By that account Stripehampton should have had their stadium taken away when they went into admin. It was missed payments that led to their overdraft being taken away which led to their admin. Should also be refused promotion seeing as they made a 11mil loss last season And Brum should have their Carling cup taken away, even though it's their dodgy owner that's put them in this situation. Chelsea should have all of their trophies since 2004 taken away since they have all been won at unsustainable debt levels. Man city should have their FA cup and premiership cup taken away for unsustainable wage levels. Liverpool FA cup ^^. List goes on. Can't just apply it to us because we're rivals.
So many businesses operate at highly leveraged levels, not just football clubs. Even the government operates on borrowings. We won't even mention the banks. Greed is just endemic throughout our society - we just happen to notice the out and out greed in football because we happen to be interested in football. I don't see the point in lambasting the consumer, who often have so few options. Until there is a fundamental shift in the way that business operates and that power is in the hands of the richest few it won't matter how many football clubs/businesses go to the wall - things will continue within the status quo. It is how our society is structured. Yelling accusations at the fans of a club or the consumers of a business will achieve nothing, they are the wrong audience.
In Saints case, I would say that the majority grudgingly accepted that it was right that we start in L1 on -10 points as we understood the big picture. I think that most of the Pompey lads on here probably also accept that it would be not unreasonable to expect a PD in this case. The trouble is, Saints fans rubbing their noses in it causes a predictable pushing back. For what it's worth, this non-WUM reckons that Pompey should consider themselves very fortunate indeed if they avoid one this time.
The thing is Channon, that there is a cut-off date for administration. If you go into admin before said date the 10 points is deducted immediately. If you go into admin after said date the deduction is deferred to the end of the season. If the 10 points would send you down it is implemented; otherwise it is deferred to the following season, as happened to Saints. Had Saints reached 52 points instead of 45 in 2009 the deduction would have been imposed at the end of the season, causing relegation. They would then have started life in League One on zero instead of -10. In Pompey's case the deduction was imposed last season because the admin happened before the cut-off. However, it would have been imposed last seaaon regardless of which side of the date the A word happened, as those 10 points relegated us. Therefore there is no precedent, under Football League rules, to make a further deduction for the coming season.
Unless you take the view that due to the failure of the CVA, the club effectively exited administration without a valid one in place. It's at least arguable, otherwise the club obtains an unfair advantage compared to say Leeds.
Yes but the failure of the first CVA is due Lampitt paying ridiculous contracts and generally overspending yet during this time transfers had to be approved by the Football League so at the end of the day, the Football League are indirectly responsible for the failure of this CVA.
No, I think the CVA failed because CSI went belly-up just as the first payments were due on it. The question other clubs might ask is, surely Pompey are not going to get away with ditching £100 million of debt with no penalty?
We've been relegated twice, have no squad, not allowed to bring in players etc etc. What do you mean getting away unpunished. Depends if you mean the club (which is a name) or the people that actually did this. Just to put it out there, a large portion of our debt isn't even football related. Gayademak jnr wanted his money back because a certain mr Chanrai successfully sued gayademak snr who was unable to pay off. That is where it all started with the leeching bastard that is BC. The wages and tax bill unpaid are the result of this, although wages should never have been so high in the first place.
The unaffordable wages and the monies claimed by Gaydamak and Chanrai do not explain the high levels of debt accrued in 2009/10. The ones who caused this, Gaydamak et al, have escaped scot free. The real question is why has there not been a criminal investigation into Pompey's finances? Perhaps it can only happen on liquidation? I see there is a criminal investigation into Craig Whytes takeover of Rangers - but all the time we are in administration it seems that the club is operating within the law. Shameful.
I've had the idea of using the money raised by the PST buyout scheme to fund a private investigation of our own if BC takes over. He's clearly got something to hide along with AA. "The real question is why has there not been a criminal investigation into Pompey's finances?" - On this subject, BC and AA rejected HMRC's bid for an investigation into the affairs of the company. Funnily enough they were the only ones to reject it as well.
1 - good idea - I'd go along with that. As to an investigation - I just don't understand why BC & AA hold enough sway to convince a court not to demand one. I don't suppose one would get too far though as most of the owners funds appear to be held/hidden overseas. But even so there would still be enough evidence to uncover any, shall we say - less than honest behaviour and misappropriation of funds from the business.
