Can any-one confirm that we will definitely be starting in League One with -10 points? If, as now looks likely, the club exits administration with a new CVA, doesn't that mean the rules have been adhered to and we should start on zero? Or will the fact that it is, in part a CVA on the old CVA mean that the deduction will stand? Will the fact that we would have stayed up in the Championship last season without the 10 point penalty administered then have any weight in the argument that the club has already been duly punished?
As I understand it, the -10 will stand because we have not honoured the original CVA. The fact that Baker Tilly accepted the new CVA on the original creditors' behalf, while legally binding, is unacceptable to the PL. While you can argue that the PL make it up as they go along, there is some logic and justification for the decision. Quite honestly, we shoud accept it. If you compare it to what happened to Bournemouth, Luton and Leeds you can argue (and many are) that we got off lightly with only -10.
Well Southampton started on minus 10 in much less serious circumstances however it seems that there are different rules for Portsmouth
Leading Fish Interesting to read your comment. Despite being a Saints fan, I would have to question your opinion that Portsmouth have got off lightly. The nine point deduction from the Premiership was probably the most deserved of all the adjustments but I have posted on here before that I am hugely against points deduction against league clubs as a process of punishment where clubs have been financially mismanaged - in Portsmouth's case, arguably verging on the criminal. I would have to say that the points deduction last season was harsh. Not-withstanding the fact that the fit and proper tests applied by the FA yet again failed to identify the financial issues with the Baltic banks behind the CSI bid, the deduction of points merely precipitated the descent of the club into the relegation zone of the Championship. Coupled with restrictions on adding to the squad (not helped by PFC's rash wage system admittedly) and having to off-load the better players during the secong half of the season, PFC were effectively denied the ability to compete on a sporting level. With the club brought to it's knees to the second time by the points deduction and subsequrny relegation, i really fail to see what deducting a further 10 points will achieve. All we know that it has done to date is delay the purchase of the club and delayed Appleton the chance to build a decent squad capable of stabilising the club. Anyone thinking that the penalties will have stopped there are incorrect. Portsmouth will also be subject to restrictions on playing budgets, future borrowing and load repayments. Whilst you can appreciate the FL's logic, this will effectively impose further limitations on PFC's ability to compete for the next five seasons during which these restrictions remain in place. In practical terms, Appleton will face restrictions on how he re-builds what is probably the most threabare squad in league One and this wil continue until 17/18 season. i would argue that this could be more of a probelm than any ten point deduction. This will also defer future investment . Even as a Saints fan whos typically enjoys it when our team puts one over on our deadly rivals, I think Portsmouth have been hard done by and am surprised that no efforts have been made to get the current point deductions rescinded. Taking these factors into consideration, I feel that Portsmouth will struggle to get promotion out of this league this season and whilst I think that Appleton is good enough to see your fortunes reversed, I don't think it will be through any assitance the footballing authorities have given. All in all, I think that Portsmouth fans would be mad to consider themselves fairly treated even in the respect of other teams such as Leeds, Borunemouth and Luton. When Saints suffered their deduction, this was challenged and Chanrai would be a fool not to try to take this matter to the courts. In summary, Portsmouth have not "got off lightly" in the least and the measures placed have effectively ensured that a return to the Premiership or even the Championship will be a long way off. Effectively, they are washing their hands of Portsmouth and have sold the fans down the Swannee. It is about time that the fans woke up to the fact that the penalties applied have not been fair and reasonable and, if anything, exacerbated the situation. Points deductions are not the answer - effective measures to control exactly who is running the football clubs in the UK and how they are financing this is the only solution to this problem. Time for Pompey fans to realise that their club has been royally shafted. Cheers Ian
The people in charge at Pompey also failed to spot them, and it is unarguably more their responsibility to vet potential owners than it is the League's. As far as I know, the Fit and Proper Person's Test is, and only ever has been, to check that a prospective owner is legally allowed to own a company in the UK. Any more than that is properly the club's responsibility. Why? Its in the rulebook, in black and white: go into admin, get 10 point penalty. The penalty is a condition of Pompey being allowed to compete in the Football League next season. As are the other measures. The League shouldn't have to impose this kind of sanction, but Pompey's recent history has shown that it is entirely unable to manage its finances on their own.
Thumwood your a decent chap - a solid statement that I don't disagree with a word of - and not because I'm a Pompey fan - I just don't see the true scheisters in our downfall being punished - ever. I won't deny for a moment that as a club some dire decisions were made but think the FL are really looking at the situation through the most blinkered and unthinking view they could. Watching the news tonight and hearing that Man U actually owe something like £560M I guess money and footall don't mix in this country - at least I can look forward to a season now (hopefully).
Pieking I agree with your final statement which can't be contested. However what the football authorities have done is make PFC a far less attractive proposition for future investors and by imposing sanctions for a period of 5 years from July 2012 have effectively tied the hands of any potential future owners behind their backs regardless of who owns the club whether it is Chanrai, PST or any other interested party in the future. The FL's actions have only served to restrict Portsmouth's future attractiveness and have the potential to impede the club's performance as a sporting institution over the period. I think that the FL have got the measures all wrong.They should not be imposing penalties for past deeds mortgaged against PFC's future but i strongly believe need to encouraging measures which would guarantee the club's survival, vet future owners for suitability and ensure that there are legal and financial arrangements in place to safegaurd the club's future. I don't think this should apply to just Portsmouth either as it needs to be applied right across the board. The problems at Portsmouth should serve as a wake-up call for the sport and simply imposing a range of penalties is not going to make the problem go away. The FL's priorities are completely wrong in this respect and a punative response is not the right answer in these circumstances. They need to be taking action ensuring there is not repetition of PFC and doing this before the circumstances are serious enough to warrant points deductions.
The football league have been damned for doing nothing and these rules are here to protect the club from extinction which is far more important than the club being able to compete on credit. Imagine the outcry if in another couple of years Portpin had sold off pfc to new owners who racked up more debt and sent them back into admin.
Who's to say they won't? If we accept Pieking's assertion that it is "club's responsibility" to check out a prospective owner then Portpin may well sell to the first buyer who comes along and agrees his sale price. After all the only part of the "club" which has sole power over its finances, purchases and sales, is the owner and board of directors. It was quite clear that the fans have no influence in this respect when, despite all the emails to the FL pointing out Antonov's murky business dealings, he was deemed to be a fit and proper owner for the club. Chanrai wants to recoup his ill-advised loan - he won't care who the next owner is as long as he has a chance of getting that money back. The point is that the club is now even less of a decent prospect for a potential good owner and Ian's points are very valid.
Spot on. All this banging on about the FAPPT's is a joke, what do the Blue Few want, the league to say "we dont like the cut of your jibe, you cant run a club".Any FAPPT can only be based on facts, it can not be anyones opinion or whether something lokks dodgey. Anyway if they want a clamp down on the FAPPT, I presume they are all firing off emails regarding Chanari. What they dont seem to realise is that without these people, they wouldn't have a club. Are the PST really fit and proper people to run a club, I suppose they are, unless being competely deluded is one of the tests. I would have thought Rosie Redknapp was a better bet than those dreamers. As for the points deduction last year being "harsh".Is that really the level of debate on here. As you pointed out, it is in the rules. It has also been applied to other teams in the past. The minus 10 this year is also just, unless you're a Leeds fan. Leeds failed to get a CVA and were deducted -15. Portsmouth got one, but never honoured it and got 5 less. Perhaps Leeds should have promised all their creditors 99p in the £, got a CVA and then just ignored it. Applying the Portsmouth test, this would have resulted in -10, not the -15 they got.Surely even the most one eyed member of the few can see that had they gone to the CVA meeting and proposed 0 in the £, the CVA would have been rejected. This would have resulted in a -15. If the League didn't punish the non honouring of a CVA, what is the point in clubs honouring future ones?
I have to disagree, it's correct that the fans and football league have no influence over who purchases Portsmouth from Portpin and can do little to prevent a sale if the new owners have no criminal record, but what they can do and have done is prevent any perspective new owner borrow more obscene money against the club. If a genuinely wealthy owner(s) come to the club then there is nothing to prevent them from injecting there own cash for the cause. These rules from the football league prevent chancers who want to try and rebuild pfc on credit which after recent history is surely a good thing.
What we expect was the Football League and the FA to do background checks to see if there has been any unresolved issues of financial missmanagement in the candidates past. That is what the Fit and Proper Persons Test is supposed to be for. They failed to do this for Al Fahim, Al Faraj, for Chainrai first time and for Antonov. We want the Football League and the FA to do their job, not to just ok any old person, regardless of whatever worries there are about the legitimacy of that person's financial past, then say months down the line "we had no idea, we were duped."
Don't waste the veneer of your keys, MAJR. We are all idiots as far as LD is concerned. Some fans try to invest and save their club. They are, in LD's words completely deluded. If no one did a thing LD would brand us apathetic traitors to the cause. We are damned for all eternity.
For what its worth, these are the criteria for disqualification in the Owners and Directors test: They have an "interest" in more than one Club They are banned by a sport's governing body (worldwide) They are found to have committed a breach of the prohibition on betting on football in England and Wales They have unspent convictions for offences of dishonesty, corruption, perverting the course of justice, serious breaches of the Companies Act or conspiracy to commit any of those offences This applies regardless of the country in which the crime occurred, or the date of the offence (worldwide) They have unspent conviction for any offence that resulted in a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or more They are being a registered sex offender They are disqualified under the Company Directors Disqualification Action 1986 (or having given an equivalent undertaking) They are struck off by a professional governing body e.g. the Law Society They are being subject to an Individual Voluntary Arrangement or Bankrupt They have been a director of a football club which has suffered two insolvency events past June 2004 or separate football clubs which have each suffered an insolvency event past June 2004. Don't think any of this disqualifies Channers. If anyone is to blame, its the people who sold the club.
Al Fahim has done nothing wrong that could possibly bar him from running a club, and what has chainrai ever done to bar him? It seems that your approach is that it's ok to finance the club with money made from the Angolian weapons trade,but Chainrai cant own it as part of a loan default. The FAPPT has to comply with the law of the land and competition law, you can not have it based on whether supporters approve of someone or not. Certainly not supporters who have sung their love of one Peter Storrie, I doubt the League are going to take their advice. Gaydamak would have passed your test, but the problems started with Daddy wanting his money back. You can not have a subjective test. Are the Glazer's fit and proper to own Man U and load debt onto them? How do you pass this new test you want?
That's it. The test needs to be a yes/no set of criteria. It can not be based on gut feeling, rumours or opinions. It's very easy to look back and say "he shouldn't have been allowed to run the club". It's up to the sellers or administraters to do their due diligence and check the new owners can fullfill their promises. The FA can't be expected to make subjective decisions about what's best for every club.
I did not mention Gaydamak because I am unsure of the exact circumstances surrounding him. His father was weapons trader but I do not know if he was involved in that business. Nor am I familiar with what steps the FA and Premier League took to investigate Gaydamak's background. I do not want a subjective test, I want an ironclad test that will keep football clubs in the hands of honest businessmen with the finance to support them and who have the clubs best interest at heart. And the Football League, the Premier League and the FA should want the same. They do not. They just want people to pump the leagues full of money no matter where it come from. So I take major issues with the Football League agreeing to allow men like Antonov to buy clubs then say several months down the line when their past financial misdeeds catch up with them that they, the Football League, had not the first clue that there just might be some shifty business going on. Frankly I would take Chainrai as owner if it meant the club survived. I'm not picky on the subject. But I will not sit here while you criticize Portsmouth fans for feeling disillusioned with the Fit and Proper Persons Test as if we dont have every right to be! And, bringing up Storrie is a pathetic attempt to defect because when Storrie was cheered by Pompey fan it was not yet known that he was on ridiculous wage and bonuses or that he had signed players for ridiculous wages and bonus or that he had failed to pay off transfer fees. Saying that Portsmouth fans do not have the right to object to who owns the club base on the incidents of cheering for Storrie when Storrie's part in the financial collapse was not yet known a ridiculous assertion on your part. I am afriad that your post has only confirmed to me the opinion expressed by PompeyMeowth as to your attitude towards Pompey fans. That we're to be damned if we complain and to be damned in equal measure if we dont. That we're to be damned if we attempt to do anything to protect our club and to be damned if we do nothing.
