as i believe we are Self sufficient but treading water if we were to want to improve i.e players, staff and facility's we would then need further funding but currently we fine as our deals are still under the scrutiny of the FL so we were not aloud to spend beyond our means, so when we bought players that was out of csi's money but cant cover all cost by our self!
AA said you had money for the short term. The short term being until mid January!! That was said on BBC!
so when we bought players that was out of csi's money but cant cover all cost by our self! ______________________________________________________________________________ You better hope the FL are not reading this.
For most fans there will be the question of points deduction, a matter for the Football League. As it stands, at least for the moment, the company which owns Pompey, Portsmouth Football Club (2010) Limited, is not in Administration, as it is at pains to point out in its official statement (1); it is the parent company, Convers Sports Initiative plc, which is (2). It is the issue of how closely the two companies are linked that the Football League will have to rule on. The obvious precedent to spring to mind is that of deadly rivals Southampton, where the decision was that the company owning the club and the parent company were so intimately involved that the club should suffer points deduction on account of the parent company going into Administration. It’s worth quoting from the Football League’s statement (3) at the time: The [Grant Thornton] report [on which the decision was based] concluded, among other things, that: 1.The Holding Company has no income of its own; all revenue and expenditure is derived from the operation of Southampton Football Club Limited (SFC) and the associated stadium company. 2.The Holding company is solvent in its own right. It only becomes insolvent when account is taken of the position of SFC and the other group companies. 3.The three entities (the Holding Company, SFC and the stadium company) comprise the football club and they are inextricably linked as one economic entity. If we compare the situation at Southampton then with the situation at Portsmouth now, there are major differences. At Portsmouth currently: 1.CSI does have income of its own and definitely does not derive all its income and expenditure from Portsmouth Football Club (2010) 2.CSI is insolvent in its own right; its insolvency does not arise because of any insolvency on the part of Portsmouth Football Club (2010) [I grant you that it’s hardly a cash cow, but it’s not Portsmouth that has brought CSI down] 3.CSI and Portsmouth Football Club (2010) are not inextricably linked as one economic entity; CSI’s website shows their structure (4) to consist of a number of unrelated subsidiaries: Boom!, DGB Convers, GP Week, Leaders, Power Play Golf, Sportpost and WRC, as well as Portsmouth FC On this basis, there is a strong case that CSI’s Administration should not result in a points deduction for Portsmouth.
I think it highly relevant that Lampitt says (quote from the snooze " The players will be paid this month". The fact that he needed to make that statement speaks volumes about the financial state of the club, which is quite clearly not operating within its means I do not think you true blues really believe that income exceeds expenditure each month. Again, I wish you well but fear the worst - unless a suitable buyer can be found, and quickly at that
Having read back my original post it does seem slightly... wummy. But that was never the intention! People on here know I'm a decent guy
I think, RLGB, there are more questions than answers at the moment. Not that we are going to get the answers no matter how many times we ask the questions.
I think that is about the most consistent thing you can say at the moment. The administrator is only interested in CSI for the moment. Trouble is how much were CSI channeling into Pompey on a regular basis.......Just another question! Oh boy you lot are really getting kicked every time you start to get up. I am of the view that the Football league have some responsibility in all of this. They after all were the ones that cleared these people to take over. Another question I know, I am under the impression that this was the same group that were refused permission to buy Bournemouth a while back? Anyone know if I am right and if I am for what reason were they refused? Sorry that is two questions......
Rubbish! The wholly owned subsidiary companies of Southampton Leisure Holdings PLC were: Southampton Football Club Ltd St. Mary's Stadium Ltd St. Mary's SPV Ltd Southampton Insurance Services Ltd Southampton Mortgage & Financial Centre Ltd Saints Supporters Club Ltd Southampton Swaylife Ltd Secure Retirement Ltd Dell Estates Ltd St Michael's Street Homes (No. 1) Ltd Stadium 2000 Ltd Felix Broadcasting Ltd South City FM Ltd Forest FM Ltd
If Pompey are "trading within their means", why is the administrator of CSI saying they only have funds until February"? Where did the cash come from for Pompey's spending spree in the Summer? You know the one where David Lampitt claimed Pompey were the 2nd highest net spenders in the league. The answer - Antonov gave the club £10.5m (Chris Akers recently revealed this to the Guardian), the club's wagebill is not sustainable without his money. Where did he get that money? Innocent Lithuanian and Latvian bankers perhaps? There is no chance Pompey can be living within their means when they are currently averaging 12k.
I remember reading about the Bournemouth bid, if my memory is correct, it just wasn't for sale so they got no further than initial interest. I understand that they also showed an interest in Rangers, which again wasn't for sale. One of the inconsistencies is around their purchase of the club. It appears to be a question of cash-flow, because, according to reports, Chanrai had an initial payment and further payments are due over the next 2 years. We don't know what the purchase price was but we know Balu was looking to get his £17m "loan" back. I know all the arguments about private businesses, but football clubs are so much more than that. Does anyone else think that the FA/FL/PL should make ownership and the finances, of clubs much more transparent?
I think I've already advised you to direct your - extremely hostile - questions to people in the know. The bits we are saying are the bits we have been told. We were told not long ago that Pompey were trading within their means and that the FL scrutinise the accounts on a regular basis. Without evidence to the contrary who are you, or we, to argue with that statement? AA, who is currently only involved with CSI came out with that statement - the CEO has not yet said anything other than wages are being paid.
Whatever - but the findings for SLH PLC was that its finances were inextricably linked. Your own supporters know more about that than any Pompey fan so perhaps you could get your answers from them.
I swear you were spouting the same old rubbish on one of my own posts? I answered all these questions in detail, why do you insist on making yourself look like a fool by repetedly asking the same boring crap? That is all
