Pompey or Saints - Is their current financial position worse than ours was?

[brianoneils slidingtackle]

Lets all laugh at pompey (again)

[eurosaint]

The latest on SSN is tomorrow morning, just after the interview with Gordan Taylor, he did say that he was confident that Portsmouth would pay its players by the end of the week, however, when asked about the long term he had no answer to that question.

 

Who is the 'he' ???

[krissyboy31]

Who is the 'he' ???

 

Gordon Taylor, I presume?

[Rogerfryisalegend]

Mark Jacob (Director) is on sky now saying there has been an injection of money and the wages are sorted. He said the fans will be delighted with an announcement that is due to be made.

[RinNY]

Having a spare 30 minutes to kill, I've just been googling Ali al Faraj and his comany Falcondrone, to get some sense of what's going on with Pompey. Here's the weird thing: there appears to be absolutely no information whatsoever about this man or this company except in connection with PFC. It's as if both he and his company blipped into existence just for the sake of taking over PFC, and that alone. I know super rich people can, to a degree, control what appears about them on the internet; but I've never heard of anyone being able to keep as low a profile as that while being in any way publicly active, as a major businessman must necessarily be. And in any case, can this al Faraj guy really be super rich if he cannot afford to pay the wage bill of a business he has recently taken over? I mean, if he is a billionaire with a major stake in SABIC (huge Saudi petro-chemical corp, with a turnover of ca. 24 bn quid annually) as reported, then why does he need to keep trying to arrange short term loans to meet a wage bill of under 2 million?? Surely he could just pay it out of his own account!

 

It does make one wonder whether Ali al Faraj really exists at all; or if he does, whether he isn't basically akin to that fellow Lynam trotted forward as his supposed money man backing the Pinnacle would-be takeover of SFC: the one who was penniless and lived with his mum & dad still, I forget his name. In other words, if al Faraj exists, is he just a penniless front man? And if so for whom??

 

I have to say: we've all had our criticisms of Lowe & Wilde & Crouch & Askham & the rest who ******ed up our great club; but at least they were real people, whose actual worth was known, and who came forward to take responsibility for their policies and decisions, however poor they may have been. And at least they never failed to pay the club staff!!

 

I find the whole Pompey situation astonishing, and I don't see how anyone could suggest they aren't in a far worse hole than SFC ever was. I'm left to wonder just what the PL's "fit and proper person" test consists of? It appears to be a farcical rubber stamp, as things stand. I won't say thank goodness for Lowe, Wilde, and the rest; but thank goodness they were at least real businessmen who could be and were held accountable for their activities!

[Matthew Le God]

Here's the weird thing: there appears to be absolutely no information whatsoever about this man or this company except in connection with PFC. It's as if both he and his company blipped into existence just for the sake of taking over PFC, and that alone. I know super rich people can, to a degree, control what appears about them on the internet; but I've never heard of anyone being able to keep as low a profile as that while being in any way publicly active, as a major businessman must necessarily be.

 

Just like when the Master became Harold Saxon in Doctor Who

[suewhistle]

I'm left to wonder just what the PL's "fit and proper person" test consists of?

 

RinNY - a very good question, which must be occurring to more than just you, me and the people on this board....

[St.Patrik]

Another twist...

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/39Pompey39s-longterm-future-is-safe39.5961833.jp

[Bearsy]

Another twist...

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/39Pompey39s-longterm-future-is-safe39.5961833.jp

 

Doesn't sound too convincing, does he?

 

Clubs always maintain they don't have to sell players on the cheap, irrelevant of the truth. Sounds like he's trying to talk the prices up.

[St.Patrik]

Well - I would never buy an used car from than man....

[John B]

Apparently the whole Pompey Squad is up for sale

[Wes Tender]

Loved reading this thread. Never make the mistake of having a different opinion from CBFRY, after he is always right.

 

I realise that you said that he is always right to be ironic. Despite being told several times, he persists in stating that Stoneham was on an Industrial site rather than a green field site and ignoring that St. Mary's is on an Industrial site. He goes all dreamy eyed because the new stadium is close to where the club was originally founded, which is fair enough. But in the intervening century since its founding, the city has grown hugely and public transport has declined as most people travel by car. Whereas it is convenient for some to walk to St. Mary's, for anybody living on the other side of the city, or for the probable half of the fan base who live outside the city, it is naturally a problem driving into the centre, parking and walking there.

 

Although Stoneham is inconsequential to our current state and is only debated as a sideline, nevertheless any sensible person would accept that there are arguments both for and against both sites.

[Gorgiesaint]

How desparate are they now getting - even trying to get the Premier League to guarantee a loan....

 

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/football/view/115874/Portsmouth-squad-up-for-sale/

[eelpie]

Apparently the whole Pompey Squad is up for sale

 

Then they will have to field the Academu side since they aren't allowed to sign anyone.

Now that reminds me of something from the dim distant past, can't think what. hmmm.

[SaintRichmond]

Then they will have to field the Academu side since they aren't allowed to sign anyone.

Now that reminds me of something from the dim distant past, can't think what. hmmm.

 

 

I will gladly jog your memory if you so wish:rolleyes::cool:

[SaintRichmond]

Doesn't sound too convincing, does he?

 

Clubs always maintain they don't have to sell players on the cheap, irrelevant of the truth. Sounds like he's trying to talk the prices up.

 

 

"Got them over a barrel " springs to mind

 

If ever there was a BUYERS market, this is the scenario for it:cool:

[Dalek2003]

I realise that you said that he is always right to be ironic. Despite being told several times, he persists in stating that Stoneham was on an Industrial site rather than a green field site and ignoring that St. Mary's is on an Industrial site. He goes all dreamy eyed because the new stadium is close to where the club was originally founded, which is fair enough. But in the intervening century since its founding, the city has grown hugely and public transport has declined as most people travel by car. Whereas it is convenient for some to walk to St. Mary's, for anybody living on the other side of the city, or for the probable half of the fan base who live outside the city, it is naturally a problem driving into the centre, parking and walking there.

 

Although Stoneham is inconsequential to our current state and is only debated as a sideline, nevertheless any sensible person would accept that there are arguments both for and against both sites.

 

He always gets very full of himself and very rarely accepts another persons opinion.

[gaz]

According to the Daily Star, Kaboul is their most valuable asset (£5m). Jeez they are fooked.

[stmusicdude]

I think it's interesting that when trying to say they are about to come out of the hole & become a strong club again , rounds it all up getting excited almost that they have offers for players.

[up and away]

I realise that you said that he is always right to be ironic. Despite being told several times, he persists in stating that Stoneham was on an Industrial site rather than a green field site and ignoring that St. Mary's is on an Industrial site. He goes all dreamy eyed because the new stadium is close to where the club was originally founded, which is fair enough. But in the intervening century since its founding, the city has grown hugely and public transport has declined as most people travel by car. Whereas it is convenient for some to walk to St. Mary's, for anybody living on the other side of the city, or for the probable half of the fan base who live outside the city, it is naturally a problem driving into the centre, parking and walking there.

 

Although Stoneham is inconsequential to our current state and is only debated as a sideline, nevertheless any sensible person would accept that there are arguments both for and against both sites.

 

If you want to extend that rationale just a smidgen, Stoneham was turned down purely on economic grounds. We had so many meetings with Eastleigh with the whole thing going on for many months, could even be more than a year. There was only one criteria that caused Stoneham to fail, we could not minimise the economic costs with other facilities. God knows how many meetings we had with the council but at the end of the day, we had to walk away from it because we could not afford it.

[OldNick]

their future will improve if they stay up.All of a sudden they will have cash coming in from Sky and a comparitivily low wage bill. They are in a pivotal period where they can retrieve the situation or fold.

I have maintained that they would stay up as there are so many poor teams. The Coyle situation could doom both of those clubs and wolves are looking weak.

[altoniansaints]

PFA not sounding too confident about long term future of pimply

 

http://www.sportingpreview.com/matches/09103642.php

[Wes Tender]

If you want to extend that rationale just a smidgen, Stoneham was turned down purely on economic grounds. We had so many meetings with Eastleigh with the whole thing going on for many months, could even be more than a year. There was only one criteria that caused Stoneham to fail, we could not minimise the economic costs with other facilities. God knows how many meetings we had with the council but at the end of the day, we had to walk away from it because we could not afford it.

 

Keep the pot boiling, why don't you? Is there anything about what I actually wrote, that you quoted, that you disagree with? Or should we go all around the houses once more? I don't agree with what you say, but I really can't be arsed to go over it all again, as Stoneham has little to do with the subject of the thread.

[altoniansaints]

p*mpey players finally paid

 

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/10/01/07/SOCCER_Portsmouth_2nd_Nightlead.html&TEAMHD=soccer

 

so until feb .........................

[krissyboy31]

p*mpey players finally paid

 

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/10/01/07/SOCCER_Portsmouth_2nd_Nightlead.html&TEAMHD=soccer

 

so until feb .........................

 

Why Feb? This was December's wages, they've got January's to go first! Unless you mean they won't be paid before Feb of course?

[altoniansaints]

Why Feb? This was December's wages, they've got January's to go first! Unless you mean they won't be paid before Feb of course?

 

jans wages due on the 31st Jan or 1st Feb depending on thier due pay day so by the next time we`re talking about the Jan wahes not being paid it`ll be Feb ...........

[saint peach]

Thought some of you may enjoy a feature on Pompey's financial mismanagement. It was certainly one of the most enjoyable articles I've ever written.

 

 

 

Manchester City announced record losses of £92.6m for the financial year, Manchester United’s owners looked to issue a £600 million bond to ease their debt burden, while Portsmouth failed to pay players and staff on time for the third successive month. All in all, it has just been another typical week in the Barclays (sponsor) Premier League, writes Simon Peach. In recent times tales of financial woe emanating from England’s elite clubs have been two-a-penny. Whether it be the so-called ‘big boys’ or those clutching onto the coattails, the majority of Premier League clubs seem to share a common bond: financial mismanagement.

 

The true financial disarray of clubs has been brought into sharp focus by the continued fall from grace of Portsmouth. The south coast club has been dragged further into the financial mire over the past year and now leers dangerously over the precipice. But it wasn’t too long ago that times were very different for the club. Under the stewardship of Harry Redknapp the club reached heights not seen at the Hampshire club since the mid-1950s. The likes of Lassana Diarra, Sulley Muntari and Sol Campbell were brought into the club, bringing class, skill and experience to the side. The players helped Portsmouth to unprecedented success in modern times, finishing the 2007-08 season in eighth place - their highest finish since 1954-55 - and with a trip to Wembley, where the team edged out Cardiff City to win the FA Cup.

 

The success fuelled Portsmouth’s ambition. Peter Crouch and Younes Kaboul were brought into the club in multi-million pound deals, signing lucrative contracts in the process, to help the club fight not only on the domestic front but in the UEFA Cup too. But then things started to go awry. Redknapp left the club and players began to flee as the club’s mysterious ownership situation lurched from one crisis to another. Portsmouth is struggling to pay wages believed to be £1.8 million a month, and owes numerous clubs millions of pounds for transfers as well as paying gargantuan wages to players - including one reserve player who is on a reported £80,000-per-week. Furthermore, the club has very few assets to sell.

 

Portsmouth has a small playing squad with a dearth of talent, a small rickety stadium that averages crowds of 18,929 - the second lowest in the league - and also rents pitches from the University of Southampton as the club has no training ground. In other words it appears the club has been built on quicksand. Portsmouth is riddled with debt to the reported tune of £75 million. The club owes £30 million to former owner Alexandre Gaydamak and was recently issued with a winding-up order from HM Revenue and Customs over owed VAT, PAYE and National Insurance contributions.

 

The club faces further trouble after Ligue 1 Orange (sponsor) club RC Lens started legal proceedings over allegedly broken promises regarding the transfers of left-back Nadir Belhadj and striker Aruna Dindane. Lens claims Portsmouth has failed to keep up instalments for Belhadj’s £4.2 million move and has gone back on a deal to sign £4 million rated Dindane once he played 11 matches for the club. Lens president Gervais Martel revealed to the Daily Mail that the club “are taking action through the European football tribunals as well as civil courts” and believes Portsmouth should be kicked out of the Premier League.

 

“Portsmouth should be treated like Mouscron,” he is quoted as saying. “We can't go on like this with clubs who don't pay their debts. Portsmouth have problems with all the clubs they've bought players from. We feel cheated.” The case Martel refers to is that of Belgian club Royal Excelsior Mouscron, which last week was thrown out of the Jupiler (sponsor) Pro League under a cloud of serious financial troubles. The Belgian Football Association (KBVB) removed the club from the competition after it forfeited its third successive match as players refused to play for risk of injury once the club entered administration. But would a similar sanction on Portsmouth be too harsh?

 

Martel brought up the view that allowing clubs to run themselves into so much debt is cheating. Is there a discernible difference between buying good players with money you don’t have then winning with those players you can’t afford, and for example diving for a penalty or even taking performance-enhancing drugs? Players get banned for taking illegal substances and reprimanded for diving, so should there be more severe punishments for spending money that will ultimately leave innocent people, clubs and organisations out of pocket? Former Bologna owner Giuseppe Gazzoni Frascara described such behaviour as “financial doping”.

 

It has come too late in many cases, but UEFA has set up a Financial Control Panel to bring financial fair play back to European football by making the monetary landscape more stable. The panel is responsible for attempting to ensure associations and clubs remain financially viable and will be headed by Jean-Luc Dehaene, the former Prime Minister of Belgium. “Throughout my career I have been confronted with challenges and bringing a degree of financial order to European football is certainly a challenge,” said Dehaene. “However, I am confident that we will be able to monitor and oversee the financial fair play system that will ultimately lead to a more stable financial regulation of European football.” The Premier League has also introduced strict new financial guidelines which are being implemented for the first time this season.

 

Such moves could have a huge impact on English clubs as Deloitte’s review of football finances last year revealed that Birmingham City, Wolverhampton Wanderers and S****horpe United are the only three clubs in the top two divisions operating without debt. English clubs will have to quickly change the way they operate to ensure they can survive on and off the field as the new rules come into effect. However, whether Portsmouth is still a competitive football club when the new regulations come into place is still less than certain.

[Gorgiesaint]

Just switched on 5Live this morning and caught the last 30 seconds of them interviewing Mark Jacobs. To summarise what I heard of it and what they summarised at the end:

 

He has never met Ali Al Faraj

He has given no guarantees that wages will be paid on time (came out of the summary)

He confirmed that Ali Al Faraj was here for the long term to develop the club.

 

I include the last bit as I recall the infamous interview that he gave (which Pompei denied happened, threatened to sue everyone in sight & then had to apologise) which he said that he only wanted to be there short term to make some money.

 

He also apparantly said that Avram Grant was looking to trim the fat from the squad - their summary afterwards was there was no fat, its a an animal down to its bones!!

 

Did anyone catch the full interview?

[Gorgiesaint]

Couple of articles from the papers this morning:

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/150833/Portsmouth-Crunch-time-for-cash-strapped-team

 

Interesting commment that Al-Faraj made his money from Saudi military deals - I thought he was a property developer - poor journalism or interesting link to Arkadi Gaydemak? Hmm, does also state that he's still trying to sell the club which contradicts Mark Jacobs this morning (see prev post).

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1242012/Portsmouth-waiting-owner-Ali-Al-Faraj-face.html

 

So Daniel Azougy was in and around the directors box before Al-Fahim took over, interesting....

[Saintleigh]

Just switched on 5Live this morning and caught the last 30 seconds of them interviewing Mark Jacobs. To summarise what I heard of it and what they summarised at the end:

 

He has never met Ali Al Faraj

He has given no guarantees that wages will be paid on time (came out of the summary)

He confirmed that Ali Al Faraj was here for the long term to develop the club.

 

I include the last bit as I recall the infamous interview that he gave (which Pompei denied happened, threatened to sue everyone in sight & then had to apologise) which he said that he only wanted to be there short term to make some money.

 

He also apparantly said that Avram Grant was looking to trim the fat from the squad - their summary afterwards was there was no fat, its a an animal down to its bones!!

 

Did anyone catch the full interview?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8450601.stm

 

Not very enlightening - just a load of flannel,dodging questions and vague statements.

 

There again he is a solicitor so what would you expect

[Panda]

"The chairman of Leicester City Football Club has been charged with two counts of cheating the public revenue.

The charges against Milan Mandaric relate to the payment of US $295,000 to another person through a bank account in Monaco.

It meant he evaded tax and National Insurance contributions due between 1 April 2002 and 28 November 2007, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said.

The allegation goes back to his time at Portsmouth Football Club."

 

Ok can we have a poll to vote on who the $295,000 was paid to please? I reckon the candidates are Our 'Arry and .... well I can't think of anyone else. OK forget the poll then.

 

You want to know when P********h's problems really started - when Milan walked in! It has been total corruption there ever since and now it is totally corroded.

 

Thank goodness our 'sugar daddy' has nothing in common with MM! (That is a genuine statement and not a sarcastic one).

[Saint_clark]

It amazes me how many fans of other clubs say they would rather be in Pompeys position than ours.

[Supersubpuckett]

they are soooooo ****ed it's not true

 

our plight was relatively straight forward compared to their financial bottomless pit of screwed up hell

 

anyone who would take their situation over ours is an idiot

 

aside from anything else there is the old adage of not many teams at the bottom of the league by xmas survive

[pfc123]

It amazes me how many fans of other clubs say they would rather be in Pompeys position than ours.

 

Well doesn't that tell you something? Who the hell wants to be in the third division? That's the bottom line for most people even with all the financial problems we've got......

[Matthew Le God]

Well doesn't that tell you something? Who the hell wants to be in the third division? That's the bottom line for most people even with all the financial problems we've got......

 

I'd rather be at the foot of a ladder than the head of a snake.

[SFC Forever]

when I see and hear Pompey fans they are all crying over their beer.

When I see our fans we have learnt to smile again.

 

THAT SHOULD TELL THE OTHERS SOMETHING.

[hackedoff]

Pompey are giving away TWO free tickets to their next match for anyone turning up today to clear snow from the pitch. If this does,n,t fill the ground, I expect the next gimmick will be a free ST,a ten minute " trolley rush " around their shop and a free night out with Westwood !

[Secret Site Agent]

Well doesn't that tell you something? Who the hell wants to be in the third division? That's the bottom line for most people even with all the financial problems we've got......

 

What financial problems?

 

Like being debt free?

Being the 5th Richest club in the country? (I'll say that agin for all the lAZYJournos and other fans who sometimes paruse here:

THE 5TH RICHEST CLUB IN THE COUNTRY. YES. DINAGE, I'M TALKING TO YOU. AND YOU FROM THE PEOPLE.)

 

Having a sensible, level headed businessman in charge?

A billionaire who is happy with a structured success programme over 5 years?

 

I'm perfectly happy here, and other fans just do not know the score, because we aint in no papers no more all da time.

[saint1977]

Well doesn't that tell you something? Who the hell wants to be in the third division? That's the bottom line for most people even with all the financial problems we've got......

 

You'll find out what the Third Division is like in a couple of years won't you? The CCC is a competitive league and ex-PL clubs in turmoil have a habit of falling through it - just ask the folks on here, Charlton, Leeds, Forest etc. We are still getting better gates than you two divisions below - and you can't fill Fratton so don't try the bigger stadium one - so God only knows what gates you'll get at that level - 7-10k? I can remember you playing in the old Div 1 in the 90s and getting 7-8k and not much more. I'm not as anti-Pompey as many on here as I do have Pompey-supporting mates who are good lads but these are things that concern them.

 

We may be League 1 but we are debt free, fanbase recovering after Askham and Lowe's idiocy and the envy of many clubs, newish stadium, training ground was already decent and now going to be top drawer once again, money to spend. When we were almost going out of business, remember we still had our assets like the stadium etc, Pompey don't have that to attract a feasible buyer.

 

I hope you stay in business but that guy on the BBC programme last night shouldn't just assume there will always be a Portsmouth FC - I think admin won't be a solve-all although inevitable. I do think that if it took us 5 years to hit the bottom it will take Pompey longer if I'm being realistic.

[OldNick]

Well doesn't that tell you something? Who the hell wants to be in the third division? That's the bottom line for most people even with all the financial problems we've got......

Have you ever played snakes and ladders, well your lot are in danger of doing the football version

[Matthew Le God]

nickh stealing my analogy boo hiss

[Chin Strain]

I hope you stay in business but that guy on the BBC programme last night shouldn't just assume there will always be a Portsmouth FC - I think admin won't be a solve-all although inevitable. I do think that if it took us 5 years to hit the bottom it will take Pompey longer if I'm being realistic.

 

It won't take them longer. Like you said, there's nothing to invest in, apart from a name. People are looking for a return on their money. If Pompey owed one or two major financial organisations the that would be one thing, but any buyer has to deal with a string of property developers and a gunrunner as major creditors, and then have to deal with an owner that nobody has ever actually met. When they've unravelled all of that they need to stump up at least the value of the assets in order to keep the administrator away. Assuming the playing staff are worth around £20m, netting off staged transfer fee payments due to them versus transfer fees due on players that they've, erm, 'bought', and that Chainrai will just take the ground as he has a secured loan, then surely the remaining creditors would have to stump up at least £20m for a football club with no ground who are effectively either a team doomed to relegation or a team starting life in the CCC on -10 (depending on the date they go for admin).

 

So, who on earth is going to do that?

 

Added to all of the above is the fact that there is a precedent on illegal financial payments and points deductions / relegations - Chelsea, Swindon, Spurs, Luton (-30). I know we have to wait and see what happens with Harry, Storrie and MM, but it doesn't look great when your former owner and manager, and your current CEO are charged with cheating the public revenue.

 

Rashly assuming that SAF and Al Faraj don't have a pot to **** in, on the basis that they're borrowing on credit cards (who else would be lending them money?) to pay wage bills, who is going to ride to the rescue off the back of all of the complexities outlined above?

 

 

For some reason, Jacob seems to think it's great that they don't owe a bank a penny.Of course, it's much better to owe the sort of people that they owe. Also, according to Jacobs, it's all ok with the ground as Chainrai doesn't own the ground unless they default on repayments. That'd make the average knuckle dragger sleep better at night....until they realise that they don't have the cash to make repayments....

 

In short, their fall will be much quicker, and much more drastic than ours. I reckon they won't be able to fulfil their fixtures this season and will go out of business completely.

[Wes Tender]

Well doesn't that tell you something? Who the hell wants to be in the third division? That's the bottom line for most people even with all the financial problems we've got......

 

Good to see one of our very own house-trained Skates again. You lot have been a bit thin on the ground recently. Corporate Ho appears to have taken up monastic orders, when he used to be a fixture on here, never failing to gloat at how lucky you lot were with all of your Arab wealth.

 

It doesn't really matter what the fans of other clubs say, as they don't know any more about the internal affairs of other clubs than you or I do about theirs.

 

When the original thread was posted in a similar vein, many on here would have wished to have been in your position because you were a Premiership club. I suspect that in light of our current owners and what they have done for us, compared with your current owners and what they are doing to you, the balance has shifted firmly in our favour.

 

Many now think that it is not impossible that we will be passing you on the way up as you fall down a division next season.

 

I appreciate that as a true fan of the blue few, you will not readily admit that your main local rivals are in a better position than you in the medium term, but I hope that you are being honest with yourself at least.

[kwsaint]

At the risk of reopening an old thread, why do I keep reading on websites on Pompey's problems that SMS was the cause of Saints financial woes. The stadium cost £32 million, and the club received £5 million from the sale of the Dell site. SMS was funded on a 10 year loan, fixed at 8%. So why was the debt on the stadium around £25 million after 8 years? At some point the loan has been rescheduled, possibly to incorporate other debts. The increase in revenue during the first four years at SMS was greater than the cost of the place. In my view it is down to complete financial mis-management, not the cost of SMS. Or am I missing something?

[stanthemanfairoak]

At the risk of reopening an old thread, why do I keep reading on websites on Pompey's problems that SMS was the cause of Saints financial woes. The stadium cost £32 million, and the club received £5 million from the sale of the Dell site. SMS was funded on a 10 year loan, fixed at 8%. So why was the debt on the stadium around £25 million after 8 years? At some point the loan has been rescheduled, possibly to incorporate other debts. The increase in revenue during the first four years at SMS was greater than the cost of the place. In my view it is down to complete financial mis-management, not the cost of SMS. Or am I missing something?

are boy rupes had to have his bit of bunes greedy:minigun: ****!

[CB Fry]

At the risk of reopening an old thread, why do I keep reading on websites on Pompey's problems that SMS was the cause of Saints financial woes. The stadium cost £32 million, and the club received £5 million from the sale of the Dell site. SMS was funded on a 10 year loan, fixed at 8%. So why was the debt on the stadium around £25 million after 8 years? At some point the loan has been rescheduled, possibly to incorporate other debts. The increase in revenue during the first four years at SMS was greater than the cost of the place. In my view it is down to complete financial mis-management, not the cost of SMS. Or am I missing something?

 

You seem to be missing how interest rates work.

 

Even if you take the £5m off and call it a £27m mortgage, 8% every year on that is £2m, over ten years £20m odd just in interest, add the capital back in and a total amount repayable of over £40m.

 

We may have been paying only the interest off in later years or simply just struggling to pay off the £5odd million we needed to find each year.

 

You could call it "complete financial mismanagement" but for the fact that during that whole time 95% of the fan base were screaming for us to buy £10m players and pay them £40k a week for five years.

 

But who cares now anyway?

[kwsaint]

You're right, it doesn't matter, although I have a Maths degree so do have a vague idea how loans work.

 

When Rupert left the first time, he said that the club had no overdraft, just the stadium mortgage. At some point this loan has been rescheduled, either to incorporate other debts, to increase the term or to go to interest only. The rescheduling enabled further borrowing at the bank, increased the overall debt and supported the play-off gamble of two years ago. When this failed, the club was financially stricken. The point that I was trying to make was that it was failure to live within our means that was the problem, not SMS, as the extra revenue should have paid for it.

[Gemmel]

You're right, it doesn't matter, although I have a Maths degree so do have a vague idea how loans work.

 

When Rupert left the first time, he said that the club had no overdraft, just the stadium mortgage. At some point this loan has been rescheduled, either to incorporate other debts, to increase the term or to go to interest only. The rescheduling enabled further borrowing at the bank, increased the overall debt and supported the play-off gamble of two years ago. When this failed, the club was financially stricken. The point that I was trying to make was that it was failure to live within our means that was the problem, not SMS, as the extra revenue should have paid for it.

 

We had a 3 million overdraft when we went into admin which had been reduced from 4 or 4.5

 

The loan on the stadium was originally 29 million and down to around 23 when we went into Admin. The money from the Dell is nether here nor there, as nobody knows whether it was used as a deposit for the new stadium although the maths suggests not.

[scotty]

Not connected with Portsmouth, (or their manager of course,) but I'm discussing a cartoon with someone on another site. Which sounds funnier, "Phwoarton Heath" or "Whoreton Heath"? Any opinions welcome. tia.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Not connected with Portsmouth, (or their manager of course,) but I'm discussing a cartoon with someone on another site. Which sounds funnier, "Phwoarton Heath" or "Whoreton Heath"? Any opinions welcome. tia.

 

Whoreton IMO, the other one is a bit too 'The Sun' for me.