The Portsmouth thread - Out of admin!!!

[slideymoo]

Far more impressive than the last fa cup final ports got to :)

[Citysmith]

Well done Pompey. Good Luck for the Final and I hope to see you back in the Premiership as soon as possible :)

[rbullivant]

Glad to have an underdog to cheer for in the final! Can you afford to win the FA cup? Or will massive bonuses need to be paid out

R

[Sam]

Congrats Pompey, best of luck in the Final :)

[DavidHasslehoff]

Well done Pompey. Footballing drama to the last :clap:

[kirok1]

Any team that sticks one over on Bagpuss Redknapp is welcome to the applause.
Interesting that David James said Pompey's problems began after qualifying for Europe via the cup final last time and now they have again, via Chelsea being Champions leaguers anyway...

[tradeyourgames]

lets hope avram sticks it to chelsea- he seems like a good guy sticking it out there..

[DeadYankee]

"Spurs are fighting like Beavers" - that Kamara vid is classic stuff :lol:

[Bapapapa]

Interesting that David James said Pompey's problems began after qualifying for Europe via the cup final last time and now they have again, via Chelsea being Champions leaguers anyway...They aren't eligible for Europe next season due to their accounting problems..

[Niceguygeoff]

Well done Pompey!

[pompeyfan]

I'm absolutely stunned as I never thought we'd get past spurs, and I'm so proud of the fight and spirit the players put in. Yes the ref made a couple of poor decisions with the disallowed goal and the penalty but it's nice to get a bit of luck go our way for a change and after the season we've had Avram and the boys deserve a cup final appearance.

[The Bear]

Can't see you being allowed into Europe with all the fuss Platini has made over club finances.

[mjb1975]

Yeah, I've read various reports since yesterday. What's the deal? You've effectively qualified for the Europa League whether you win or lose the final but not applied for a licence or something? I assume, as The Bear says, that UEFA would have something to say about it in any case?

If so, I assume that means the Europa League spot will go to the league regardless of the result in the Final?

Yes, I'm a Spurs fan clutching at straws, making sure Europa League qualification goes down as far as 7th! :D

[rbullivant]

I suppose it is the wording of the contract though isn't it? For all intents and purposes they qualified for Europe, just because the club mismanaged and they didn't put in their finance records or something, not the players fault is it?

R

[mjb1975]

I forgot - did the FA (or whoever) stop that rule that the losers of the FA Cup Final (if the winners had already qualified for Europe) get the Europa League spot? Possibly since Millwall got one? So that would mean it'd go to the league regardless, if Chelsea win the FA Cup Final?

Not sure - may have made that up! :D

[stu_69]

Pompey didn't apply for a license to play in Europe next season. I think all teams who get to the 6th round just apply anyway but Pompey were in such a state that they either forgot/didn't bother/or didn't think they would need the license.

It was confirmed before the semi final that they can't compete in europe next season.

The place goes back to the league the same as it would if Manu and Chelsea were playing in the final this season.

[mjb1975]

Woo! So, in our complete disaster of a semi-final, something good's come out of it - when Spurs inevitable implode for the rest of the season, we just need to struggle to 7th!

[charlie angel]

Lolzers at James' reaction to the disallowed goal - bet that got the nerves jangling a bit more.

Congratulations to the Pomps though - went out to win it & did the business; always amusing to see Harry's chubby red face looking narked as well.

[The Bear]

Pompey didn't apply for a license to play in Europe next season. I think all teams who get to the 6th round just apply anyway but Pompey were in such a state that they either forgot/didn't bother/or didn't think they would need the license.

It was confirmed before the semi final that they can't compete in europe next season.

The place goes back to the league the same as it would if Manu and Chelsea were playing in the final this season.
You can guarantee Andronikou would re-apply and appeal though, as he has stated this morning. I'm expecting Platini to tell them where to go.

[pompeyfan]

You can guarantee Andronikou would re-apply and appeal though, as he has stated this morning. I'm expecting Platini to tell them where to go.

He is appealing although he said he dosen't hold out much hope. UEFA have said it's up to the FA who they put forward and they have until May 31st to decide.

[rbullivant]

They will want Liverpool in it, not Portsmouth! Says on the BBC that bonuses might be deferred so the big players can play in the final

R

[unrealnils]

Pompey didn't apply for a license to play in Europe next season. I think all teams who get to the 6th round just apply anyway but Pompey were in such a state that they either forgot/didn't bother/or didn't think they would need the license.

It was confirmed before the semi final that they can't compete in europe next season.

The place goes back to the league the same as it would if Manu and Chelsea were playing in the final this season.

thats not what they said on guardians podcast last night, they said they can still apply upuntil a certian date

[stu_69]

thats not what they said on guardians podcast last night, they said they can still apply upuntil a certian date

The deadline for applications was March

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/pompey-set-to-lose-appeal-over-europa-league-ban-1942889.html

[pompeyfan]

The deadline for applications was March

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/pompey-set-to-lose-appeal-over-europa-league-ban-1942889.html

The deadline to put the application in to the FA was March, but UEFA's deadline is May 31st and they said till that date which is when the FA submit the teams for Europe it's a FA decision.

At least if Pompey get in they might try and put out full strength teams and not give up on it like Spurs and Villa did the last time they were in it.

[mjb1975]

And Bolton...

Spurs did put out some weaker teams in the UEFA Cup last season - think we ended up going out meekly to Shakhtar Donesk - but I think given our complete pigs ear of a season up to that point under Ramos, it was rather extraordinary circumstances and Harry came in and HAD to prioritise getting out of trouble in the league.

We didn't do too bad with the weaker team in Europe and we would never normally do that sort of thing. Under Jol, he really went for it in the UEFA Cup and we just lost out to a certain Brazilian goalkeeper who we ended up buying instead! ;)

Spurs putting out a weaker team in Europe last season was more a blip than any regular trend.

I'm all for Portsmouth taking their Europa League spot next season - they deserve it. As long as Spurs finish no lower than 6th! :D

[charlie angel]

Bit of good news for the Pomps - they've come to a deal with Lens to allow Dindane to play (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Dindane-free-to-play-for.6237829.jp) for the rest of the season, including the cup final.

[carlmcg]

My £20 @ 6/1 for Portsmouth to finish bottom has been settled :D

[The Bear]

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/xfactor/We-will-stay-debtfree-pledges.1028715.jp


'If you chase dreams and let finances get out of control, you go out of business.
'But if you're clever, that doesn't happen. It all boils down to not getting into debt. You can't spend more than the income coming in. That's why we're trying to make prudent decisions.
'Wages and transfer fees are where the money goes. That's the thing you can't let spiral. The wage bill has to be sensible in relation to the income.

:lol: :doh:

[Dave h-j]

Holy cow - £105m in debt (http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/portsmouths-staggering-debt-crisis-laid-bare-2145220.html)..

So, with HMRC at 17.1m and a given to vote against a CVA (at ~23p/£), do Pompy have enough support from other creditors to get a CVA? I'm guessing that the PL will withhold the paracute payments to payoff some of the 17m transfer/wages related debt.

If you want to see the full report (so you can see how much your favorite footballer is out of pocket) then you can find it here:

http://www.uhy-uk.com/pages/posts/portsmouth-city-football-club-ltd--notice-of-creditors-meeting729.php

[charlie angel]

Did any players get sold outside of the window then?

[campdave]

Holy cow - £105m in debt (http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/portsmouths-staggering-debt-crisis-laid-bare-2145220.html)..

So, with HMRC at 17.1m and a given to vote against a CVA (at ~23p/£), do Pompy have enough support from other creditors to get a CVA? I'm guessing that the PL will withhold the paracute payments to payoff some of the 17m transfer/wages related debt.

If you want to see the full report (so you can see how much your favorite footballer is out of pocket) then you can find it here:

http://www.uhy-uk.com/pages/posts/portsmouth-city-football-club-ltd--notice-of-creditors-meeting729.php

What a joke. Portsmouth should be barred from competing next year if this isn't sorted out, as these debts are not sustainable. Chester went belly up part way through this season in a similar situation (albeit on a smaller scale, but large for their circumstances).

[The Bear]

No, what's a joke is the £120m or so they apparently owe compared to the £60m they owed only a couple of months ago, that they signed affadavits admitting to. Where has al this extra debt suddenly come from? Why are Crouch and Distin still owed money two years after leaving? Why do they owe Spurs money for Berkovic when he didn't play a single game for Spurs?

Adronikou has form for doing this at Swindon. Over-inflating the debt in order to reduce the percentage of certain creditors so they can get their CVA without opposition. It's a sneaky Ken Bates tactic which tells you all you need to know

The whole thing has been nothing but dodgy from start to finish and quite frankly they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

[dmb6473a]

What a joke. Portsmouth should be barred from competing next year if this isn't sorted out, as these debts are not sustainable. Chester went belly up part way through this season in a similar situation (albeit on a smaller scale, but large for their circumstances).


There's an argument for them to be thrown out of the FA Cup Final because of this. I think many neutral fans will be hoping that Chelsea give them a right stuffing, as Portsmouth winning sends the wrong message to all other clubs.

[pompeyfan]

No, what's a joke is the £120m or so they apparently owe compared to the £60m they owed only a couple of months ago, that they signed affadavits admitting to. Where has al this extra debt suddenly come from? Why are Crouch and Distin still owed money two years after leaving? Why do they owe Spurs money for Berkovic when he didn't play a single game for Spurs?

Adronikou has form for doing this at Swindon. Over-inflating the debt in order to reduce the percentage of certain creditors so they can get their CVA without opposition. It's a sneaky Ken Bates tactic which tells you all you need to know

The whole thing has been nothing but dodgy from start to finish and quite frankly they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

Crouch and Distin left last summer not 2 years ago - Distin actually played the first matches of this season for us.

There's an argument for them to be thrown out of the FA Cup Final because of this. I think many neutral fans will be hoping that Chelsea give them a right stuffing, as Portsmouth winning sends the wrong message to all other clubs.

Don't see why as the players that got to the Cup Final aren't the ones whose purchase got the club in this mess - most of the players left at the club that got to the final signed since last summer, come through the youth setup or are on loan.


I do think though that there should be an investigation preferably by the fraud squad to uncover what went on in some of the deals - how the hell do the club owe £1m to Spurs for Begovic? Why is there £2.3m outstanding on the Diarra sale? As we sold him not bought him, and if it relates to his purchase that was only £5m so how do the club owe £2.3m in agents fees? How did signing the top players lead to debt as they nearly all went for big profits? Why if money was tight was Harry allowed to sign players not needed or that he never played? Why agree to pay Sol Campbell £1.7m in image rights as that amount was never going to be recouped in merchandising?#

Rather than punish the clubs normal employees, fans and players - the ones that should be punished are those that got the club in the mess by the decisions they made - banned from worldwide football interests, fines and if appropriate prison time would be a good start.

[DeadYankee]

There's an argument for them to be thrown out of the FA Cup Final because of this. I think many neutral fans will be hoping that Chelsea give them a right stuffing, as Portsmouth winning sends the wrong message to all other clubs.

There certainly is. If they get docked league points then the same should apply to the cup competition.

[dmb6473a]

Don't see why as the players that got to the Cup Final aren't the ones whose purchase got the club in this mess - most of the players left at the club that got to the final signed since last summer, come through the youth setup or are on loan.


I'd dispute that their signing hasn't got Portsmouth into the mess. It might not have started it, but many of them have dug the hole substantially bigger.

Rocha, Piquionne, Finnan, Dindane, Yebda, Boateng, O'Hara, Owusu-Abeyie and Vanden Borre have all been signed this season/pre-season (the public has been aware of financial problems since at least this point in time). All of them have helped Portsmouth get to the final. Even if they're on loan, they have to be paid.

So if they can afford to pay (supposedly) better quality players, how can they not afford to pay a local school, a newspaper bill and £40 to Pukka Pies?

Sorry but it stinks, and shouldn't be allowed. Clubs can't keep hiding behind the old "but it's not the players/fans' fault" excuse time and time again.

[pompeyfan]

I'd dispute that their signing hasn't got Portsmouth into the mess. It might not have started it, but many of them have dug the hole substantially bigger.

Rocha, Piquionne, Finnan, Dindane, Yebda, Boateng, O'Hara, Owusu-Abeyie and Vanden Borre have all been signed this season/pre-season (the public has been aware of financial problems since at least this point in time). All of them have helped Portsmouth get to the final. Even if they're on loan, they have to be paid.

So if they can afford to pay (supposedly) better quality players, how can they not afford to pay a local school, a newspaper bill and £40 to Pukka Pies?

Sorry but it stinks, and shouldn't be allowed. Clubs can't keep hiding behind the old "but it's not the players/fans' fault" excuse time and time again.

True, but clubs always use that excuse - didn't Spurs when they got away with the same punishment dished out to Swindon for financial irregularities use - 'it was the previous owners' as the excuse and so avoided being relegated? So I don't see why Pompey should be made an example of just because they got to a final - no one has suggested previous clubs going into admin should be kicked out of a competition or not allowed to enter until they actually folded, and if you're going to apply that to all clubs living beyond their means then the whole league would be rather small.

[hedgie]

Portsmouth's case just shows how much football has gone off the rails in recent years. Most financial wrongdoings by football clubs in the past were pretty small fry. Yesterday, I heard a news report (probably on Sky Sports News) suggesting that Portsmouth's financial problems are at a level likely to get the Serious Fraud Office involved.

But I have huge sympathy for Portsmouth. Football should be about competing on the pitch. Portsmouth have tried to do that - have aspired to move the club onwards. Clearly they gambled big time, but they have highlighted the size of the gamble required now to do more than just hang on to the coat tails of the big clubs.

There's plenty of evidence now that failure in the Premier League seriously damages most football clubs. Leeds, Man City, Charlton, Forest, Leicester, Bradford, Swindon, Barnsley, Norwich, Southampton, Wimbledon / MK Dons, Watford, QPR and Oldham - all have made the 'double drop' to League 1 since a Premier League season, some have come back, some have never come back. My club, Palace, might be about to join them for the first time in 35 years - if we don't suffer the drop it will be a minor miracle, in my opinion. Most of those clubs cut back so much after relegation that they couldn't even afford to stay in the Championship.

The biggest clubs carry this debt simply because their chances of relegation and falling off the gravy train are very small. Even when they do (Newcastle), they can just about manage to cope with it by bouncing back in the first season, when the parachute cash pays most of the bills. But they are just as susceptible if they don't get back quickly (Leeds).

Punishing the clubs after the event doesn't tackle the root cause, and also has a serious impact on clubs that fall on hard times that have not been caused by over ambition. Who is there to punish the FA and the Premier League for letting one of their members get £120m in debt? Or another their 'biggest' member get £800m in debt.

I don't know how to resolve this, but it has to be something that means that Football Clubs in financial trouble become a rarity, not the norm. There's more than enough money in football to sustain our League structure.

[campdave]

I don't know how to resolve this, but it has to be something that means that Football Clubs in financial trouble become a rarity, not the norm. There's more than enough money in football to sustain our League structure.

It's simple - bar clubs with debt from competing, or impose hefty relegations. France and Germany manage successfully, and their clubs seem to be growing in strength in European competition, and they all leave within their means.

[dmb6473a]

True, but clubs always use that excuse - didn't Spurs when they got away with the same punishment dished out to Swindon for financial irregularities use - 'it was the previous owners' as the excuse and so avoided being relegated? So I don't see why Pompey should be made an example of just because they got to a final - no one has suggested previous clubs going into admin should be kicked out of a competition or not allowed to enter until they actually folded, and if you're going to apply that to all clubs living beyond their means then the whole league would be rather small.


If we use the argument that other clubs have gotten away with it so why can't Portsmouth, it'll never get resolved. A line has to be drawn in the sand, and action needs to be taken against any club that fails like this.

[pompeyfan]

It's simple - bar clubs with debt from competing, or impose hefty relegations. France and Germany manage successfully, and their clubs seem to be growing in strength in European competition, and they all leave within their means.

I agree with that and have said it before that the German or French method of clubs not reducing their debt by at least half during the close season leads to automatic relegation - in Germany it was to non-league (Hamburg were threatened with it a few years ago) and in France 2 divisions should be brought in here BUT unlike previous punishments it should be applied to every club regardless of size and none of this one rule for the big clubs and one for the rest. Like it looks like is in evidence now - Pompey look like they can't compete in Europe next season as their debts stoped them applying for a UEFA licence yet Man Utd and Liverpool, both with far greater debts can - yes they make money but they're not using it to clear debt but are still spending big on players so like pompey living beyond their means. West Ham's debt is reported at £110m yet there's no calls for them to be thrown out of competitions and relegated either - so why should Portsmouth be made an example of and the ones responsible walk away scot free to do the same again?

[pompeyfan]

If we use the argument that other clubs have gotten away with it so why can't Portsmouth, it'll never get resolved. A line has to be drawn in the sand, and action needs to be taken against any club that fails like this.

Yes I agree and it looks like the authorities got what they wanted - a high profile top flight club they can punish and make an example of without fear of upsetting anyone like if they tried it with a big club.

[charlie angel]

how the hell do the club owe £1m to Spurs for Begovic?

Spurs have issued a statement about this - click (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/8636703.stm)

Begovic instead joined Stoke but Spurs insist they paid £1m up front in a joint deal for Begovic and Younes Kaboul to ease Pompey's cash crisis.

"Our deal was for the purchase of two players for a combined price," it said.

"To help them we paid an agreed sum and concluded if he was sold or loaned to another club we'd be repaid the sum."

[campdave]

Yes I agree and it looks like the authorities got what they wanted - a high profile top flight club they can punish and make an example of without fear of upsetting anyone like if they tried it with a big club.

Don't know why you think Pompey are getting unduly punished - they aren't the first club to have hefty punishments for going into admin (Leed's punishments (deductions-wise) dwarf those of Pompey, as do those of Bournemouth, Luton and Rotherham last season in L2). A big club has yet to go into admin, so we've no comparison as to whether to not they'd be treated more "fairly" than Portsmouth.

If it feels like the authorities are coming down hard on the club, it's because so much wrong has been done - and while it may not be the current owners that have caused the problems, the reckless spending has benefitted the club in the past - they wouldn't have won the FA Cup 2 seasons ago without the over-spending, and spending beyond their means got them several decent finishes in the Premier League. That led to other teams missing out - they were in effect punished by Portsmouth spending over and above what they could afford.

[pompeyfan]

Pompey have been told they won't be in Europe next season and 7th place in the Prem will get the place - how ironic would it be if thats Liverpool who have higher debts but get the place denied to Portsmouth because of their debt.

[campdave]

Pompey have been told they won't be in Europe next season and 7th place in the Prem will get the place - how ironic would it be if thats Liverpool who have higher debts but get the place denied to Portsmouth because of their debt.

It's sustainability of debt that's the issue at hand though. Liverpool are meeting their repayments, Portsmouth aren't.

I don't think debts should be permitted period, but Liverpool are currently playing by the rules - Portsmouth aren't.

[campdave]

Ignore, misread something

[rustybin]

I don't think debts should be permitted period

That's a very slippery slope though.

If a club, Everton for example, decided that by borrowing £100million to buy a new stadium, they'd be able to bring in an extra £25 million a year in revenue, it would only take them 5 or so years to repay the initial loan plus interest. All figures obviously made up! But you get the idea.

In theory they'd be in £100 million debt, but a sustainable debt - no different to a different business investing in a second office or warehouse or whatever.

And since it's sustainable (in the same way the Glazers would argue their debt on Utd is) how do you legislate against it?

I think the salary cap related to a club's turnover is a far more practical idea and would stop the likes of Pompy and West Ham offering silly money to footballers.

That would also stop the likes of City buying anyone decent though :suspect:

[dean richardson]

I think the salary cap related to a club's turnover is a far more practical idea and would stop the likes of Pompy and West Ham offering silly money to footballers.

That would also stop the likes of City buying anyone decent though :suspect:

heavily favours utd & arsenal though
and a club like city who can afford to spend arent allowed.
you would get loads of creative turnover..like a few corp seats going for 5000% cost increase to a couple of family

[agrocott]

theres an easy way to get past a % of turnover as max wage bill for city they'll just sell some seats for 5 million a game (spare change from the back of the sheiks sofa) or some similar method

[rustybin]

Well that's my point really. Any kind of legislation could and would be worked around.

City could pay Torres a salary of £5000 a week to reflect their turnover, but give him a £250,000 a week 'being Spanish' bonus.

[dmb6473a]

Any solution would need to come from FIFA, as every club in the world would need to regulated. I think there are just too many of them for it to be practical (before you even get on to the potential loopholes).

[Jonny G]

I think now that the Pompey debt mountain has been exposed there should be similar across every top league club.

Yes, Man U owe their bank £800m, but what is their actual debt position. The £120m Pompey owe is what they owe everyone to make them debt free from what I understand. The figures quoted of Liverpool, Man U etc are all just their bank position aren't they? Do we know for a fact they include transfer fees in both directions and unpaid bonuses?

I think there does need to be some kind of measure that is used to stop clubs offering more than they can sustain to buy and pay players. Promises to give image rights and fixed amount sell-on clauses all seem ways to beat off competition from other clubs who are trying to be sensible and only shows how desperate teams are to stay on the PL gravy-train.

As for borrowings and debt, it would be very easy to show that payments can and are being made as secured lending would all need to be sanctioned by the clubs banks. It's the soft loans from directors that needs ruling over first.

I would suspect Harry was allowed to keep the player roundabout running because he was promised he could just to keep any bonuses he was tempted by rolling in. Image rights and performance bonuses can only muddy the financial water if they are not overseen and checked IMHO.

[The Bear]

"The debt is going to be slightly more than £70million. We will know more towards the end of the week. There are lots of contingent creditors I need to look at.

"I will probably need another week to get to the bottom of it all and see the exact figures. I would imagine (the debts) will bottom around £78million"

Portsmouth administrator Andrew Andronikou, February 28.

[campdave]

Any solution would need to come from FIFA, as every club in the world would need to regulated. I think there are just too many of them for it to be practical (before you even get on to the potential loopholes).

They have salary caps in the MLS and Leagues 1 and 2 in England, so it seems various leagues can implement their own rules. It suits the PL to let clubs overspend - get the big players to attract the big TV contracts, by the time the clubs get into financial trouble, they've usually been relegated and are no longer the PL's problem.

[evilsly]

I think now that the Pompey debt mountain has been exposed there should be similar across every top league club.

Yes, Man U owe their bank £800m, but what is their actual debt position. The £120m Pompey owe is what they owe everyone to make them debt free from what I understand. The figures quoted of Liverpool, Man U etc are all just their bank position aren't they? Do we know for a fact they include transfer fees in both directions and unpaid bonuses?

I think there does need to be some kind of measure that is used to stop clubs offering more than they can sustain to buy and pay players. Promises to give image rights and fixed amount sell-on clauses all seem ways to beat off competition from other clubs who are trying to be sensible and only shows how desperate teams are to stay on the PL gravy-train.

As for borrowings and debt, it would be very easy to show that payments can and are being made as secured lending would all need to be sanctioned by the clubs banks. It's the soft loans from directors that needs ruling over first.

I would suspect Harry was allowed to keep the player roundabout running because he was promised he could just to keep any bonuses he was tempted by rolling in. Image rights and performance bonuses can only muddy the financial water if they are not overseen and checked IMHO.

Manchester United's debts are ALL related to the takeover by the glazers.

Remove the florida leeches from the equation and united are massively profitable.

[dmb6473a]

They have salary caps in the MLS and Leagues 1 and 2 in England, so it seems various leagues can implement their own rules. It suits the PL to let clubs overspend - get the big players to attract the big TV contracts, by the time the clubs get into financial trouble, they've usually been relegated and are no longer the PL's problem.



Ok, here's the situation. Premier League puts on a salary cap. La Liga doesn't. Where are the best players going?


Just seen this, which is along the same lines: -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/8636565.stm

[evilsly]

Ok, here's the situation. Premier League puts on a salary cap. La Liga doesn't. Where are the best players going?


Just seen this, which is along the same lines: -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/8636565.stm

La Liga already has a defacto advantage due to their tax laws for 'entertainers' covering footballers.


oh, and the fact that Real Madrid are mental, and pay silly silly money.

[dmb6473a]

La Liga already has a defacto advantage due to their tax laws for 'entertainers' covering footballers.


oh, and the fact that Real Madrid are mental, and pay silly silly money.



Yes I know. Which is why if we have a salary cap and they don't, they'll be able to attract more players with less silly money than they're currently paying (though most likely still silly).

It has to be FIFA-wide or not at all.

[pompeyfan]

Ok, here's the situation. Premier League puts on a salary cap. La Liga doesn't. Where are the best players going?


Just seen this, which is along the same lines: -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/8636565.stm

TBH the best players already choose La Liga or Serie A - the EPL only gets youngsters that make their name here like Ronaldo and Fabregas, average East Europeans and Africans and former top players at the arse end of their careers looking for a last big payday like Klinsmann, Zola and Vialli - very few if any of the top players from the major nations come here at the height opf their career and I'd struggle to name 20 since the EPL launched.

[pompeyfan]

Manchester United's debts are ALL related to the takeover by the glazers.

Remove the florida leeches from the equation and united are massively profitable.

Makes you wonder what the premier leagues fgit and proper person test contains dosen't it? Seeing as the Glaziers and all Pompeys owners passed it.

[dean richardson]

Makes you wonder what the premier leagues fgit and proper person test contains dosen't it? Seeing as the Glaziers and all Pompeys owners passed it.

not sure im happy with you lumping utd in the same league as pompey on this.

we pay our players, creditors and most annoyingly interest on loans without any drama.

[movaado]

TBH the best players already choose La Liga or Serie A - the EPL only gets youngsters that make their name here like Ronaldo and Fabregas, average East Europeans and Africans and former top players at the arse end of their careers looking for a last big payday like Klinsmann, Zola and Vialli - very few if any of the top players from the major nations come here at the height opf their career and I'd struggle to name 20 since the EPL launched.

So people like Torres, Reina, Van Persie, Vermaillen are average players then? They certainly weren't unknowns at the time of their transfers.

[dmb6473a]

So people like Torres, Reina, Van Persie, Vermaillen are average players then? They certainly weren't unknowns at the time of their transfers.


Beat me to it. Ditto Arshavin (although the tax situation did **** him off).

However, that's just the foreign players. What's to say that UK players won't start going the other way?

[pompeyfan]

So people like Torres, Reina, Van Persie, Vermaillen are average players then? They certainly weren't unknowns at the time of their transfers.

Beat me to it. Ditto Arshavin (although the tax situation did **** him off).

However, that's just the foreign players. What's to say that UK players won't start going the other way?

Didn't Van Persie make his name here and he's hardly one of the worlds top players? And didn't Arshavin only join Arsenal when Barcelona changed their mind about signing him? I'm sure he was quoted as saying Barca were his preferred destination.

[dmb6473a]

Didn't Van Persie make his name here and he's hardly one of the worlds top players? And didn't Arshavin only join Arsenal when Barcelona changed their mind about signing him? I'm sure he was quoted as saying Barca were his preferred destination.


Disagree about Van Persie not being a top world player. Reina definitely is, and yet he's signed a contract to stay longer.

As for Torres, it's possible that he could go to Man City (which brings up Robinho as another example of top players coming here) and I can only see him leaving Liverpool because they're pretty useless these days.

[evilsly]

world class player at the height of their careers ?

Veron (okay it didn't work out)
Bergkamp

not to mention world class players (at their best) who didn't leave the premiership
Rio
Gerrard
Rooney

plenty more examples available.

[evilsly]

not sure im happy with you lumping utd in the same league as pompey on this.

we pay our players, creditors and most annoyingly interest on loans without any drama.


the point about the 'fit and proper' persons test is very valid

as with Thaksin at City

what exactly do you have to do fail one of these tests ?

[cabor]

They have salary caps in the MLS and Leagues 1 and 2 in England, so it seems various leagues can implement their own rules.

Not sure League one has a salary cap and if some clubs do its voluntary. Super league and NRL are the best examples
as Melbourne Storm have just found out with the most severe
punishment i can remember for a top flight team.

[horseflesh]

Disagree about Van Persie not being a top world player. Reina definitely is, and yet he's signed a contract to stay longer.

As for Torres, it's possible that he could go to Man City (which brings up Robinho as another example of top players coming here) and I can only see him leaving Liverpool because they're pretty useless these days.

Reina??? Can't even get a game for Spain! ;)
And Robinho? The man who failed in two leagues in Europe??

world class player at the height of their careers ?

Veron (okay it didn't work out)
Bergkamp

not to mention world class players (at their best) who didn't leave the premiership
Rio
Gerrard
Rooney

plenty more examples available.

So in other words you're agreeing that the very top players indeed don't move to England, and that the handful of half-decent English players lack ambition? :thumbs:
(I notice that you didn't include Lampard in that 2nd list, don't let Lou see that :lol:)

In all seriousness though, PF does have a point; the very very best players in the world don't move to England. They either play there for a few seasons, become great players (eg. Ronaldo), and move on, or else move there for a big payday at the end of their career (Klinsman, Gullit, Ballack).
I think climate and employment laws have as much to do with it as players not wanting to play in England.

* Not sure I'd 100% agree with you about Bergkamp BTW. He'd basically flopped at Inter and was looking for a way out of Italy. To be fair he did then stay at Arsenal, and become a truly great player.

[dmb6473a]

Reina??? Can't even get a game for Spain! ;)
And Robinho? The man who failed in two leagues in Europe??


Failing in England and not settling in England are not the same thing. However, when Real Madrid, Chelsea, and yes Man City now are interested in you, you command a £30m+ transfer fee and are in the World Player of the Year nominations (2007-08), you're world class.

Regarding Reina, so because Spain have one world class goalkeeper already, they can't have a second one? :cuckoo:


Didn't this thread start off as a Portsmouth one? :lol:

[Jonny G]

Manchester United's debts are ALL related to the takeover by the glazers.

Remove the florida leeches from the equation and united are massively profitable.

I know there were some big payments to the Glazer family, but wasn't the only reason MU posted a profit this last year due to the Ronaldo transfer money? The point I am trying to make is that yes the sums are larger in terms of turnover at Old Trafford, but the margins until financial meltdown are still fine given the debt already there. I know it's not really for this thread, but if the £800m is debt used by the Glazers to then buy the club what is the breakdown of the £1.5b that it is being said the Red Knights are willing to "pay"? Surely they are looking at proving they can cover the overdraft (but not pay it off) with assets of their own worth £800m and the other £700m cash goes straight to the Glazer family!?

Getting back to my original point....

I just think it's about time the all clubs reported standard figures that exclude monies not yet received from other clubs but include monies still to be paid. The domino effect of football debts not getting paid is now an issue in the overall running of their business and the sizes of the deals is going to eventually cause another Pompey-esque situaltion where the money merry-go-round covers up the true facts and overspending happens. If the gross, overdrawn debt position is more then a single season's turnover then sanctions should be made against the teams. This would then exclude sanctioned bank loans for stadium building, etc as it would prove ability to meet the repayments within each year. Soft loans from directors should also be made non-repayable in my opinion - which would put to an end any kind of deals that don't add value to their shareholding. Then if their business turns a profit they can pay themselves a bonus.

[ed_mcl]

La Liga already has a defacto advantage due to their tax laws for 'entertainers' covering footballers.


oh, and the fact that Real Madrid are mental, and pay silly silly money.

But they'll only go to either Real Madrid or Barcelona as none of the other clubs can afford them and even then these two are restricted by their capable squad sizes.

[rustybin]

I know there were some big payments to the Glazer family, but wasn't the only reason MU posted a profit this last year due to the Ronaldo transfer money?


No. Had we not sold Ronaldo, the Americans could have taken £80million less out of the club so it would make no difference.

At the moment the Man Utd balance sheet is a whipping boy in a far bigger financial empire.

[jab1990]

I don't understand why we are so hell bent in trying to get in the europa league.
I doubt we will have the squad to cope next year, unless they think some extra revenue can be created by going down this route?

[campdave]

Ok, here's the situation. Premier League puts on a salary cap. La Liga doesn't. Where are the best players going?


Just seen this, which is along the same lines: -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/8636565.stm

Tough. German clubs have laws against debt, Premier League clubs don't, which has given them an advantage in the past few years. The long term future of clubs is more important than making sure some overpaid sissies come and play in England.

[Jonny G]

Looking to attract more buyers with the status maybe, "buy one of Europe's top teams for so little" might work on someone!?!

I'd like to have seen them gain permission to play. I think the chances would've been slim but I'd much rather they got their shot after performing so well in the FA Cup than the PL gain extra glory in having another team. But as was always going to happen, the FA & PL couldn't risk their reputations around Europe and the world. Heaven forbid that a relegated team gain entry to Europe ahead of a top 7 PL team!!!

[Jonny G]

Tough. German clubs have laws against debt, Premier League clubs don't, which has given them an advantage in the past few years. The long term future of clubs is more important than making sure some overpaid sissies come and play in England.

Tell that to the PL board who pay themselves a LOT to get as much money out of Sky as they can!! Who want to challenge OFCOM/whoever to protect their money making machine!!! But take Sky out of the equation and everyone sat in the ivory tower knows that the printing press jams and near enough every team would go into administration, leaving a select few to join a European Super League and take the spoils directly rather than a percentage.

I want the long term picture to be taken into effect too - but the FA need to act and they are a little bit too much of an Old Boys Network themselves too who worry that Wembley won't be paid for if the England and the English top league isn't promoted and as sponsor friendly as possible.

The only ones to gain by measures on finance being brought into effect are the fans and most fans don't even realise it needs to be done

[dmb6473a]

Tough. German clubs have laws against debt, Premier League clubs don't, which has given them an advantage in the past few years. The long term future of clubs is more important than making sure some overpaid sissies come and play in England.



Laws against debt is one thing. Salary capping is something completely different.

[campdave]

Laws against debt is one thing. Salary capping is something completely different.

I disagree - the rules against debt are put in place by the German FA to protect clubs. The Premier League could do the same, but is acting in self interest by not doing so.

[dmb6473a]

I disagree - the rules against debt are put in place by the German FA to protect clubs. The Premier League could do the same, but is acting in self interest by not doing so.



One is telling the clubs that they can't get into debt. The other is telling them how they have to achieve it. Total different. A club can avoid debt without salary capping. On the other side of the coin, salary capping does not prevent by itself a club from going into debt.

[pompeyfan]

I don't understand why we are so hell bent in trying to get in the europa league.
I doubt we will have the squad to cope next year, unless they think some extra revenue can be created by going down this route?

Make the club more attractive to buyers and to players as Pompey will need to sign a few just to have a squad.

[Jonny G]

I'm curious about the David James situation. Is he signing a new deal on reduced terms? I heard originally he had turned down the extra year with Pompey - but sure I read this week that he was quoted about playing "honest football" or similar in the Championship next season.

[pompeyfan]

I'm curious about the David James situation. Is he signing a new deal on reduced terms? I heard originally he had turned down the extra year with Pompey - but sure I read this week that he was quoted about playing "honest football" or similar in the Championship next season.

I'm not sure but I heard he rejected West Brom to stay.

[jab1990]

I also personally think age has caught with him as he doesn't seem as agile. Plus i don't see where he could be no1 anywhere in the premiere league, so he may just want to play football and not collect a cheque.
Even at west brom i think he would be second choice to carson.

[Jonny G]

Personally, I'd love to hear he's signed on for another year but on a next-to-nothing contract. It would be refreshing to hear, even if big money tempted him to Pompey, that he was setting an example to other pro's that money isn't always the main thing. I know at this stage of his career he's made his money, but making the point that playing is important would be no bad thing.

How many players think the same? The pulling power of a Premier League bench spot seems to draw way too many players and hardly the best way for a business to commit £5m+ on transfer fees and wages to fill a squad place for a few seasons. When a team tends to need an extra 10-15 players after their first 11 then that's a good £80m these days just as expenses to pad out a lower level PL team for around 3 years when no kind of success is assured.

[jab1990]

Don't get me wrong i hope he does stay as he still a very good keeper. But i personally couldn't see him leaving us unless he was guranted to be first choice at another prem club.

On a side note,how he is second choice to Green for England i will never understand. I could understand if was to Joe Hart as seems to be playing very well, but i don't personally think Green is better than James. Plus he has the experience in international competitions and looks like he can save a penalty.

[The Bear]

FA Cup finalists Portsmouth are likely to start next season in the Championship with a further 17-point penalty because major creditors are unhappy with the report prepared by administrator Andrew Andronikou.

The club, who have already been subject to a nine-point penalty for entering administration, a deduction which effectively relegated them from the Premier League, will be allowed to start next season with a clean slate only if they can secure support from 75 per cent of their creditors to come out of administration - a process known as a company voluntary arrangement, or CVA.

But The Mail on Sunday understands that there are already serious objections to a CVA among major creditors, some of whom wish to question the report published by UHY Hacker Young, which estimates the debts of the club at £119million.

If the club cannot exit administration with the support of its creditors, then it will be liquidated and the new owner - likely to be Hong Kong businessman Balram Chainrai - will have to reapply to join the Football League, having set up a new company to run the club.

But he will face an enormous challenge if that is the case, having to rebuild a club in danger of slipping through the leagues, as Leeds United did when their finances imploded. With minus 17 points and the entire squad up for sale, Portsmouth would start the season as favourites for relegation to League One.

The Football League have the power to impose an arbitrary penalty on any club that cannot exit administration cleanly.

They took 17 points from Rotherham and Bournemouth in 2008 because it was the second time they had entered administration in recent history. Luton received a 20-point penalty because they had been in administration three times and Leeds, the first to suffer such a fate in 2007, received a 15-point penalty.

Given that Portsmouth emerged from previous administration only in 1999, the precedent appears to be for a 17-point deduction, although the Football League board will have wide powers to impose points deductions and additional conditions, which would include paying football creditors in full and ensuring the remaining creditors are paid back the amounts recommended by the administrators.

Football is unique as a business in ensuring that its millionaire players and clubs always receive the full amount they are owed, whereas the likes of taxpayers and, in Portsmouth's case, St John Ambulance, youth groups, a school, the local council and even a Scout group, will be unlikely to recover much more than 20 per cent of the money owed to them.

Because of the rule, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, who are owed £17.1m and will control nearly 15 per of the votes on whether to approve the CVA, are almost certain to oppose it. A spokesman for the Revenue said: 'Our problem is that some creditors who are in the same category are treated differently to others, who are paid in full.'

The Revenue attempted to challenge the special status of football creditors in 2004 but failed in the Court of Appeal. It is understood some creditors are urging the administrator to make a fresh legal challenge, given the perceived unfairness, highlighted by Tottenham being owed £1m for a player they never signed.

Other creditors want to challenge some of the debts listed by last week's report, including agent Pini Zahavi's claim that he is owed £2.074m. Members of the creditors' committee want the administrator to challenge the amount because they claim it was commission for brokering the deal to sell the club to Ali al-Faraj last year.

An agent is not qualified to sell company shares and creditors claim Zahavi would need licence from the Financial Services' Authority to claim a brokerage fee.

Zahavi insists the creditors are confused and the £2m he has claimed is for agent's fees on players, not for brokering the deal to sell the club.

'The £2million in the claim is all for commission over the years, which was put off month after month, year after year,' he said. 'It was because of my friendship [with the club] and friendship has cost me a fortune. If they offered me 30p in the pound now I would take it because I think we will be offered a lot less than that.'

Zahavi says that he is separately owed another £2m for brokering the deal between Portsmouth and Ali al-Faraj last year, but that sum was not included in his claim to the administrators.

'I was owed £750,000 for that deal from Portsmouth, but I was told I could not claim for it so I did not,' he said. 'I was also owed £1.25m from Mr al-Faraj, but that was what he promised me and is from his company, not f r o m Portsmouth.'

Former Portsmouth chief executive Peter Storrie, currently retained as a consultant at the club, may not be allowed to work in football again as a director because his responsibility for overseeing the descent into administration may see him fail the Premier League and Football League's enhanced 'fit and proper' person test.

In addition, some Premier League officials were intrigued by Storrie's interview earlier this month, in which he intimated that Sacha Gaydamak's father, Arcadi, convicted in France of illegal arms trading, provided money for Pompey.

Storrie was quoted as saying: 'Sacha always said it was him owning Portsmouth and not his father. The reality is that there had to be some backing from him. Sacha's a young guy, where's he got all that money? Maybe he just borrowed it from his father.

'I think one of the reasons why they bought Portsmouth was because the Premier League was so high profile.

'Because the father had had some bad publicity, they saw this as a way of protecting the son and cleaning the Gaydamak name a little bit.'

Storrie never told the Premier League of his suspicions, despite a number of inquiries, and always insisted to officials that Sacha Gaydamak was the sole owner of the club.

A spokesman for Sacha Gaydamak said Storrie's allegations were untrue and insisted he was always the sole owner of Portsmouth.

Storrie has been charged with tax evasion by the Crown Prosecution Service relating to his time at Portsmouth. He denies the charge and is due for trial next year.

Former Portsmouth manager Harry Redknapp and former owner Milan Madaric are charged with a separate count of tax evasion, which they deny.
Crooks and fraudsters the lot of them.

[pompeyfan]

Crooks and fraudsters the lot of them.

Totally agree, yet they passed the fit and proper persons test even though one of them still remains a mystery as no one has ever seen him:?:

[singhstar]

come on pompey! already made my season beating redknapp's spurs but would be great for avram getting one over on abramovich! my prediction, 3-2 to pompey with o'hara scoring the last minute winner... and terry to cry :D

[BlueDwarf]

Good job for you the muppets from ITV aren't keeping score...

[Bapapapa]

What a terrible penalty.. :oh-hum:

[pompeyfan]

Gutted, but at least we put up a fight and never got the expected stuffing.

[davecarter]

Well played Pompey, Unlucky

[sleep4ever]

http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/A-Personal-Letter-From-Avram-Grant-To-The-Fans-980.aspx

A shame but hardly a surprise

[Alan b]

Off to West Ham then ?

[ed_mcl]

Seems FC Twente are after him too.

[pompeyfan]

Whomever gets him is very lucky - good luck Avram, cheers for what you did, you'll be missed.

[jab1990]

His speech at the end of the season was amazing. Will be sorely missed.

[LouBarlow]

Yeah he is a top bloke Avram. Can't really blame him for not sticking around.

[d.boyd1uk]

thought portsmouth had some good players and played well, shame they have to go, supporters were vocal too.

[pompeyfan]

Things might finally be looking up at Fratton Park - 80% of creditors voted for a CVA, so as long as HMRC don't appeal (and win it) the club can come out of admin with no further points deduction. We can't afford any buys atm, but apparantly the budget is there to get a squad of 25 with what we have, frees and loans so hopefully we can be competative and at least not drop any further.

We also now have a manager with Steve Cotterill signing a 3 year deal.

[unrealnils]

silly fact of the day.........
you have more players at the world cup then ac milan

[pompeyfan]

Oh well another setback - HMRC have appealed the CVA and the appeal won't be heard till October or November so the transfer embargo stays in place:( TBH I can see HMRC's point as it dosen't seem fair that while football industry creditors get guaranteed 100% payback, the rest only get 20% if they're lucky as most football creditors would be in a far better position to take the loss than some of the smaller creditors.

Although even with the embargo I believe we can sign 2 players as we only have 18 and should have a minimum of 20, and out of those 18 I expect more to be leaving from - James, Prince-Boateng, Utaka, T Smith, Mokoena and Tal Ben Haim, and we've no reserve team this season.

Should be interesting this season if nothing else to see how we do with a mix of a few seasoned players and former youth teamers.

[campdave]

Completely agree with HRMC - no way should they be permitted to write off millions of pounds of debts, and then pay money to sign players as soon as this is completed. The club have assets in the form of players that can be realised and should be used to pay off more of their debts. If that leaves them playing a youth team next season, so be it.

[rbullivant]

Since the majority of the missing HMRC money beign missing PAYE and NIC, maybe if the FA insist on the football debts first rule then the government should set up a rule that HMRC can recover it directly from the players concerned.

[jab1990]

well on good news we signed Sonko from Stoke.

[pompeyfan]

Completely agree with HRMC - no way should they be permitted to write off millions of pounds of debts, and then pay money to sign players as soon as this is completed. The club have assets in the form of players that can be realised and should be used to pay off more of their debts. If that leaves them playing a youth team next season, so be it.

I agree with them as well as I said and the club are realising assests and selling players - in the friendly the other night only Mullins, Brown, Hughes, Smith and Nugent were senior players the other 6 starters and 4 subs were all ex-youth players - our 1st choice keeper atm was recalled from the England U19 squad, The club are trying to offload the highest earners atm like Ben Haim - he has a release clause if Pompey got relegated but he won't activate it and the club can't so he needs to be moved on. I think league rules state we must have at least 20 players in the squad - we've got 18 at present, with 4 or 5 likely to move on.

I think the football industry rule is wrong - last Jan we had TV money witheld that could have been used towards the HMRC bill and instead handed to Spurs and Chelsea who are hardly hard up and thats the problem now with any money the club do realise from player sales having to go to other clubs rather than other creditors.

Since the majority of the missing HMRC money beign missing PAYE and NIC, maybe if the FA insist on the football debts first rule then the government should set up a rule that HMRC can recover it directly from the players concerned.

I don't know why HMRC can't do that anyway as I remember dad working for a security firm who deducted his tax and NI then never paid it to HMRC, so HMRC went after dad to pay it back.

[campdave]

I think the football industry rule is wrong - last Jan we had TV money witheld that could have been used towards the HMRC bill and instead handed to Spurs and Chelsea who are hardly hard up and thats the problem now with any money the club do realise from player sales having to go to other clubs rather than other creditors.


What about Watford though, who nearly went into administration themselves because the fee for Tommy Smith wasn't paid? The problem isn't the football creditors rule, it's the stupid amount of debt the club have got themselves into. It might be mean-spirited, but I hope the club do have a hefty penalty deductions next season points wise - the situation at Portsmouth is far worse than the recent ones at Luton, Darlington, Rotherham and Bournemouth to name a few. It HAS to get to a situation where the penalty for going into administration is so severe that it isn't worth clubs risking everything to get to the Premier League, especially now that parachute payments last for four years, not two.

[rbullivant]

Maybe some sort of 1 point deduction per £1m owed would work well with a minimum deduction of 10 points, really hit the worst offenders.

R

[pompeyfan]

Maybe some sort of 1 point deduction per £1m owed would work well with a minimum deduction of 10 points, really hit the worst offenders.

R

Not really as all that will do is punish the innocent club staff, the fans and new owners, while those responsible will get away largely scot free and in some cases without even losing any money - it would be better to punish those responsible like the management, board and owners by banning them from having anything to do with football clubs in the future and making money they're owed none footballing debts so they have to take to same chance as normal creditors.

[campdave]

Not really as all that will do is punish the innocent club staff, the fans and new owners, while those responsible will get away largely scot free and in some cases without even losing any money - it would be better to punish those responsible like the management, board and owners by banning them from having anything to do with football clubs in the future and making money they're owed none footballing debts so they have to take to same chance as normal creditors.

Except for the fact that Portsmouth cheated their way into the Premier League and won the FA Cup with money they never had. What about the fans of clubs who missed out because Portsmouth couldn't pay by the rules?

The club gained on the pitch, and must be punished on the pitch too.

[The Bear]

They are in danger of getting another points deduction from the Football League if they can't come out of administration for the start of the season.

It's a bit rich them claiming they only have 18 players too as I'm sure they have plenty of young players already on contracts that make the numbers up. They shouldn't be allowed to sign anyone until they are out of administration.

That's not all either. Appointing a new CEO, keeping Storrie on in another role, paying Sonko a new set of wages to add to their bill, and sending the squad on a pre-season jolly to California. A kick in the teeth to anyone they still owe money to.

The whole club needs demolishing from top to bottom. I wish the Premier League and HMRC had shut them down and allowed a new club to form in it's place.

[pompeyfan]

It's a bit rich them claiming they only have 18 players too as I'm sure they have plenty of young players already on contracts that make the numbers up. They shouldn't be allowed to sign anyone until they are out of administration.

The 18 does include the young players like Wilson, Ritchie, Ward, Reynolds, Stewart, O'Brien, Kilby etc. There's 13 senior players left at the club and out of those Ben Haim, Utaka, Prince-Boateng will be leaving with Smith and Mokoena likely to leave, and Hriedarsson and Webber still injured and not playing, so that only leaves 6 senior players Rocha, Hughes, Brown, Mullins, Nugent, Kanu and there's no guarantee that all of those will stay, nor Wilson for that matter.

The Sonko deal was likely done as part of the deal taking one of our promising youngsters to Stoke this week.

I don't understand where this hatred for Portsmouth is coming from tbh, Pompey aren't the first to go into admin, nor will they be the last, quite a few other clubs have spent beyond their means, and there's some even heavier in debt than Pompey were. If anything there needs to be an investigation into Portsmouth as most of the players signed to give the short term success actually moved on for more money than they cost to buy but that dosen't seem likely as probably open all sorts of cans of worms.

[hedgie]

Not really as all that will do is punish the innocent club staff, the fans and new owners, while those responsible will get away largely scot free and in some cases without even losing any money - it would be better to punish those responsible like the management, board and owners by banning them from having anything to do with football clubs in the future and making money they're owed none footballing debts so they have to take to same chance as normal creditors.

I'd like to see the culture of debt to other Football Clubs being addressed. There is no reason why clubs should be in debt to one another. I believe all transfer fees should be paid up front, with the exception of deals with performance clauses, where the money is to be paid to the FA by the buying club and released as and when each term is met or failed.

[campdave]

and there's some even heavier in debt than Pompey were.

This isn't the first time you've said this - the issue isn't the large debt as such, it's the inability to repay it that has got Portsmouth in the ****. Show me another English club that has been unable to repay such a large debt?

The bear makes an excellent point - why shouldn't we hate portsmouth when they moan that creditors won't accept 20p in the pound for their debts, and then bugger off to the US for pre-season - who's funding that, and why isn't that money being used to pay off more debt?

[The Bear]

The reason they have really annoyed me is not that they mortgaged their future and let down their fans, plenty of clubs have done that and paid the price. But the fact they've tried to worm their way out of any responsibility or future sanctions for it and then had the nerve to complain about the injustice of it all whilst they carry on spending money as though nothing has happened is what gets me!!

The likes of Mandaric, Storrie and Redknapp have largely got away with it scott free, and it's hardly surprising those three are all up in court on tax evasion charges. Mandaric has gone on to owning another club, Storrie is still employed by Pompey and Redknapp has a nice new job at a top 4 team, even though there were stories of tapping up and bungs to players plus the fact he said categorically that Portsmouth would be his last ever job.

Andronikou has history of cooking the company books in order to force through a CVA and shaft the people owed money. He did it at Swindon and he's doing it again at Portsmouth. Another dodgy character happily taken on to weasel out of the situation as best as possible. HMRC are quite rightfully ****** off about being forced out of the voting for the CVA, not to mention the local staff and businesses who are being forced to accept what they can get (though that is the same with any admin situation to be fair due to the football creditor rule).

Last season's constant bleating about injustice and non-footballing decisions by Avram Grant to make up for the fact that even without the points deduction they'd have finished comfortably bottom anyway. Every interview he moaned it wasn't fair and they didn't deserve it. The fans certainly didn't deserve it but the club clearly gained an advantage in the transfer market and thus on the pitch thanks to the club selling their granny for a small bit of success.

Another classic example is the fact the club are now advertising for a new goalkeeping coach even though they forcibly made Vince Bartrum redundant at the end of last season (how much have they saved from that compared to what they are now paying Sonko?). How is that making the position redundant? If I was him I'd be seeking employment legal advice.

pompeyfan - Your point about your squad being threadbare might hold more water if you don't have up to 25 players in reserves/scholarships. In fact only this week you signed 13 more players on fresh scholarships! Plus I see you have a couple of trialists with the club trying to earn contracts. Still trying to sign new players and spending more money under a transfer embargo is still cooking the rules to suit yourselves IMO.

If the Football League quite rightfully dock you 15 points for not being able to agree a CVA and come out of administration then no doubt Andronikou will be whining about it and trying to get the decision stopped or overturned. That's just the sort of bloke he is.

It's definitely going to be a long hard struggle next season and it wouldn't surprise me to see you suffer a successive relegation. It isn't what everyone wants to see from a footballing point of view and it's terrible for the fans. I just hope you can get some new owners and a clean sweep of the management and start again more sensibly.

Also, as an aside what the hell has happened to your club website? It's now been reduced to a monstrosity of advertising with a small window for actual club news!!

[pompeyfan]

The reason they have really annoyed me is not that they mortgaged their future and let down their fans, plenty of clubs have done that and paid the price. But the fact they've tried to worm their way out of any responsibility or future sanctions for it and then had the nerve to complain about the injustice of it all whilst they carry on spending money as though nothing has happened is what gets me!!

The likes of Mandaric, Storrie and Redknapp have largely got away with it scott free, and it's hardly surprising those three are all up in court on tax evasion charges. Mandaric has gone on to owning another club, Storrie is still employed by Pompey and Redknapp has a nice new job at a top 4 team, even though there were stories of tapping up and bungs to players plus the fact he said categorically that Portsmouth would be his last ever job.

Andronikou has history of cooking the company books in order to force through a CVA and shaft the people owed money. He did it at Swindon and he's doing it again at Portsmouth. Another dodgy character happily taken on to weasel out of the situation as best as possible. HMRC are quite rightfully ****** off about being forced out of the voting for the CVA, not to mention the local staff and businesses who are being forced to accept what they can get (though that is the same with any admin situation to be fair due to the football creditor rule).

Last season's constant bleating about injustice and non-footballing decisions by Avram Grant to make up for the fact that even without the points deduction they'd have finished comfortably bottom anyway. Every interview he moaned it wasn't fair and they didn't deserve it. The fans certainly didn't deserve it but the club clearly gained an advantage in the transfer market and thus on the pitch thanks to the club selling their granny for a small bit of success.

I agree, annoys me to that those that caused it get away scot free and those that can least afford to lose money are the ones that do.

Another classic example is the fact the club are now advertising for a new goalkeeping coach even though they forcibly made Vince Bartrum redundant at the end of last season (how much have they saved from that compared to what they are now paying Sonko?). How is that making the position redundant? If I was him I'd be seeking employment legal advice.

He was goalkeeping coach at the academy rather than with the squad, and has his own coaching company in Bournemouth - it looks to me that the club are looking for someone inhouse rather than outsourcing.

pompeyfan - Your point about your squad being threadbare might hold more water if you don't have up to 25 players in reserves/scholarships. In fact only this week you signed 13 more players on fresh scholarships! Plus I see you have a couple of trialists with the club trying to earn contracts. Still trying to sign new players and spending more money under a transfer embargo is still cooking the rules to suit yourselves IMO.

The scholarship players are at the academy, they still have to earn a professional contract so can't play in the 1st team anyway - they hope to get a contract at the end of their 2nd year. As for signing players - what else can the club do? There's no reserve team this season, and league rules state we need a minimum of 20 in a 1st team squad, if we only have 18 and 3 or 4 of them are being sold what else can the club do but replace them? It only needs a few injuries and suspensions and the club might have to call matches off - look at the end of last season - some matches pompey never had a full subs bench even with 4 or 5 youngsters on it. A few youngsters have been let go to save money and a couple left for other clubs, of the 2 trialists 1 was released by the club at the end of the season but we don't have a senior keeper so Jamie Ashdown trying out again to stay.

If the Football League quite rightfully dock you 15 points for not being able to agree a CVA and come out of administration then no doubt Andronikou will be whining about it and trying to get the decision stopped or overturned. That's just the sort of bloke he is.

It's definitely going to be a long hard struggle next season and it wouldn't surprise me to see you suffer a successive relegation. It isn't what everyone wants to see from a footballing point of view and it's terrible for the fans. I just hope you can get some new owners and a clean sweep of the management and start again more sensibly.

I think we'll struggle as well, and getting a new owner will be hard while half the clubs debts are owed to the previous 2 owners and as football creditors they get full wack - from what I can make out something like 75% of Pompey's debt is to the previous owners and HMRC with most of what's owed to other clubs cleared, and it's still a mystery to me where all the money brought in from sales has gone as quite a few of the big signings left for more money than was paid eg. Diarra cost £5m, sold £20m, Defoe signed £7.5m, sold £15m, Muntari signed £7m, sold £11m, Johnson signed £3.5m, sold £18.5m, even since admin at worst there's only been small losses on sales.

Also, as an aside what the hell has happened to your club website? It's now been reduced to a monstrosity of advertising with a small window for actual club news!!

No idea.

[rbullivant]

What makes the previous owners footballing debts?

R

[pompeyfan]

What makes the previous owners footballing debts?

R

I've no idea, but when the debts are discussed it always mentions them as secured and they're included in what the club owes.

[ralph wiggum]

They are in danger of getting another points deduction from the Football League if they can't come out of administration for the start of the season.

Assuming points deductions are used as punishment, Pompey should be docked points this season regardless. The points deduction last season wasn't a punishment as they would have been relegated anyway (don't get me wrong, I like Portsmouth & hope we see them in the PL again).


and it's still a mystery to me where all the money brought in from sales has gone as quite a few of the big signings left for more money than was paid eg. Diarra cost £5m, sold £20m, Defoe signed £7.5m, sold £15m, Muntari signed £7m, sold £11m, Johnson signed £3.5m, sold £18.5m, even since admin at worst there's only been small losses on sales.


Didn't Dodgy 'Arry take a cut of any profits made on players sales? Crazy way to run a club.

[SPB]

Andronikou has history of cooking the company books in order to force through a CVA and shaft the people owed money. He did it at Swindon and he's doing it again at Portsmouth. Another dodgy character happily taken on to weasel out of the situation as best as possible. HMRC are quite rightfully ****** off about being forced out of the voting for the CVA, not to mention the local staff and businesses who are being forced to accept what they can get (though that is the same with any admin situation to be fair due to the football creditor rule).


As a Swindon fan how dare you suggest Andronikou isn't anything other than a competent person dong his best in difficult circumstances.

In no way can it be suggested the fact that we have only just had the formality of our CVA being registered as completed, even though it had been pad off for nearly two years, be attributed to the administrator.

He must be good, our then Gerneral Manager Mike Diamandis, who incidentally was once banned from being a director, used him for several of his his failed companies.

And the fact that he called our supporters trust 'busybodies that could scupper the deal' when they dared ask what the hell was happening regarding takeover offers, Portuguese geezers and the like was perfectly understandable. Though the takeover did collapse anyway.

[slideymoo]

The administrator came up with a level of debt that would give the tax office less than 25 pc, they're very questionable.

[cabor]

The administrator came up with a level of debt that would give the tax office less than 25 pc, they're very questionable.

HMRC and alot of others could see what was going on with that ploy.

[bigman]

Can someone explain to me why a travel company like Goldtrail (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7896185/Goldtrail-collapse-QandA.html) goes into administration and immediately thousands of holidaymakers are stranded abroad with no food or board. Yet when it comes to football clubs they seem to be able to continue trading, playing games, appointing staff etc and eventually worm their way out of it?

I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation but I struggle to see how 'administration' never seems to be as terminal for footy clubs as it does for other businesses?

[The Bear]

Pompey have apparently paid up the contracts of four Academy players on pro deals to take them below the 20 man limit.

Here's hoping the league will see through that tactic.

[pompeyfan]

Pompey have apparently paid up the contracts of four Academy players on pro deals to take them below the 20 man limit.

Here's hoping the league will see through that tactic.

That was last week as they were fringe players unlikely to make the 1st team, a few were released as the club isn't having a reserve team this season. You wouldn't expect any club to keep players they didn't think were good enough would you? and if there was to be a block on getting rid of players to stop us going under 20 players that would mean we'd have to keep Smith, Utaka, Prince-Boateng, Ben-Haim - I'm sure they'd do a job for us in the championship.

[charlie angel]

Court hearing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8839169.stm) should be before the start of the season.

[rbullivant]

That was last week as they were fringe players unlikely to make the 1st team, a few were released as the club isn't having a reserve team this season. You wouldn't expect any club to keep players they didn't think were good enough would you? and if there was to be a block on getting rid of players to stop us going under 20 players that would mean we'd have to keep Smith, Utaka, Prince-Boateng, Ben-Haim - I'm sure they'd do a job for us in the championship.

Would have thought a team in as bad a shape as that would be happy for any sort of playing staff.

[hedgie]

That was last week as they were fringe players unlikely to make the 1st team, a few were released as the club isn't having a reserve team this season. You wouldn't expect any club to keep players they didn't think were good enough would you? and if there was to be a block on getting rid of players to stop us going under 20 players that would mean we'd have to keep Smith, Utaka, Prince-Boateng, Ben-Haim - I'm sure they'd do a job for us in the championship.

I'm not sure that tactic will work - if Pompey have paid the contracts of these players, they surely they are technically employed by the club to the end of their contracted period and therefore would be eligible to be in the 20 man squad.

Pompey do need to be careful with these actions - the Premier League might have been unfamiliar with Administration and were practically making things up as they went along, but the Football League certainly isn't and there are many precedents already set. I'm not aware of any club that has been allowed to make any major additions to their squad during administration, even when the number of players available fell below 20.

Palace had about 16 professionals at the end of last season and we were refused loan deals. Bournemouth had barely 11 fit players at one point.

Can someone explain to me why a travel company like Goldtrail (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7896185/Goldtrail-collapse-QandA.html) goes into administration and immediately thousands of holidaymakers are stranded abroad with no food or board. Yet when it comes to football clubs they seem to be able to continue trading, playing games, appointing staff etc and eventually worm their way out of it?

I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation but I struggle to see how 'administration' never seems to be as terminal for footy clubs as it does for other businesses?

Administration IS terminal for many of the companies that own the Football Clubs - for example, Palace's administration in 2000 saw the end of Crystal Palace (1986) Ltd, the assets of which were bought by Crystal Palace (2000) Ltd, which was put into Administration earlier this year by a creditor and has now been bought by Crystal Palace (2010) Ltd and will eventually be liquidated.

The holidaymakers with Goldtrail are creditors of that company, just as the Palace fans who had bought season tickets were creditors of Crystal Palace (2000) Ltd.

Of course, the value in a Football Club is a combination of its assets, which often include a stadium (but not always, in the case of Palace), the players contracts and the Football League share. To retain the value in the players contract and the Football League share, fixtures have to be fulfilled and the players must be paid, or they can walk on a free. Therefore, in a football club administration, business as usual has to be maintained for the club to be worth any more than just the value of the stadium. And the Administrator has a legal duty to maximise the value for the creditors.

[pompeyfan]

Would have thought a team in as bad a shape as that would be happy for any sort of playing staff.

True, but its better to get better players in on loan than keep those not good enough, especially as loans from a higher division don't normally cost a fee or wages as the premier club is just happy to get their players experience or even just playing.

At present our squad is looking like:

Looking like staying:

Mullins
Brown
Hughes
Hriedersson (injured)
Nugent
Kanu

Youth/Reserves:

O'Brian
Ward
Ritchie
Pack
Ciftci
Wilson
Goddard
Gregory
Martin

Undecided:

Rocha
Mokoena
James (in talks with Celtic) out of contract but offered a reduced deal as player/coach to stay - since withdrawn.

Looking to sell:

Ben-Haim (probably to West Ham)
Utaka (Sunderland interested)
Smith
Prince-Boateng (Lazio or Genoa favorites)

Possible loan:

Sonko

On Trial:

Ashdown (was released under old management)
Jordan
Stewart

[pompeyfan]

I'm not sure that tactic will work - if Pompey have paid the contracts of these players, they surely they are technically employed by the club to the end of their contracted period and therefore would be eligible to be in the 20 man squad.

I agree, but the reason the adminstrator gave for releasing them is they're fringe players on £2k-£3k per week so the club want to save on the wages - cheaper to let them go and loan in free, than pay those wages.

[hedgie]

I agree, but the reason the adminstrator gave for releasing them is they're fringe players on £2k-£3k per week so the club want to save on the wages - cheaper to let them go and loan in free, than pay those wages.

I don't understand - if they've paid up the contracts then they've paid the wages in advance anyway and if the club are desperate for anyone to fill a shirt it is a truly illogical decision. Why choose to pay in one lump sum when you can pay over the whole duration of the contract as funds come in?

Now, if contracts were cancelled by mutual agreement (probably paying a portion of the wages) then I agree, it would be an exercise in reducing the wage bill. Although I still think it will be difficult to get approval to replace those players, even with loans where the loaning club pays all the wages, because my experience is that Palace weren't allowed to do that last season in a very similar situation.

[rbullivant]

Don't think its right that these players can be got rid of to get them below the 20 player limit just so they can bring in some more players.

The football league are a bit more on the ball than the PL

R

[pompeyfan]

I don't understand - if they've paid up the contracts then they've paid the wages in advance anyway and if the club are desperate for anyone to fill a shirt it is a truly illogical decision. Why choose to pay in one lump sum when you can pay over the whole duration of the contract as funds come in?

Now, if contracts were cancelled by mutual agreement (probably paying a portion of the wages) then I agree, it would be an exercise in reducing the wage bill. Although I still think it will be difficult to get approval to replace those players, even with loans where the loaning club pays all the wages, because my experience is that Palace weren't allowed to do that last season in a very similar situation.

From what heard they were coming to the end of their contracts or were on rolling week-to-week contracts, having been at the club 2 or 3 years - the players were Cowan-Hall (injured), Subotic, J Hughes and Nlundulu - the last one is a strange one as he weas pretty useful, but I think the key word is 'released' as afaik you can't release contracted players. I'd have thought if pompey tried releasing contracted players then the PFA might have had something to say. There's been a few out of contract that left that Pompey tried to keep like Lenny Sowah a 17yo LB who signed for Hamburg on a free.

There's also the questions of positions - I don't know about Hughes but the other 3 were wingers or strikers and what Pompey need are defence and a goal keeper (our current and only keeper is a youth player who was pulled out of the England U19 squad as needed for the friendlies, but there are 2 on trial).

[pompeyfan]

Don't think its right that these players can be got rid of to get them below the 20 player limit just so they can bring in some more players.

The football league are a bit more on the ball than the PL

R

As I said above it sounds like they were coming to the end of contracts anyway or were week-to-week plus their release hasn't taken us below 20 players yet - we still have 21 players officially, but 3 are undecided as yet what to do as they're hoping for better offers and 4 the club are trying to sell as they want to go - if they decided to stay we'd have 21 players and a half-decent squad.

[Jonny G]

Looks like SWFC have joined Pompey on the HMRC hit-list!

Chasing £550k from them though which I'd say is their PAYE contributions since the end of last season (maybe a month or so more).

Eitherway, there's a shift in trends of them chasing for money and it looks like they are fighting for every penny - which means a long haul for a lot of clubs who owe a lot less than Pompey.

[pompeyfan]

I just cannot understand why clubs are not be paying HMRC their dues as a first priority every month before anything else - when I managed a building firm the first two cheques I ensured were sent off every month were to the Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise for income tax, NI and VAT as they had the most power to cause the company problems.

On a plus point, charities owed money by the club aren't losing out thanks to the fans.


Last week, we told the story of how Portsmouth FC fans were fundraising for charities owed money by the football club they support. They have already raised the £2,500 owed to South Central Ambulance Charitable Trust, reached £2,300 for the Harbour Cancer Support Centre and smashed the £2,700 target for St John Ambulance.

Having reached the targets for those three charities, they have now turned their attention to raising money for Faith and Football and The Tom Prince Cancer Trust, two more charities owed money by the club.

Lucius Peart, Head of Operations at Portsmouth FC had this to say about the fans:

We would also like to pay tribute to the extraordinary generosity of Pompey fans who have arranged, and contributed to the fundraising efforts on behalf of local charities and voluntary organisations.

This confirms the fact that we have the best fans in the country at every level.

Whilst Pompey has endured a bittersweet season, being relegated and reaching the FA Cup Final, it would be hard to argue about the commitment and generosity of Fratton Park’s finest.

Not to be outdone, fans of Crystal Palace FC, another club in administration, are raising money for St John Ambulance. The charity is owed £15,817 by the club, and the fans have already raised an impressive £12,600.

Here’s what they say on their JustGiving page:

Palace fans have always been proud to support our club. That doesn’t mean, however, that we are proud of the way the club has failed to honour relatively small debts to local businesses and charities like St John Ambulance.

Aside from escaping relegation on the last day of the season, this must go down as a triumph for their fans.

Big well done to the Palace fans as well.

[pompeyfan]

The Football League have given Portsmouth dispensation to sign three players which will likely be Stephen Jordan and (re-signing) Jaime Ashdown on free's as both currently on trial and Ibrahim Sonko on loan. Further transfers will be taken on a case by case basis as Pompey try and reduce the wage bill plus there's players that want to leave which is a shame as I doub't any loans or frees will be as good as those wanting out.

[pompeyfan]

Back in court again tomorrow and it looks like the reason HMRC are going so hard has come out - it's going to be a test case for the way top clubs apparently pay part of players wages as image rights to avoid tax usually to a players limited registered company offshore somewhere - HMRC are questioning why Sol Campbell is due £1.7m image rights when the club only made £7.2m from merchandise in total. Should be interesting if Pompey lose as a lot of clubs and players could suddenly be facing large tax bills.

[hedgie]

I truly believe that HMRC have long been looking for a club to throw the book at and they now believe they have found it in Portsmouth. I hope Pompey can steer their way through this, but I'm sure the HMRC's objective is to bring the club down and set a precedent for other clubs at the same time. Good luck, Pompey.

[pompeyfan]

I truly believe that HMRC have long been looking for a club to throw the book at and they now believe they have found it in Portsmouth. I hope Pompey can steer their way through this, but I'm sure the HMRC's objective is to bring the club down and set a precedent for other clubs at the same time. Good luck, Pompey.

Yep and it could have far reaching consecquences for other clubs as HMRC are challenging the image rights paid to players and football creditors getting 100% repayment guaranteed while other creditors get much less. If HMRC win this expect them to start going after other clubs who pay their top players image rights to avoid tax and if football creditors are no longer guaranteed full payments it could affect the transfer market as clubs will want paying in full rather than on terms.

[Jonny G]

Yep and it could have far reaching consecquences for other clubs as HMRC are challenging the image rights paid to players and football creditors getting 100% repayment guaranteed while other creditors get much less. If HMRC win this expect them to start going after other clubs who pay their top players image rights to avoid tax and if football creditors are no longer guaranteed full payments it could affect the transfer market as clubs will want paying in full rather than on terms.

Surely a lot of that would require a change in UK Tax Law that is a bit beyond what any case over a few million quid can arrange?

I do think that the image rights part does sound very dodgy. Most people would expect that means a percentage of profits gained from selling merchandise and not bulk fixed payments that have no link to the club actually making money. HMRC can surely question this, but wouldn't the PL and FA have to be involved first? I can't see them wanting to do anything that tarnishes the jewel that is the PL and the glamour of all the star names it attracts! Especially with the knock-on effect on every other team. Torres, Rooney, Drogba, etc all being forced out of the league because UK law means they can't afford to pay them - I don't see SKY paying much for matches after that!!

[jab1990]

A verdict is apparently going to be made on thursday. I also believe that HMRC have found their pound of flesh. But surely they should be taking the league into court aswell to fight against being an unsecured creditor in general?
The FA need to make changes like the German league has made to secure the future of the league otherwise many other clubs will see the same fate.
Southend just narrowly avoided it yesterday

[pompeyfan]

Surely a lot of that would require a change in UK Tax Law that is a bit beyond what any case over a few million quid can arrange?

I do think that the image rights part does sound very dodgy. Most people would expect that means a percentage of profits gained from selling merchandise and not bulk fixed payments that have no link to the club actually making money. HMRC can surely question this, but wouldn't the PL and FA have to be involved first? I can't see them wanting to do anything that tarnishes the jewel that is the PL and the glamour of all the star names it attracts! Especially with the knock-on effect on every other team. Torres, Rooney, Drogba, etc all being forced out of the league because UK law means they can't afford to pay them - I don't see SKY paying much for matches after that!!

Thats the point though - if clubs (and players) are using image rights as a way to avoid tax on wages as HMRC are saying then this is a test case and if the judge agrees with HMRC then there will be nothing to stop HMRC from trying to claw back tax they think they're owed from every club and afaik they can go back 7 years. HMRC are saying Pompey paid out £4.5m in image rights to players last year but only made £300,000 in merchandising with image rights being paid into offshore tax havens - Sol Campbell is apparently owed £1.7m in image rights - there's no way the club would have sold enough Sol Campbell stuff to get that back.

Same goes for if the judge declares that football creditors getting preferential treatment over other creditors is unlawful as well - the leagues would have to either fight the ruling or accept it, and if accepted that football creditors are no different to anyone else could you see a club selling a player on terms to a club in debt on terms just in case they go tits up?

Look at how a simple court case changed football throughout Europe with the Bosman ruling in the 90's - this could have a similar effect.

[Jonny G]

If they turn around and get that passed though surely every club in the land is going to say "go after the rich players" ?? Once it's legally shown to be a salary payment then surely they are the ones who have to then say why they haven't paid tax on the sums they now have??

Personally, I think McManaman's agent negotiating "I get paid the transfer fee seeing as my club cannot request it" was what truely changed football and sent it down this path.

[pompeyfan]

If they turn around and get that passed though surely every club in the land is going to say "go after the rich players" ?? Once it's legally shown to be a salary payment then surely they are the ones who have to then say why they haven't paid tax on the sums they now have??

Thats what I would've thought as well, but I expect the players/agents would try and blame the clubs and the PFA have a whinge, but things would have to chanmge in the future.

I see the PL have already started a crackdown and clubs must show they paid their tax bills every quarter now.

[hedgie]

Yep and it could have far reaching consecquences for other clubs as HMRC are challenging the image rights paid to players and football creditors getting 100% repayment guaranteed while other creditors get much less. If HMRC win this expect them to start going after other clubs who pay their top players image rights to avoid tax and if football creditors are no longer guaranteed full payments it could affect the transfer market as clubs will want paying in full rather than on terms.

Personally, I think that football clubs should stop using each other as a bank and pay in full for players every time. It would bring some realism to the transfer market.

Thats the point though - if clubs (and players) are using image rights as a way to avoid tax on wages as HMRC are saying then this is a test case and if the judge agrees with HMRC then there will be nothing to stop HMRC from trying to claw back tax they think they're owed from every club and afaik they can go back 7 years. HMRC are saying Pompey paid out £4.5m in image rights to players last year but only made £300,000 in merchandising with image rights being paid into offshore tax havens - Sol Campbell is apparently owed £1.7m in image rights - there's no way the club would have sold enough Sol Campbell stuff to get that back.

Same goes for if the judge declares that football creditors getting preferential treatment over other creditors is unlawful as well - the leagues would have to either fight the ruling or accept it, and if accepted that football creditors are no different to anyone else could you see a club selling a player on terms to a club in debt on terms just in case they go tits up?

Look at how a simple court case changed football throughout Europe with the Bosman ruling in the 90's - this could have a similar effect.

I think HMRC want to put a stop to these practices for the future, but whether they'd get involved with destabilising football completely by going back seven years, I'd be less sure. If they do, I guess it might be a very good time to be supporting a club (Palace) that has just scraped through administration and formed a new company with no history to rake through!

Whatever happens, football should look at this as the time to put it's house in order. I was pleased to see the Premier League saying that HMRC payments must be made in full in future and hope the FL follow, but the one concern with that is that it means that clubs in financial trouble will just shift the debt to the 'little suppliers' - administrations will see football debts paid in full, the HMRC always paid up front, so it will be the rest that suffer even more.

[rbullivant]

HMRC are not demanding preferential creditor status like that of football debts, when a company goes into administration they join the general pot same as everyone else. The problem is that football debts get paid first, leaving the other creditors (HMRC always a large one) with whatever is left. HMRC used to have preferential status, but this was changed as it was unfair to other creditors.

R

[Jonny G]

I think the PL are only making this rule to save themselves the bad press!

HMRC are the only debtor who commands headlines around the world and I seriously doubt they want to do it for the good of the clubs (cynic that I am!).

But all the snooping around the image rights payments may be enough for players to get worried and look to pastures new. The potential loss of tax free money as opposed to losing a good half of it would certainly make me worry. Surely Sol Campbells claim is a footballing debt though (?) so I'm unsure where the issue helps HMRC. I know all debtors were listed, but I'd assumed that footballing debts were in a different list to the non-footballing ones?

[marc_angelus]

is there a definition of image rights anywhere? I was under the impression it was not solely based on anything intrinsic like Merchandise sales but rather what that individual's image does for the club. Like you might say that Cambell was worth £1.7m to Pompey partly due to a combination of Merchandise and increased ticket sales, but also through non intrinsic things such as attracting other players to the club through his profile as an England international

[dean richardson]

is there a definition of image rights anywhere? I was under the impression it was not solely based on anything intrinsic like Merchandise sales but rather what that individual's image does for the club. Like you might say that Cambell was worth £1.7m to Pompey partly due to a combination of Merchandise and increased ticket sales, but also through non intrinsic things such as attracting other players to the club through his profile as an England international

its the right to use his image commercially.... I doubt the non intrinsic things would stand up to the scrutony

[The Bear]

BBC have a guy twittering from the high court hearing. Some of the tweets:

Day 2 of Portsmouth FC High Court case begins. HMRC disputing club's ability to pay creditors 20p in £ due to land dispute with Gaydamak

G Mitchell QC for HMRC: "If the CVA fails liquidation is not inevitable." Another attack on football creditors rule. "It's simply wrong."

Pompey in High Court: HMRC now arguing football creditors shouldn't have been allowed to vote on the CVA when they had preferred status

Richard Sheldon QC begins Pompey's submission - future of club could depend on what he says in next few hours

Pompey's QC says in March the PL clubs wanted to "boot out" P'mouth but Richard Scudamore intervened and secured early parachute payment

Sheldon QC "the other clubs wanted Portsmouth to go the wall and divide the TV money among themselves".

Fascinating detail emerging of just how close Pompey came to oblivion in March. Saved by Scudamore getting clubs to approve early 'chute

http://twitter.com/danroan

[The Bear]

Problems for Pompey in High Court: seems some football creditors who voted for CVA may not have been 'creditors'. CVA may be in doubt

I hear from a mate who's been follwing this as well that Kevin Prince Boateng got to vote in the CVA over £1.3 million of salary to the end of his contract. What a joke - he is an employee and so should gets no say whatsoever.

Quite frankly it's looking more and more likely that the figure for the debt was simply plucked out of Andronikou's backside. It rests on the parachute payment, which they've already had, plus around £30m of player sales whom they won't get anywhere near that amount for, and also as the above quote alludes to - creditors who suddenly appeared to be owed money out of thin air.

I'm going to be extremely disappointed if the judge lets them come out of admin tomorrow.

[jab1990]

If the worst happens and we get liquidated, what happens to the championship. ie does 1 less team get relegated?

[pompeyfan]

If the worst happens and we get liquidated, what happens to the championship. ie does 1 less team get relegated?

Yep they'll just go ahead with 1 less team.

One thing that came out is how bloody greedy the premier league clubs are - all 19 voted last march to kick Pompey out - not because of how things were run but just because they all wanted a share of the £30m TV money due to pompey with no thought at all to the creditors pompey owed that money to - very nice of them.

[jab1990]

but didn't the westham owners offer to help us (a loan) because if we were kicked out, they would lose the 4 points they earned against us and be dragged back into relegation?

At the end of all this, i still think every fan wants to know where all the money has gone from our club. How much money was made from players sales and how much went into the pocket of storrie and redknapp.

[pompeyfan]

I hear from a mate who's been follwing this as well that Kevin Prince Boateng got to vote in the CVA over £1.3 million of salary to the end of his contract. What a joke - he is an employee and so should gets no say whatsoever.

Quite frankly it's looking more and more likely that the figure for the debt was simply plucked out of Andronikou's backside. It rests on the parachute payment, which they've already had, plus around £30m of player sales whom they won't get anywhere near that amount for, and also as the above quote alludes to - creditors who suddenly appeared to be owed money out of thin air.

I'm going to be extremely disappointed if the judge lets them come out of admin tomorrow.

Can't see that happening:( but I agree there's no way football creditors who are guaranteed 100% anyway should be allowed to vote that others have to accept 20% as thats just wrong - only those being offered 20% should have a vote whether to accept it or not.

[pompeyfan]

but didn't the westham owners offer to help us (a loan) because if we were kicked out, they would lose the 4 points and be dragged back into relegation?

Probably a hollow offer knowing it wouldn't be allowed - SSN reported that all 19 clubs voted to kick out Pompey.

[The Bear]

Oddly enough, as Scudamore over-rode the leagues rules and a unanimous vote from the clubs to keep Pompey in the league, then every club has grounds to sue the Premier League if they so wished.

If Pompey had gone out of business then their results would have been expunged meaning certain clubs would have gone up places therefore getting more prize money.

Unlikely to happen but Scudamore has created an odd set of circumstances.

[The Bear]

Mr Sheldon painted a Domesday scenario for the judge if he fails to back the club in his verdict.
He said if the Revenue won the club 'in all likelihood would go into liquidation'.
He said it would prevent Mr Chainrai becoming the new owner.
'There is no other purchaser. The only other way in which this club can move forward is through this proposed sale.
'Of course, there may be problems ahead, I do not doubt that.'
Mr Sheldon said HMRC wanted Pompey to be placed in liquidation and that the taxman claimed if this happened 'the demise of the club was not inevitable'.
But Mr Sheldon told the judge this was exactly what would happen.
He added: 'If the club is not sold or very nearly sold by the start of the season it will clearly be relegated out of the football league.
'This will happen because the administrators cannot give the assurances needed that the season's fixtures can be completed.
'It will then go out of the Football League and into some distant league, but the reality is that it will probably go into liquidation because the administrators will not be able to fund the continued business.'
He continued: 'The evidence for this is quite clear. Mr Andronikou is quite clear about what the consequences would be if the CVA fails.'

Hmmm. What exactly do they expect the court to say? "oh go on then we'll let you off this time, just don't do it again alright!?".

Boo hoo. If that's what happens when you run a club so badly, then so be it.

[jab1990]

But the problem is the people who ran the club so badly have all left the club.
People like Redknapp and Storrie should also be investigated aswell.

[jab1990]

Oddly enough, as Scudamore over-rode the leagues rules and a unanimous vote from the clubs to keep Pompey in the league, then every club has grounds to sue the Premier League if they so wished.

If Pompey had gone out of business then their results would have been expunged meaning certain clubs would have gone up places therefore getting more prize money.

Unlikely to happen but Scudamore has created an odd set of circumstances.

To be fair, it was most probably alot easier to keep us going till the end of the season because many problems would have occured had we been kicked out mid way through the season such what wold happen to teams that hadn't played us or to teams we had beaten? (points wise)

[campdave]

To be fair, it was most probably alot easier to keep us going till the end of the season because many problems would have occured had we been kicked out mid way through the season such what wold happen to teams that hadn't played us or to teams we had beaten? (points wise)

Results would have been expunged. It happened with Chester in the Conference last year, had a little affect on final placings, but that's life.

[slideymoo]

Yep they'll just go ahead with 1 less team.

One thing that came out is how bloody greedy the premier league clubs are - all 19 voted last march to kick Pompey out - not because of how things were run but just because they all wanted a share of the £30m TV money due to pompey with no thought at all to the creditors pompey owed that money to - very nice of them.

Is that known for certain?

I really dont think teams like city or chel wouldve voted just to get an extra 1.5m

[pompeyfan]

Is that known for certain?

I really dont think teams like city or chel wouldve voted just to get an extra 1.5m

It's what SSN said came out in court today.

[jab1990]

Results would have been expunged. It happened with Chester in the Conference last year, had a little affect on final placings, but that's life.

But would happen to teams we beat. Would they not gain the points back, because if that happened then i think then west ham would have been relegated instead of burnley and the 4th champions league might be different aswell.

[campdave]

But would happen to teams we beat. Would they not gain the points back, because if that happened then i think then west ham would have been relegated instead of burnley and the 4th champions league might be different aswell.

Results against Portsmouth would not have counted. Provided the Premier League has rules for what happens if a team doesn't complete the system, clubs wouldn't have had a leg to stand on in terms of appealing or suing anyone.

[The Bear]

Of course they could. The league rules weren't upheld in the first place. If they jad been booted out then the rules would have been followed from then on as mentioned.

[Jonny G]

But as the Sheff U & West Ham/Tevez case showed, PL clubs cannot take legal action against the PL. They protect themselves from a lawsuit by making it against league rules!!

I'm sure the teams all wanted the money and the majority seriously need the money even if they don't like to admit it. But from the PL point of view it's better the league finished complete rather than any bad/negative press having a team go bankrupt would have had.

Can Sheff U please have first dibs on Michael Brown if Pompey are liquidated!?

[dmb6473a]

It's what SSN said came out in court today.



The story came from Portsmouth though.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/aug/05/portsmouth-tv-money-hmrc-court


Regardless of the real reasons for the vote, if 100% of the clubs voted to kick them out I think it's a safe bet that, if it had been another club, Portsmouth would've voted the same way.

[jab1990]

Great News!!

HMRC lose the judgement against portsmouth.

[The Bear]

What a load of ********.

[pompeyfan]

According to reports HMRC are accepting the judgement and not appealling it - if thats the case the CVA can go through and Pompey come out of admin and be sold.

[bigman]

According to reports HMRC are accepting the judgement and not appealling it - if thats the case the CVA can go through and Pompey come out of admin and be sold.

So will the lesson that other clubs learn from this be:

a) Keep your finances under control

or

b) Don't worry - no matter what perilous position you get yourself into there's always a way out of it in the end

[pompeyfan]

So the lesson that other clubs learn from this be:

a) Keep your finances under control

or

b) Don't worry - no matter what perilous position you get yourself into there's always a way out of it in the end

Basically yes, although Pompey do still owe money - the sticking point was the amount HMRC were claiming they were owed and the FA rule about football creditors getting preferential treatment. HMRC aren't appealling this case, but have said they are going to investigate the football creditors rule - imo there should also be an investigation into those whose decisions and actions lead to this situation at the club and they should be barred from football.

[jab1990]

Is there anything said about a investigation into the finances of the club?

[bigman]

Is there anything said about a investigation into the finances of the club?

That's not an issue for the courts is it? They have decided that legally everything is above board - the fact that it all stemmed from massive incompetence is irrelevant to them really I suppose.

The FA are the ones who need to trigger that sort of thing I would think.

[studmeister]

looks like they won.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8886009.stm

[pompeyfan]

Is there anything said about a investigation into the finances of the club?

Not heard anything but there should otherwise those responsible will get away scot free and be able to do it elsewhere.

[pompeyfan]

That's not an issue for the courts is it? They have decided that legally everything is above board - the fact that it all stemmed from massive incompetence is irrelevant to them really I suppose.

The FA are the ones who need to trigger that sort of thing I would think.

Yep and hopefully the FA will investigate and punish those at fault. HMRC weren't interested in the clubs finances as such - its the football creditors rule they want changing, and even though they're not appealling today, they are going after that.

[MICON]

Pleased for Pompys fans. Hope the people who put them in this position can be punished, doubt it though.

[pompeyfan]

1st team sheet of the new season and as expected fielding a team is going to be hard.

G Ashdown (re-signed yesterday)
RB Mullins (a centre-midfielder)
LB Ritchie (a left-winger)
CB Mokoena (no idea how long he's staying)
CB Sonko (on-loan)
MC Wilson (wanted by a few clubs)
MC Brown
MC Hughes
F Nugent
F Utaka (likely to leave)
F Smith

Subs (all youth players)

O'Brien
Gregory
Pack
Ciftci

[marc_angelus]

why isn't Prince-Boateng playing, i thought he was still there?

[pompeyfan]

why isn't Prince-Boateng playing, i thought he was still there?

He was still in Italy till this week, and is in dispute with the club atm as he wants to go to Genoa but Lazio offered a lot more.

[The Bear]

The full verdict to read here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/2013.html

[The Bear]

The claims made by HMRC contained hardly any detail. The initial indication of claims on 5th May just contained a list of amounts, years, and brief statutory basis of claims, with a total of £35m odd. The assessments identified that specified sums were due in respect of some named players, and some "unnamed players", in various preceding tax years, and in specified amounts (often round figures). The Administrators have since understood that HMRC were saying that the amounts were "uncommercially high". It is not clear whether that was understood by the time of the CVA meeting. Their researches indicated that the Revenue was claiming tax and NIC on (and was therefore challenging) all the image rights payments made by the Club. He was advised that it could not be said that the image rights had no value, and that the value in any individual case was not known (which, it seems to me, must be even truer for "players unknown"). The advice he received was that since the value to be put on the image rights was unknown a claim based on excess payments for image rights (if that is what the claim was) was unliquidated or unascertained for voting purposes.

My decision is only as to the particular, somewhat unusual, facts of this case. The uncertainties as to the quantification of the debt seem to me to make it unliquidated for present purposes. HMRC could, in fact, have removed this difficulty if they had served an assessment, which itself gives rise to a defined liability, but they had not done that by the date which is accepted as being the relevant date for these purposes.

i) In my view this is a case which, in the circumstances, had to turn on the commercial realities, and not the validity of the football creditor rules. Nor can it be allowed to turn on the stance of principle that the Revenue takes in relation to CVAs that do not treat all unsecured creditors equally. Those two factors plainly motivate HMRC in its decision-making, but in the context of these applications they tend to recede into the background when the matter is properly viewed.

Mr Mitchell sought to convince me that if this CVA were revoked, and the present deal went away, that was not necessarily an end of the matter because the club could soldier on and it was not impossible that a fresh deal would become available. I am afraid that on the evidence that is not a realistic scenario. The present purchaser is the only one who progressed materially beyond the level of a mere expression of interest. There is no reason to suppose that there is anyone else interested at all, let alone who would pursue their interest into a binding deal that would preserve the club's status in the Championship.


Seems to me (from my very layman understanding) that HMRC ****** it up. They went in the wrong direction with their case and didn't prepare all their debt assessments properly, so the judge threw it out.

[campdave]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/9028698.stm


"Genoa were due to pay the first instalment two weeks ago," said the Championship side's administrator Andrew Andronikou.

"We've been listening to excuses. We've had enough."


Christ, I hate Portsmouth. Two weeks? How long did it take for Portsmouth not to pay what they owed others? I hope they burn in hell.

[jdor]

thought the same when i saw this on SSN !

[welshmatt]

I read that last night and had a good chuckle to myself. What a ****.

[campdave]

Karma's a bitch eh?

[The Bear]

Very amusing indeed.

[pompeyfan]

Does seem very hypocritical, although it is the administrator and there could've been an agreement for fast payment if letting the player go cheap as pompey were selling to raise funds quickly.

[unrealnils]

this trasnfer gets crazier and crazier

[camaj]

Spurs gave Portsmouth £1m as part of a transfer that never happened,for one of their keepers and Kaboul. Since the keeper ended up going to Stoke, Pompey owed us £1m but refused to pay. The premier league have told Portsmouth they need to pay and the administrator now says he'll appeal

[Jonny G]

Can't blame Pompey for not being happy as I suspect the rules between foreign clubs are much different to those involved in UK-to-UK transfers. Would assume Administration dictates that money owed needs to be chased frequently. However, it does seem a little iffy that they kick up a fuss and it certainly strange to leak it to the press.

[pompeyfan]

Can't blame Pompey for not being happy as I suspect the rules between foreign clubs are much different to those involved in UK-to-UK transfers. Would assume Administration dictates that money owed needs to be chased frequently. However, it does seem a little iffy that they kick up a fuss and it certainly strange to leak it to the press.

According to a radio report this evening, the details are in a adminstrators report to prepare for coming out of admin and the administrator has a legal responsibility to chase all debts owing, plus they'll need it to pay the administrators £1.7m fee.

[SPB]

According to a radio report this evening, the details are in a adminstrators report to prepare for coming out of admin and the administrator has a legal responsibility to chase all debts owing, plus they'll need it to pay the administrators £1.7m fee.

Good luck with that, once paid it took Andronikou well over a year to sort out signing off on our administration.

[splobber]

Well and truly ****** indeed.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/9120108.stm

[Alan b]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/9120108.stm

Out of business soon then. What happens now to the league if Portsmouth do fold, are the games played all null and void :shrug:

Edit - Splobs watching the same channel then :D

[pompeyfan]

Ah crap just heard :help::cry:

[hailesy]

Hope it doesn't happen. Great Club.

Latest Statement on SSN looks very grim.

[bigman]

Hope it doesn't happen. Great Club.

Latest Statement on SSN looks very grim.

Wouldnt be at all surprised to see this get sorted out very soon - brinkmanship from the Administrators just to get Gaydamak to sign the deal. It's now entirely, and very publicly, in his hands....

EDIT - Administrator on 5 Live just said he was "very optimistic" of a deal still

[MICON]

Just heard it on Wave. I hope it doesn't happen.

[campdave]

This should all have been sorted out before the season began. Pathetic by the governing bodies, as usual.

[ffc]

Another great advert for the premier league and its current ownership/funding issues.

This is a very sad day for all football fans whoever you support. Until the governance of the game in the country improves Pompey will be the first of many. :mad:

[The Bear]

Yep all results null if they go under.

[hedgie]

Sounds a lot like the tactic that Palace's administrator used to bang heads together and get the deal concluded. There is a lot of brinkmanship in these deals where everyone hangs out for the best deal they can. Gaydamak clearly thinks he can get something extra by waiting, but unless he can benefit more financially from Pompey going under than from the deal on the table, it would be illogical for him to let the club slip into receivership.

[bosh2009]

Pompey wont go under. They should but they wont. Any other 'business' would have been shut months ago but as its a 'community' club, they are allowed to get more and more into debt every week. Heard on the radio last night that the average wage - only reporting what was said - was 18K per week. I dont blame the players as they were offered this and they accepted but its the small businesses connected to club that are getting shafted.

[Alan b]

Pompey wont go under.

Welcome to the forums. It looks like you are right as they have an agreement in place now that should be sorted by this evening. The statement released also attacks the press for the Pomey going under headlines which apparently were always wide of the mark.

[bigman]

Quelle surprise.

And the club/administrator have a nerve saying that since the whole point of that statement (and all the media interviews they did) last night was clearly to stir up the media and to shame Gaydamak into an agreement.

Seems like they've been forced to backtrack on that now that have the agreement.

[pompeyfan]

Welcome to the forums. It looks like you are right as they have an agreement in place now that should be sorted by this evening. The statement released also attacks the press for the Pomey going under headlines which apparently were always wide of the mark.

To be fair SSN were salivating a bit over it last night with reports of Pompey going under in a few hours, becoming Saturday, then Sunday and finally Monday or Tuesday if an agreement wasen'tr reached - today it barely got a mention on soccer saturday.

Quelle surprise.

And the club/administrator have a nerve saying that since the whole point of that statement (and all the media interviews they did) last night was clearly to stir up the media and to shame Gaydamak into an agreement.

Seems like they've been forced to backtrack on that now that have the agreement.

On local radio today they reported that the spoke in the works was caused by the Premier League wanting to change a term at a late stage as the agreement with Gaydamak was about to be signed which mean't any change had to be agreed by all parties - Gaydamak's representatives said this was the reason and the administrator confirmed there was something in what they were saying, but it's looking now like it might be sorted.

On a happier note things on the pitch are really looking up with 2 away wins this week and 5 wins and a draw in our last 6 matches seeing us up to 12th with the players showing a great togetherness - Steve Cotterill is doing a great job so far considering all the off field issues and lack of funds.

[jab1990]

yeah. We are really in great form. The only problem is that we have a really thin squad. Hopefully we can get a couple on loan

[pompeyfan]

yeah. We are really in great form. The only problem is that we have a really thin squad. Hopefully we can get a couple on loan

Don't think we can have many more on loan especially not long term as we already have Sonko, Dickinson, Halford, Flahaven, Lawrence and Kitson on loan - although the last 2 are only cause the league refused to ratify permanent deals so they've been delayed to January, but they still take up 2 of the quota of longterms allowed.

[hedgie]

I don't think that Flahavan is on loan - Palace released him at the end of last season at the end of his contract and I don't recall him joining anyone else before going to Pompey.

[pompeyfan]

I don't think that Flahavan is on loan - Palace released him at the end of last season at the end of his contract and I don't recall him joining anyone else before going to Pompey.

Ah my mistake, I just read he signed for us for a month so thought he was on loan.

[pompeyfan]

The deal has been signed and the club officially exit administration:clap:

The Administrators of Portsmouth City Football Club Ltd are pleased to announce that negotiations between the various parties concerning the sale of the club have now been satisfactorily concluded.

Accordingly, the club has now been formally sold by the Joint Administrators, Messrs UHY Hacker Young, and will continue to trade outside of Administration.

The Administrators would like to thank Mr Gaydamak for his cooperation and assistance in securing the future of the club and acknowledges that he has played an integral part in delivering its survival.

http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Portsmouth-Football-Club-Update-1527.aspx