (or were allowed tounder the current governance) - and yes we need to remove the over emotive crap just because its pompey if we want to debate this sensibly... If pompey fans are going to say that as fans they had no control so should not carry the can... they cant throw the argument back at us and say we were not protesting enough when we spent money we should have kept... afterall what influence could we have had? But the difference that goes some way in book to correcting that mistake was that Lowe risked relegation and fan hatred, by selling everything and playing kids in a bid to reduce the debt and get us back into a balanced set of books - OK so his reasons may have been selfish in that he will have known that administration would have wiped out his shareholding, but the club did it none the less (its why I lose the will to live when I see ignorant comments from our own fans that try and suggest he put us into admin out ot spite or 'waited' until after the deadline - he waited because having reduced the overdraft from 6 to 4 mil it was not expected and as soon as it arrived he did what he was legally required to do and call in teh administrators - yes the law is stricter for PLCs so he had no choice when in effect trading insolvently - yet because of pompey's complex ownership status - it seems this was not required? This begs the question, why are the PL/FA/FL rules not reflective of the highest financial regulations, rather than the lowest? Credit goes to those fans that are trying to get the club to honour the full payments to small creditors by the way. ..but those pompey fans that see no wrong doing in all this need to wake up and smell the coffee - it should come as no surprise that your local rivals will pick up on the 'feck em' attitude that many have portrayed. It goes without saying that had the fans as a majority been morally outraged and humble, the sympathy would have been difficult but it would have been there So what now? Yes there is a huge amount of speculation, which I indeed find confusing... especially around teh whole issue of ringfenced parachute payments - In the ideal world POmpey would have resigned themselves to paying of the debt at all costs, even if it meant relegation to L1 - afterall that is what we did...it may not have worked but we tried. Yet now we see the club spend not insignificant amounts on new players and wages whilst teh creditors large and small wait and wait - yes I understand the business concept in this... and some creditors may even agree - try and get promoted and then see a bigger and quicker return... but this is no different from the gambler who borrors just one more stake on the cahnce that all his winnnings will do if lucky enough is pay off the debt... and the risk is obvious. Are pompey fans not concerned right now about what is still unclear? that there may be a risk of further financial turmoil? What does it say about the state of the game? Its why for me this thread is actually important - not because its pompey, but because it highlights all that is wrong with football finance, and the ONLY way eventually something will be done about it is if fans choose to highlight it, even if going against teh 'loyalty' that is ingrained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporate Ho Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 Ah, now I see how loan sharks become loan sharks... Chinny intentionally put in this 'wooly' offer to the small creditors, knowing they'd fall for it, and knowing it would deem the whole cva as illegitimate! Shame about the cancer charities, chin thought to himself, as he hopped out the car and into the casino 1. As others have pointed out, small creditors claims are worth around £120K. Work out what percentage of the vote against a total of £130m they hold and whether they'd hav been able to block anything 2. How many more times, cancer charities have been paid. So, why is Victor Muller on the CSI company structure web page? What does he do for CSI? You asked for a link between CSI [or PFCs owners], and Saab. I have presented one. Unless of course Victor Muller has absolutely nothing to do with CSI, in which case why is he on the company structure website? Have they put his name and picture there for some sort of weird 'kudos'? If that's the case why not put a picture of the Queen on there with the title 'monarch'? Even you must admit it's a little strange to have Victor Muller's picture in the company structure of CSI if he doesn't actually hold a position with them! I didn't ask for a "link" between CSI and SAAB. There are plenty of links. I asked Philly how Antonov would access the EIB loan when he didn't own SAAB (which, as I posted last night, Philly clearly wasn't aware of). You (Weston) originally posted that Victor Muller was listed as founder and CEO of CSI because you misread the website. He's not, he's listed as founder and CEO of Spyker cars. Antonov used to own Spyker cars in it's entirety but sold the main company back to Muller when the EIB blocked Spyker's takjeover bid for SAAB if Antonov was involved (I hope you're following this). Antonov then bought the sports car division of Spyker for around £32m. Ref the website, I suspect that as with Lampitt at Pompey, Antonov retained Muller as CEO of Spyker sports cars even through he owns the company and that's why he's listed. You'll notice that despite owning CSI Antonov has CEO's running most of the companies that fall under the whole parent company. Finally, ref PFC123's posts about us getting a points deduction, I'm not so sure as he is. I think the payment to Amdy Faye could hit us (although I wouldn't be surprised to be fined rtaher than hit with points). I think the Mandaric and Redknapp issues relate more to them personally and so wouldn't hit us. The forensic investigation could be interesting, especially if it shows up that money we pulled in from the sale of Diarra, Johnson, Muntari and all the others, which could have paid off our debts almost completely was diverted out of the business and where it went. Not sure that would fall under the banner of "financial irregularities" but if it did and Gaydamak had the cash I presume that, as the owner of the business, he'd have been entitled to do so BUT might affect claims he (or others) still have outstanding. Abd can you not keep banging on about Luton's 30 point deduction as a "precedent" as the circumstances are completely different. They got 20 points for exiting administration without a CVA and therefore only 10 points for around 50 uses of illegal agents. Finally finally - has anyone seen Dubai Phil to maybe answer the questions he's running scared from answering or is still working on the year before last's budget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 1. As others have pointed out, small creditors claims are worth around £120K. Work out what percentage of the vote against a total of £130m they hold and whether they'd hav been able to block anything 2. How many more times, cancer charities have been paid. I understand that it is a small percentage Ho, I am simply introducing my latest theory regarding the CVA: that the small creditors 100% payment deal by Portpin, codified in the CVA, was actually an intentionally 'wooly' condition specifically designed to undermine the whole financial agreement... whereby the irregularities of paying one set of unsecured creditors 100% over another set of unsecured creditors getting 20% (4% over five years minus AAs luncheon vouchers) would effectively mean that the agreement becomes illegal, resulting in the whole CVA becoming nul and void and the process needs to be started all over again... Chinny does a bunk with his cash, plus remaining secured and seperate from a document which he knows is a sham, AA can wash his hands of it now that HMRC have sent in there own serious fraud investigators and the Russians absolve themselves from any responsibility as they have nothing to do with the old co' given all the irregular situations that occur at your club on a daily basis, the above scenario wouldnt be much of a surpirse... lets not forget HMRC spent many days in the High Court challenging the administration process, the CVA, the secured statuses, their unsecured status... basically they argued the whole bloody thing stank of skate... Didnt Bompey have CVA difficulties resulting in them almost bombing out of the football league alltogether? (if it werent for E.Howe) With regards to point two, I have seen you claim a few times on here that the childrens cancer charities have been paid... I have never seen one shred of evidence to support this claim, if you could help clear this particular shameful horror story, please do! We have had a poster on here claim that they are involved with the Gosport childrens cancer charity, and they have yet to recieve a penny... if you can counter that then go ahead and we can strike it off the long, long list of disgrace! The fans rallied together to sort out St.Johns Ambulance as the club seemingly couldnt be f*cked to give them the £4k odd, so hats off to them for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporate Ho Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 Whether there was criminal goings on or not, whether there have been those who exploited the rules and finances or not, whether the current owners are going to be great or not or how much money they still have... is all really irrelevent. Sorry FC, disagree completely about what may have been exploited. Most Saints posters still believe we spunked £130m on players and that's how we ran up the debt. In fact (as I keep saying) we were around £58m in debt at the point we started selling some of our best players (Diarra, Johnson, Muntari, Defoe etc.) This reduced the wage bill considerably and SHOULD have had the double effect of also reducing the debt level (is there anyone, even on this board who would disagree with that?). However, the fact is that from debts of £58m we sold players for more than £70m DID NOT keep buying big name, high fee players on huge wages but somehow saw the debt level DOUBLE???? Money that could and should have seen us running on a pretty much break even basis went missing - there's no other explanation for the situation. How you can view that as irrelavent is beyond me What is important is that at the end of the day we have a club that was allowed to (either within or not the regulations) through various reasons get into debt to the tune of 120 mil. whether this was contributed to by the accounting practices of loans and other things should not distract attention away from the fact that a) they were able to procure and pay wages for a highly competitive squad, that gave them for a 2 year period a competitive advantage. Yes many clubs do this and as long as the debt is serviceable , whilst i do not agree with it, its certainly acceptable. The issue is that as soon as it becomes clear that it is NOT serviceable, the club SHOULD be under not only a moral and legal obligation but also stringent FA/PL/FL regulations to do everyting it can to reduce the debt burden. Now corps says they sold players which is fair enough, but its not an excuse to say 'where did this go' because if it is not known then something dodgy was going on... if it is known and above board and the money was used to pay of director loans or whatever, then why was this not factored into the budget? why at a time when it was reported that pompey were already 30 mil debt (not on infrastructure or mortgages on tangible assets) but as a result of high transfers and exceptional player contracts for a club of that size (the competitive advantage) - did they continue the spending (or were allowed tounder the current governance) - and yes we need to remove the over emotive crap just because its pompey if we want to debate this sensibly... Again Frank, not sure how many times I need to say this (not just to you, to everyone on here) but whilst our wages were high the wages to turnover ratio at PFC for the period you talk about us having an unfair competitive advantage were no higher than many other PL clubs. Read the David Conn article I posted a link to before and you'll see that our turnover the year we won the cup was £70m. wages were high but in line with many other PL clubs (and I'm not talking about the Utd's and Chelsea type clubs before anyone says anything). And the point here is that the debt WAS serviceable. A change in circumstances meant it went tits up but if the Liebherr family said they wanted their cash back tomorrow the same thing would happen to you. Hindsight's a great thing but at the time the wages were being paid on time and there wasn't a problem If pompey fans are going to say that as fans they had no control so should not carry the can... they cant throw the argument back at us and say we were not protesting enough when we spent money we should have kept... afterall what influence could we have had? But the difference that goes some way in book to correcting that mistake was that Lowe risked relegation and fan hatred, by selling everything and playing kids in a bid to reduce the debt and get us back into a balanced set of books - OK so his reasons may have been selfish in that he will have known that administration would have wiped out his shareholding, but the club did it none the less (its why I lose the will to live when I see ignorant comments from our own fans that try and suggest he put us into admin out ot spite or 'waited' until after the deadline - he waited because having reduced the overdraft from 6 to 4 mil it was not expected and as soon as it arrived he did what he was legally required to do and call in teh administrators - yes the law is stricter for PLCs so he had no choice when in effect trading insolvently - yet because of pompey's complex ownership status - it seems this was not required? This begs the question, why are the PL/FA/FL rules not reflective of the highest financial regulations, rather than the lowest? In all honesty, your fans seemed happy that the club moved to PLC status so that was the choice you made. Agree with you that the PL/ FL's rules aren't tight enough but then again your fans seem to think Pompey fans are wrong to blame the PL for allowing a seemingly non - existent Saudi to take ownership of the club. ..but those pompey fans that see no wrong doing in all this need to wake up and smell the coffee - it should come as no surprise that your local rivals will pick up on the 'feck em' attitude that many have portrayed. It goes without saying that had the fans as a majority been morally outraged and humble, the sympathy would have been difficult but it would have been there I don't think there's one Pompey fan who thinks all creditors shouldn't get what's coming to them. But what are we supposed to have been outraged and humble over? No-one's glad that our owners loaded masses of debt on the club and then skulked off to let others sort out the mess while they still pull in cash from the train wreck. It goes back to the debt level increasing whilst players were sold for big money FC. If your lot want to point the finger at cheats, look at Chainrai and co. not the "club" itself So what now? Yes there is a huge amount of speculation, which I indeed find confusing... especially around teh whole issue of ringfenced parachute payments - In the ideal world POmpey would have resigned themselves to paying of the debt at all costs, even if it meant relegation to L1 - afterall that is what we did...it may not have worked but we tried. Yet now we see the club spend not insignificant amounts on new players and wages whilst teh creditors large and small wait and wait - yes I understand the business concept in this... and some creditors may even agree - try and get promoted and then see a bigger and quicker return... but this is no different from the gambler who borrors just one more stake on the cahnce that all his winnnings will do if lucky enough is pay off the debt... and the risk is obvious. Are pompey fans not concerned right now about what is still unclear? that there may be a risk of further financial turmoil? FC, you've contradicted yourself here. You didn't "try and pay the debts off at all costs". You yourself said that reducing the costs was Lowe's desperate gamble not to see his shareholding wiped out, not through some ideal of corinthian fair play. And if someone other than Liebherr had bought you it's likely that your fans wouldn't have such a high horse to sit on in the CVA morality battle. There may still indeed be further financial turmoil but the club's finances are now regulated by the FL and everything we do has to be approved by them before we action it. Similarly, CSI have no access to the parachute payments which are administered by the PL and have (or continue) to pay off scheduled debt payments ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landford.saint Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 Corp ho. I like most people on fans forums take most of what I read with a huge pinch of salt and much scepticism, (this site included). So after 843 pages on here I am not really any wiser as to whats really going on down at the home of the blue few. Could you for those of us who support SFC and dont indulge in childish slanging matches, outline what is, in your opinion, going on down at FP. Who owns what, the carpark, the ground, the club etc. And do they in your view have the club at heart or are they just chancers, like so many club owners up and down the FL/PL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 ...we were around £58m in debt at the point we started selling some of our best players... How was the debt calculated? did it include the total expenditure of the players? I remember when Johnson was sold to Liverpool, money was still owed to Chelsea. How was that debt included? Was his value as an asset reduced by the specific payment plan? What was the interest on these director/bank loans? Accounts can hide much of this and it will be interesting to see the results of the forensic analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 So who actually owns Pompey? Vlad, Roman and Akers, or CSI? I thought the delay in paying off the small creditors was because some at the lower end of the CVA scale were readjusting their claims, meaning they went below the £2.5k threshold, so they got 100% of £2.5k rather than 20p in the pound of their [for example, £2.7k] debt? Thats what Jed Clampitt said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 ... we spunked £130m on players and that's how we ran up the debt.... we were around £58m in debt at the point we started selling some of our best players (Diarra, Johnson, Muntari, Defoe etc.) This reduced the wage bill considerably and SHOULD have had the double effect of also reducing the debt level (is there anyone, even on this board who would disagree with that?). However, the fact is that from debts of £58m we sold players for more than £70m DID NOT keep buying big name, high fee players on huge wages but somehow saw the debt level DOUBLE???? Corporate, you are forgetting that, like most Peter Storrie deals, all these expensive assets you had were bought on the never never... See below in bold! How was the debt calculated? did it include the total expenditure of the players? I remember when Johnson was sold to Liverpool, money was still owed to Chelsea. How was that debt included? Was his value as an asset reduced by the specific payment plan? What was the interest on these director/bank loans? Accounts can hide much of this and it will be interesting to see the results of the forensic analysis. Your club is still in dispute with international clubs over historical transfers from your glory days of £70m worth of playing assets on the books. You sold Muntari, Diarra etc, but you had barely paid a fraction of the fee from which you bought them for... hence the scenario above, where you sold Johnson for a big fee, but the majority of that had to go to the club you originally bought the player for! You had equity or negative equity on most of Harrys dream team... You were STILL in dispute, and I suspect you still are in dispute with clubs such as Udinesse in Italy over failure to pay your transfer fees, despite already selling them on to another club! I think you also shoved the foreign clubs into the CVA, as they were outside the FAs Football Creditors rule... This resulted in the foreign clubs mounting an official complaint to FIFA, the worlds football governing body... This is one of the many reasons we claim world football percieves you as a crooked sham... because they do! Luckily for you, FIFA are as dirty as Avram after a training session with the players, and not much has been heard since if I recall. Carrying on with the 'global footballing communtiy percieves you as an illegal entity' , I think the complaints to FIFA from fellow football clubs were about the same time you were booted/forced to pull out of Europe because you were (and are) such an embarrassing basket case of a club! I had a skate mate who used to try to defend his club, although nowhere near the disgraceful manner in which you do... I was relentless, and now he wont even talk about Poopey, to anyone, he just cant bring himself to it... be careful Corporate, if you keep working yourself up, coming on here and trying to defend criminals, you could be the next silent wreck in the corner. You DSB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_John Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 Because the football authorities don't tend to come after clubs and hit them again and again once the dust settles. ...I just can't see the PL having any authority even if they wanted to hit us now that we're a FL club. As all those in court were long gone before relegation to the FL, I can't see how they would want to try imposing anything either... Can I remind you that there have been 2 cases where clubs have been deducted 10 points by the FA (oversee rules for both PL & FL). Luton has already been mentioned by others, however there is also the case of St Albans who were deducted 10 points last season for financial irregularities 3 years earlier. http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/st-albans-040211 At a Regulatory Hearing today, St. Albans City FC were deducted ten league points and fined £7,500 after a case of financial irregularities was proven. The Conference South club were found to be in breach of the following FA Rules - C2(b)(ii), C1(b)(viii) and C2(b)(iii). The three breaches are in relation to financial irregularities in respect to payments and expenses to players. In summing up, the Chairman of the Regulatory Commission had serious concerns over the financial irregularities within the Club during the 2008-09 season. Such irregularities enabled the Club to have an unfair sporting advantage over others within the League which is simply unacceptable. St Albans City FC were warned as to their future conduct and the ten league points deduction is immediate. If you want to know what C2(b)(ii) etc are it says here http://www.twohundredpercent.net/?p=10910 The rules that the club was found to be in breach of – C2(b)(ii) and C2(b)(iii) – relate to payments being made to uncontracted players and this is what they say: (ii) All salaried payments must be subject to PAYE and National Insurance. (iii) Any Player’s paid expenses must be reimbursed via an expense claim form. The Club must retain all expense records in a format acceptable to the HM Revenue and Customs. So, in other words, the club was paying players “under the counter” and not paying the tax that is payable upon them. So the FA still deducted 10 points for 3 breaches 3 years earlier, for payments to players that tried to bypass paying PAYE and National Insurance, i.e. the Southwark court cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 Corp ho. I like most people on fans forums take most of what I read with a huge pinch of salt and much scepticism, (this site included). So after 843 pages on here I am not really any wiser as to whats really going on down at the home of the blue few. Could you for those of us who support SFC and dont indulge in childish slanging matches, outline what is, in your opinion, going on down at FP. Who owns what, the carpark, the ground, the club etc. And do they in your view have the club at heart or are they just chancers, like so many club owners up and down the FL/PL. I agree with you on this... I am just interested in all this from a 'football' perspective... even if I have endulged in a littel baiting too... BUt below is another good point when Corps talks of teh 58mil debt and tehn players sold for 70 mil. where did the money go... as I see ai suspect alarge chunk of this went ion to players and agent pockets =- players in having their contracts terminated early in compensation and agent in the deals - and thjose compenation payments are likely to be high sell a player on 50k a week with three years left on a contract as an example - that equates to £7.8 mil. If that player was sold at 7mil, teh net debt woudl actually increase by 0.8mil (albeit spreaqd over 3 years) despite the club in theory receiving 7 mil in cash... That's an over simplication but I suspect that if you were selling rapidly to get the wages off the books quite a bit of that occured. Corps... I dont deny that there has been some serious shafting going on allegedly, but surely you cant expect us to believe 70 mil can dissapppear from the account and no serious Fraud investigation announced? that is simply naive to suggest that had their been a fraud of that nature, that even the PL/FA and their **** poor regulations would have spotted that and done something about it? I appreciate that thsi sdebate has gone around several houses, but there are still questions as Landford has mentioned... would be interested to hear your response to that... thats my 3 posts for the day so will have to wait now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 [quote=Corporate Ho;1140575 I didn't ask for a "link" between CSI and SAAB. There are plenty of links. I asked Philly how Antonov would access the EIB loan when he didn't own SAAB (which, as I posted last night, Philly clearly wasn't aware of). You (Weston) originally posted that Victor Muller was listed as founder and CEO of CSI because you misread the website. He's not, he's listed as founder and CEO of Spyker cars. Antonov used to own Spyker cars in it's entirety but sold the main company back to Muller when the EIB blocked Spyker's takjeover bid for SAAB if Antonov was involved (I hope you're following this). Antonov then bought the sports car division of Spyker for around £32m. Ref the website, I suspect that as with Lampitt at Pompey, Antonov retained Muller as CEO of Spyker sports cars even through he owns the company and that's why he's listed. You'll notice that despite owning CSI Antonov has CEO's running most of the companies that fall under the whole parent company. That didn't answer the question! Are you AA with your 'wooly' answers? If Muller is not in anyway shape or form connected with CSI - being the CEO of a company that Antonov used to own, but then sold does not make him part of the new company's structure!!! - then why is he listed as part of the company structure? What does he do for CSI to be on the company structure page? A lot of questions that the skate thickos just seem to gloss over and accept - I dare say that's how the club was owned by gun running drug dealers in the first place! - and others [like PFC] pretend don't exist at all! I hope you can follow that, but just in case you can't, I'll put it more simply for you..... The Question : Why is Victor Muller on the structure page of CSI website? Does he have anything to do with CSI and that is why he is on there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 Sorry, tend not to post on this thread too much but appreciate CH's input to try to put some balance to the argument, however, this is confusing: "Sorry FC, disagree completely about what may have been exploited. Most Saints posters still believe we spunked £130m on players and that's how we ran up the debt. In fact (as I keep saying) we were around £58m in debt at the point we started selling some of our best players (Diarra, Johnson, Muntari, Defoe etc.) This reduced the wage bill considerably and SHOULD have had the double effect of also reducing the debt level (is there anyone, even on this board who would disagree with that?). However, the fact is that from debts of £58m we sold players for more than £70m DID NOT keep buying big name, high fee players on huge wages but somehow saw the debt level DOUBLE???? Money that could and should have seen us running on a pretty much break even basis went missing - there's no other explanation for the situation. How you can view that as irrelavent is beyond me" I believe the oft quoted and widley accepted figure of debt was £130 million, given the figures above are we saying now that the club sold £70million pounds worth of players and a further £72 million also just 'went missing' without any explanation? Are there any theories or explanations as to how this money disappeared? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 Interesting blog / theories: http://ktwop.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/saab-fights-liquidity-crisis-while-victor-muller-plays-a-game/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 though ownership can be a complex and murky business, the paper trail for income recieved shouldn't be too difficult to follow - Liverpool pay £xxM for Johnson - easy question, according to Liverpool's accounts, who did they pay what to? If they paid it to PFC, it's either in the account or it has been paid out of PFC to a third party - if so, who, why and how? You can't put a note in the cashbox - taken £10M for stamps. So you cannot 'lose' tens of millions between clubs without leaving some sort of trail, or breaching most UK tax and FA rules. An individual lone business perhaps, but not when all clubs involved are monitored. The forensic investigation should throw up some answers..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevvy Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 Any idea when this forensic investigation will come to light, Its been a long time since we have heard anything on whats going on, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamesaint Posted 9 September, 2011 Share Posted 9 September, 2011 With regards to point two, I have seen you claim a few times on here that the childrens cancer charities have been paid... I have never seen one shred of evidence to support this claim, if you could help clear this particular shameful horror story, please do! We have had a poster on here claim that they are involved with the Gosport childrens cancer charity, and they have yet to recieve a penny... if you can counter that then go ahead and we can strike it off the long, long list of disgrace! The fans rallied together to sort out St.Johns Ambulance as the club seemingly couldnt be f*cked to give them the £4k odd, so hats off to them for that. I note that Corp came back to this thread but never answered this question. Is it possible that Corp has got it wrong & the cancer charites have not been paid?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint lard Posted 10 September, 2011 Share Posted 10 September, 2011 The harbour cancer trust in gosport,based above the bus station , has not been paid what was due, as yet,according to my source. However that does not mean an arrangement has not been agreed by the two parties,either to settle by other means,a differing timescale or other promises made by PFC. I don't think you will hear the charity say anything to inflame the issue,however much they were/are disappointed by the clubs actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 10 September, 2011 Share Posted 10 September, 2011 Don't forget the house of cards started to topple when Standard Bank South Africa called in a large loan (around £35m IIRC) for immediate repayment, and they had to sell players immediately to pay it back. It was paid back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 10 September, 2011 Share Posted 10 September, 2011 Any idea when this forensic investigation will come to light, Its been a long time since we have heard anything on whats going on, If it's taking longer because they are digging really deep and finding lots and lots of illegal goings on, then I'm quite happy for them to take their time. It must be like a sword of Damocles for the few more intelligent Skate fans, so the anticipation of what they might find and the repercussions following on from their report are delicious in the suspense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporate Ho Posted 10 September, 2011 Share Posted 10 September, 2011 A special treat for you all, a post from me on a weekend!! Corp ho. I like most people on fans forums take most of what I read with a huge pinch of salt and much scepticism, (this site included). So after 843 pages on here I am not really any wiser as to whats really going on down at the home of the blue few. Could you for those of us who support SFC and dont indulge in childish slanging matches, outline what is, in your opinion, going on down at FP. Who owns what, the carpark, the ground, the club etc. And do they in your view have the club at heart or are they just chancers, like so many club owners up and down the FL/PL. Think it's all a matter of public record. CSI own the club and the ground (Portpin no longer have a charge on Fratton Park) and Gaydamak still owns the land surrounding the ground. He can't do much with it because although Tesco want to buy it they know the council would oppose any planning permission without a redevelopment of the ground being included and while the appeal might get through it's too much hassle for Tesco. CSI might buy the land and use the funds from a sale to Tesco to redevelop but I'm not holding my breath. Think CSI bought the club to add to their sporting portfolio and that makes sense for them. I can't see them throwing millions at the club, I think they'll just run it steadily and hope to get a bit of luck and fluke a place in the PL via the playoffs in a couple of years time. I can't see any sense in the claims on here that they want to launder money through it when we're under such close observation by the FL. They could have bought another club to do that and if they wanted to they have plenty of other businesses to do that through. So who actually owns Pompey? Vlad, Roman and Akers, or CSI? CSI are the owners of PFC. But if you look at the CSI website Antonov, Dubov and Akers are listed as co - founders of CSI so it's the same thing effectively http://www.converssport.com/structure Corporate, you are forgetting that, like most Peter Storrie deals, all these expensive assets you had were bought on the never never... See below in bold! Your club is still in dispute with international clubs over historical transfers from your glory days of £70m worth of playing assets on the books. You sold Muntari, Diarra etc, but you had barely paid a fraction of the fee from which you bought them for... hence the scenario above, where you sold Johnson for a big fee, but the majority of that had to go to the club you originally bought the player for! You had equity or negative equity on most of Harrys dream team... You were STILL in dispute, and I suspect you still are in dispute with clubs such as Udinesse in Italy over failure to pay your transfer fees, despite already selling them on to another club! I think you also shoved the foreign clubs into the CVA, as they were outside the FAs Football Creditors rule... This resulted in the foreign clubs mounting an official complaint to FIFA, the worlds football governing body... This is one of the many reasons we claim world football percieves you as a crooked sham... because they do! Luckily for you, FIFA are as dirty as Avram after a training session with the players, and not much has been heard since if I recall. Carrying on with the 'global footballing communtiy percieves you as an illegal entity' , I think the complaints to FIFA from fellow football clubs were about the same time you were booted/forced to pull out of Europe because you were (and are) such an embarrassing basket case of a club! I had a skate mate who used to try to defend his club, although nowhere near the disgraceful manner in which you do... I was relentless, and now he wont even talk about Poopey, to anyone, he just cant bring himself to it... be careful Corporate, if you keep working yourself up, coming on here and trying to defend criminals, you could be the next silent wreck in the corner. So Pompey are the only club to have bought players on instalments are we? Saints have never done this? Your point about transfers is a little misguided though. "The majority" of the fee we received for players like Johnson, Diarra etc didn't go to the clubs we bought them from as we made such a massive profit on them. We paid £4m for Johnson and sold him for £18m. We paid £5m for Diarra and sold him for almost £20m. Now, correct me if I'm wrong but even allowing for a sell on fee in the case of Diarra to Arsenal "the majority" of the fee we received didn't go to Chelsea or Arsenal - or are you still adamant that most of those players had negative equity attached to them when we sold them? What about Defoe (bought for £9m, sold for £16m) or Distin (free transfer, sold for £5m). Also we weren't booted/ forced out of Europe We were in administration so not allowed to enter. Simple as that (despite that clown Andronikou's claims about challenging it). As for your point about clubs "such as" Udinese, you mean just Udinese don't you, because you can't think of any others? I agree with you on this... I am just interested in all this from a 'football' perspective... even if I have endulged in a littel baiting too... BUt below is another good point when Corps talks of teh 58mil debt and tehn players sold for 70 mil. where did the money go... as I see ai suspect alarge chunk of this went ion to players and agent pockets =- players in having their contracts terminated early in compensation and agent in the deals - and thjose compenation payments are likely to be high sell a player on 50k a week with three years left on a contract as an example - that equates to £7.8 mil. If that player was sold at 7mil, teh net debt woudl actually increase by 0.8mil (albeit spreaqd over 3 years) despite the club in theory receiving 7 mil in cash... That's an over simplication but I suspect that if you were selling rapidly to get the wages off the books quite a bit of that occured. Corps... I dont deny that there has been some serious shafting going on allegedly, but surely you cant expect us to believe 70 mil can dissapppear from the account and no serious Fraud investigation announced? that is simply naive to suggest that had their been a fraud of that nature, that even the PL/FA and their **** poor regulations would have spotted that and done something about it? I appreciate that thsi sdebate has gone around several houses, but there are still questions as Landford has mentioned... would be interested to hear your response to that... thats my 3 posts for the day so will have to wait now.... There may well be something in what you've said but even if we only broke even on those transfer dealings it doesn't explain how the debt rose from £58m (which is the figure David Conn quoted as the latest available from companies house in his article) to £130m when, as I've said, our days of signing "name" players for big fees were well in the past. Yes we still had some high earners but we were turning over around £50m a year at the time, easily enough to cover our wage bill and have some left over. I'm not sure on the legality but as I said earlier, it may be that Gaydamak took some of the fees receievd for himself and as owner maybe he was allowed to do that. But, if that's the case, it means that PFC were the victims of his greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 10 September, 2011 Share Posted 10 September, 2011 lol corp ho...when is riquelme signing..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonsays Posted 10 September, 2011 Share Posted 10 September, 2011 (edited) Corpy for f sake, it's the week end you sad git. have you not better things to do that log onto a Southampton forum. Get a life. Edited 10 September, 2011 by simonsays Forgot to address it to the sad skate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
for_heaven's_Saint Posted 10 September, 2011 Share Posted 10 September, 2011 Corpy for f sake, it's the week end you sad git. have you not better things to do that log onto a Southampton forum. Get a life. Trying to distract himself from the imminent thrashing his rabble are expecting in East London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 10 September, 2011 Share Posted 10 September, 2011 The harbour cancer trust in gosport,based above the bus station , has not been paid what was due, as yet,according to my source. However that does not mean an arrangement has not been agreed by the two parties,either to settle by other means,a differing timescale or other promises made by PFC. I don't think you will hear the charity say anything to inflame the issue,however much they were/are disappointed by the clubs actions. Thanks for confirming St L. I'm sure Corpse will dismiss your comments as no more than a conspiracy theory - that is of course if he doesn't just ignore them altogether like PFC would. But then, he's adamant and has stated on several occasions - apparently he's bored of repeating himself! - that ALL the charities have been paid! He's confident of this because a guy down the pub said so, but can't provide and proof of this - not even a link to the news website stating they had been paid! I mean they would have been all over the news like a rash wouldn't they, exploiting every last drop of good news from the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 10 September, 2011 Share Posted 10 September, 2011 The fans even cheated on Soccer AM... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 10 September, 2011 Share Posted 10 September, 2011 Anyone know why Lawrence got sent off today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 10 September, 2011 Share Posted 10 September, 2011 LMFAO, Cotterill spitting feathers again. Liam Lawrence sending off not a booking, sarcastic response to reporter, better team by "many a mile", we "dominated" until sending off...ROFL ROFL He's acting like a child now... again... ROFL Familiar story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 10 September, 2011 Share Posted 10 September, 2011 LMFAO, Cotterill spitting feathers again. Liam Lawrence sending off not a booking, sarcastic response to reporter, better team by "many a mile", we "dominated" until sending off...ROFL ROFL He's acting like a child now... again... ROFL Familiar story Wasn't that rather funny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts