Saint-Armstrong Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 "Published on Tuesday 29 November 2011 14:02 CONVERS Sports Initiatives, the owners of Portsmouth FC, are in administration, The News can reveal. Accountancy firm UHY Hacker Young have confirmed they were appointed as adminstrators on Friday. Peter Kubik and Andrew Andonikou, who were administrators of Portsmouth FC in 2009, have been appointed as joint-administrators. More details to follow as soon as possible..." http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/po...tion_1_3292526 (feel free to move to Lounge if you need to) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 "Published on Tuesday 29 November 2011 14:02 CONVERS Sports Initiatives, the owners of Portsmouth FC, are in administration, The News can reveal. Accountancy firm UHY Hacker Young have confirmed they were appointed as adminstrators on Friday. Peter Kubik and Andrew Andonikou, who were administrators of Portsmouth FC in 2009, have been appointed as joint-administrators. More details to follow as soon as possible..." http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/po...tion_1_3292526 (feel free to move to Lounge if you need to) If Pompey go into admin again that must be curtains for them then,hopefully before 18th December. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surman4no7shirt Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 I hope they don't dissapear. Don't want Brighton & Bournemouth as our only local rivals. Apart from that it's pretty funny though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint-Armstrong Posted 29 November, 2011 Author Share Posted 29 November, 2011 I hope it means that this returns: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbyboy Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 Wonder if there's an undeniable link between PFC and the parent company like the SLH business with us? Wonder if we set a precedent that will be troule for the phew...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 I hope it means that this returns: It already has, last couple of games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 "Inextricably Linked" surely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 Wonder if there's an undeniable link between PFC and the parent company like the SLH business with us? Wonder if we set a precedent that will be troule for the phew...? This. If Pompey don't get a 10 point deduction, Cortese should be straight on at the FL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 This. If Pompey don't get a 10 point deduction, Cortese should be straight on at the FL. What difference could it possibly make to us,will only affect other relegation/mid-table teams. The only thing that affects us is whether they're still there at the end of the season or not.That will depend on whether they can pay their players or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 Converse gets wound up, Chainrai takes over PFC again as he hasnt been paid what was due. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 What difference could it possibly make to us,will only affect other relegation/mid-table teams. The only thing that affects us is whether they're still there at the end of the season or not.That will depend on whether they can pay their players or not. I was referring more to the fact we were deducted 10 points when our parent company went into admin, even though it was a separate entity. They've set a precedent, they can't alter it now. And thinking about it, shouldn't it be a 30 point deduction due to second admin in X period of time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 SLH had no significant other businesses than the football club therefore the holding company argument didnt stack up. That might not be the case with Convers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint-scooby Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 Why is the same company been appointed again ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 I was referring more to the fact we were deducted 10 points when our parent company went into admin, even though it was a separate entity. They've set a precedent, they can't alter it now. And thinking about it, shouldn't it be a 30 point deduction due to second admin in X period of time? And I was referring to the suggestion that Cortese should make waves at the FA. Our situation is over and done with now and we don't need to get into any issues with the FA over Pompey.They've changed(or clarified)their rules and it would seem that a parent company in admin now means an automatic points deduction.Is there not a precedent for 2 admins in a short period of time? Bournemouth perhaps, there's Luton and Leeds as well but a lot of that was for dodgy dealings as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 Why is the same company been appointed again ? Cos they did such a fantastic job last time obviously By the by why aren't Pinnacle trying to buy Skates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 This. If Pompey don't get a 10 point deduction, Cortese should be straight on at the FL. Why? I don't think they're similar circumstances at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 And I was referring to the suggestion that Cortese should make waves at the FA. Our situation is over and done with now and we don't need to get into any issues with the FA over Pompey.They've changed(or clarified)their rules and it would seem that a parent company in admin now means an automatic points deduction.Is there not a precedent for 2 admins in a short period of time? Bournemouth perhaps, there's Luton and Leeds as well but a lot of that was for dodgy dealings as well. Exactly...but if they don't receive a point deduction, then Cortese should contact the FL requesting clarification on why the cases are different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeSixty Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 Feel sorry for the genuine Pompey fans, being put right through the mill of **** owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patred44 Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 Exactly...but if they don't receive a point deduction, then Cortese should contact the FL requesting clarification on why the cases are different. If they did get away with it, we would have a very strong case for compensation, along with other (interested) clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 Wonder if there's an undeniable link between PFC and the parent company like the SLH business with us? Wonder if we set a precedent that will be troule for the phew...? Absolutely we did. Pretty sure they were in Admin back in the 90s too, so even them being punished in the Prem and that somehow being irrelevant to the Football League's regulations on basket cases won't get them out of a deduction of what should be (based on AFC Bournemouth's precedent) more than 10 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintoaks Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 Feel sorry for the genuine Pompey fans, being put right through the mill of **** owners. Sorry but i dont....i got severe grief from genuine skate fans when we were in the mire, they get what they deserve. wcfy 18th Dec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 (edited) Feel sorry for the genuine Pompey fans, being put right through the mill of **** owners. Why, they were happy enough to turn a blind eye to it all when they were ramping up the debt and signing players they couldn't afford to pay or pay for ? Only dubious owners with ulterior motives like money laundering are likely to take over a failing club like that one, given the debt they're taking on board. Remember, when we went into admin we'd sold players, reduced costs and suffered on the pitch to try and run within our means, and the only people owed money when the overdraft was unexpected pulled was the bank. Cheats FC ran for nearly 3 years adding to their costs and screwing the likes of the St John's Ambulance. I bet HMRC can't wait to block their next attempt at a CVA as well... Edited 29 November, 2011 by The9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thornhill_saints Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15944523.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 Exactly...but if they don't receive a point deduction, then Cortese should contact the FL requesting clarification on why the cases are different. "Based in London, CSI was founded by Russian investors Vladimir Antonov and Roman Dubov alongside Chris Akers, a former CEO of Leeds United. Among CSI’s other sports properties are the Spyker Squadron motorsport team and North One Sport, the global promoter of the World Rally Championship, Isle of Man TT race series, Velux 5 Oceans Race and Clipper Round the World sailing events." When we went into admin SLH didn't even have the radio station anymore.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Clarke Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 The general rumour going around at the moment is that Chanrai will take control back (he hasn't been paid in full) - and straight away start insolvency proceedings with Portsmouth. Will have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 So how were they allowed to bring in 2 new players last week? How were they allowed to bring in players in the summer, I dont understand how they can be in such a mess again. It's quite simple....If their income is less than their expenditure, then they are going to end up in a mess? Surely they weren't gambling on big crowds and promotion from the NPC after last season? I just don't get why they went and brought in players on substantial wages...Benjani, Norris, Kitson, Lawrence, Kanu must all be on a fair amount. their business strategy baffles me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 Absolutely we did. Pretty sure they were in Admin back in the 90s too, so even them being punished in the Prem and that somehow being irrelevant to the Football League's regulations on basket cases won't get them out of a deduction of what should be (based on AFC Bournemouth's precedent) more than 10 points. The points deductions of 17, 17 and 20 points that were handed out to Bournemouth, Rotherham and Luton respectively in 2008 were not specifically for going into administration. All three went into administration during the previous season, and were deducted the standard 10 points. The additional deductions were for exiting administration without an accepted CVA (for which Leeds were hit with a 15-point deduction the year before), with 2, 2 and 5 extra points respectively for having gone into administration before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 "A club going into administration twice in three years would have their membership of the League withdrawn" http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/2973263.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the wedge Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Portsmouth-Football-Club-Statement-2855.aspx 'Portsmouth Football Club can today provide the following information regarding recent events as a result of issues relating to Vladimir Antonov and Snoras Bank: The club's parent company, Convers Sports Initiatives plc (CSI), has been placed into administration. Vladimir Antonov has resigned as chairman and director of Portsmouth Football Club. Portsmouth Football Club (2010) Limited – the company that operates PFC – is not in administration and continues to trade. The club has funding in place for the short term, but will now be seeking alternative investment for its longer-term requirements.' Pretty damning if you ask me. And also very similar to our old situation. Surely they must be docked points? Personally I'd hate to see some of my Pompey supporting friends, who are honest enough fans and people, go through the mire a second time. But I have to wonder how they've managed it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 The points deductions of 17, 17 and 20 points that were handed out to Bournemouth, Rotherham and Luton respectively in 2008 were not specifically for going into administration. All three went into administration during the previous season, and were deducted the standard 10 points. The additional deductions were for exiting administration without an accepted CVA (for which Leeds were hit with a 15-point deduction the year before), with 2, 2 and 5 extra points respectively for having gone into administration before. So more than 10 points then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 So more than 10 points then. Yes, but not for "going into administration", which is what is likely to happen here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Portsmouth-Football-Club-Statement-2855.aspx 'Portsmouth Football Club can today provide the following information regarding recent events as a result of issues relating to Vladimir Antonov and Snoras Bank: The club's parent company, Convers Sports Initiatives plc (CSI), has been placed into administration. Vladimir Antonov has resigned as chairman and director of Portsmouth Football Club. Portsmouth Football Club (2010) Limited – the company that operates PFC – is not in administration and continues to trade. The club has funding in place for the short term, but will now be seeking alternative investment for its longer-term requirements.' Pretty damning if you ask me. And also very similar to our old situation. Surely they must be docked points? Personally I'd hate to see some of my Pompey supporting friends, who are honest enough fans and people, go through the mire a second time. But I have to wonder how they've managed it again. Because they are debt-ridden, most of their revenue is still tied up with the conditions of the last CVA, and it appears that the only people who would want to take over are people who want to bury dodgy money transations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeSixty Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 "A club going into administration twice in three years would have their membership of the League withdrawn" http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/2973263.stm Wasn't the first one when they were in the Prem. So wouldn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 Yes, but not for "going into administration", which is what is likely to happen here. Not following. 10 for going into Admin and additional (2/2/5 as illustrated) for going into admin again. That's exactly what you just said ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 Wasn't the first one when they were in the Prem. So wouldn't matter. The league rules make no mention that it has to be whilst a Football League club, just that two administrations as a company within a 3 year period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 Wasn't the first one when they were in the Prem. So wouldn't matter. They carried over that administration into the Football League, so it's one of those grey areas that they love to apply the "spirit" of the rule to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 "A club going into administration twice in three years would have their membership of the League withdrawn" http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/2973263.stm This could be fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 Wasn't the first one when they were in the Prem. So wouldn't matter. But whether that is irrelevant is precisely the crux of it. They had to get out of admin to get into the League in the first place the last time around but they were in admin, whether they were in admin when in the Football League or not - their other admin was back in the 90s and won't come under this rule. There's no reason to completely ignore a period of administration under this rule, whereas the fact they'd had a points deduction in the Prem and came out of admin before playing any matches in the FL last time was reason for them not to be punished (legally if not morally). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 Not following. 10 for going into Admin and additional (2/2/5 as illustrated) for going into admin again. That's exactly what you just said ? No it wasn't. Read it again. They were done for exactly 10 points at the time they went into administration. No more. No less. Subsequently, when they applied to exit administration and transfer the "golden share" to a new company, but having failed to agree a CVA with their creditors, they were hit with the "standard" (as set by Leeds) 15 points for doing so, plus the additional 2/2/5 for having done so before. Whether those additional points are as reference to the number of times they had been in admin, had failed to agree a CVA or had applied to transfer the golden share is fairly irrelevant as all three apply equally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 "A club going into administration twice in three years would have their membership of the League withdrawn" http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/2973263.stm Was this proposal actually adopted by the FL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 Where did the money for Huseklupp, Varney, Norris etc in the summer for either big fees and/or big wages come from? Plus they still have others on huge wages like Ben Haim, Kitson, Lawrence etc. David Lampitt stated recently they were they were the second highest net spenders in the summer transfer window. How did they manage to fund that and continue to fund that wage bill and the CVA that is yet to start? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 No it wasn't. Read it again. They were done for exactly 10 points at the time they went into administration. No more. No less. Subsequently, when they applied to exit administration and transfer the "golden share" to a new company, but having failed to agree a CVA with their creditors, they were hit with the "standard" (as set by Leeds) 15 points for doing so, plus the additional 2/2/5 for having done so before. Whether those additional points are as reference to the number of times they had been in admin, had failed to agree a CVA or had applied to transfer the golden share is fairly irrelevant as all three apply equally. I just don't get your point. So I'll reword so we can have another go ! My understanding is : 0) They will get a -10 deduction for [parent company] going into admin - same as Saints' parent company did. then 1) More than one time in Admin is punishable by additional points deduction - it hasn't been punished previously until the club comes out of admin. 2) Failing to agree a CVA is an additional deduction but not going to know if that's the case until they try to come out of admin. 3) Failure to transfer golden share means no league place They're not "equal" : #1 will only not apply if they cease to exist first, otherwise they will definitely get an additional deduction #2 will only apply if they fail to agree a CVA #3 might apply as a result of #2 but some teams have taken a points punishment as a condition of re-joining the league under new ownership. Is this misunderstanding just about the semantics of "10 now, more later" rather than "more than 10 now" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 And the people that ruled Portsmouth just departed Chairman as a "fit and proper" person to own a football club will be suitably admonished? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintoaks Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/2973263.stm If true they are in the crap !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 And the people that ruled Portsmouth just departed Chairman as a "fit and proper" person to own a football club will be suitably admonished? Just as they always are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nexstar Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/2973263.stm If true they are in the crap !! They would argue that they were in the Prem for the first administration, therefore only 1 administration in the Football League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 I just don't get your point. So I'll reword so we can have another go ! My understanding is : 0) They will get a -10 deduction for [parent company] going into admin - same as Saints' parent company did. then 1) More than one time in Admin is punishable by additional points deduction - it hasn't been punished previously until the club comes out of admin. 2) Failing to agree a CVA is an additional deduction but not going to know if that's the case until they try to come out of admin. 3) Failure to transfer golden share means no league place They're not "equal" : #1 will only not apply if they cease to exist first, otherwise they will definitely get an additional deduction #2 will only apply if they fail to agree a CVA #3 might apply as a result of #2 but some teams have taken a points punishment as a condition of re-joining the league under new ownership. Is this misunderstanding just about the semantics of "10 now, more later" rather than "more than 10 now" ? There is no precedent to prove that, if they were to agree a CVA, they would be punished any further than the initial 10 points, so point 1 is not necessarily true. As far as I can work out, the only clubs to have a) had a spell in administration since the points deduction rules came in, and b) had more than one spell in administration in total are Bournemouth, Rotherham and Luton. None of them agreed a CVA in 2008. If one of them had managed to get one agreed, we would know whether the Football League would definitely hand out an additional points deduction on exiting administration to clubs who have been in that situation before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 They would argue that they were in the Prem for the first administration, therefore only 1 administration in the Football League. The "proposed rule" states "two admins in a three year period" as a company, not "two admins whilst a Football League Club". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 29 November, 2011 Share Posted 29 November, 2011 Been reading the Football League regulations: 12.3.2 If a Group Undertaking of a Club becomes subject to or suffers an Insolvency Event, then the Board shall have the power to impose upon the Club a deduction of 10 points scored or to be scored in the League Competition. Seems fairly clear cut to me. Can't find anything about expulsion for two admins though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts