Fernandes looks like he can soak it up though. To be fair I am a bit worried about West Ham's wages. Well worried isn't the right word exactly.
You're missing an option, and that should be, being the best they can attain. I would vote for that. It wouldn't result in local derbies unless Saints dropped a division or two, and that, as we all know, isn't going to happen. It has been decreed by Nicola. The best is, quite frankly, probably League One. I don't see them going as high as the Championship for many, many seasons. It brings me no pleasure to say so, but I just can't see it, unless there is a huge injection of cash, and that isn't going to happen.
You never know, being properly run and with our club slowly becoming debt-free, it might finally be a more attractive to sensible and non-dodgy owners. Not sure if the PST could retain a majority stake however.
Well that's why it isn't going to happen. The supporters will not want to relinquish a majority stake, and rightly so, after the last decade of ownership. Indeed, Pompey's last 60 years of history is littered with an inability to stay solvent and successful. The supporters would probably rather have their destiny, limited or not, in their own hands.
If they go down, they'd be in the same league as Salisbury So we could all go to that derby game instead?
If they go down, they'll probably enter administration. Just like they would have done had they not got promotion first time around in the Championship.
If Portsmouth do go down it will be a disaster. Not really sure why their supporters think anything has changed or why they think they're running things. Looks like the same old mess to me. Also agree on West Ham. They gambled big a couple years ago and won. Now they're doing it again.
Au contraire, mon ami! http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/politics/pompey-pay-back-1-45m-loan-to-the-city-council-1-5424995 http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/catlin-we-won-t-break-bank-for-players-1-5789438 http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/p...step-in-to-fund-ground-improvements-1-5783399 Just a few articles showing that we're doing things a bit more sensibly and things have changed.
Although they clearly hideously overspend it isn't reckless, they've got more money than most small countries. Plus they are building a training/academy site that looks to be the best in the world.
You are comparing yourselves to the lowest common denominator. There are a lot of clubs spending stupidly, the fact that you spend slightly less stupidly does not guarantee solvency. Some of these other clubs are taking a huge gamble by spending big and hoping they get promoted. I'm not saying it's smart, but it alters the cost/benefit scenario. You have no hope of being promoted, therefore you should be spending a lot less. To be blunt, you should be paying non-football league salaries. That way, if you get demoted, your finances are sustainable. And if you stay up, it's massive profit. But that's not happening. Also, your supporter's trust is a sham. You didn't raise enough money to finance a takeover. It only happened because a couple of rich bigwigs threw in a ton of money. Hopefully, they have Portsmouth's best interests at heart. But if you think the fans are actually running the club, you're crazy. All the supporters did was front just enough cash that it made it super-easy for someone to leverage a buyout and a controlling interest with very little cash at hand.
I don't really want to see Pompey go down, they've suffered enough and the pantomime isn't the same without a villain to boo and jeer at. Pompey do need to rebuild though. Their major advantage is their support base. If they start winning, the crowds will come back, and this means more money. If you look at our attendances when we were stomping over everyone in League One you'll find that they were often higher than many of the Premiership and championship matches on the same day.
Have Pompey really suffered enough? Sure the fans have and they have my sympathy. But the club itself will never pay back over £1/4 Billion and that is just wrong. Especially as they got an FA Cup out of it
Would like to know how much ex-England international Nicky Storey is getting paid at Pompey seeing how he was too expensive for Bristol City to keep on their books.
Baby-steps on the path to redeeming our name. Your first season when you were in League 1, when you started with a league -10 point reduction (or was it more than that) when it looked unlikely you'd get promoted, did you begin the season with players on League 2 wages? I'm guessing you didn't, but that put you in good stead for the following season when you got promoted. Likewise I think i's a question of ambition and thinking of next season. If we can afford the wages and the CEO says we can, then there's no problem in spending a bit now (within reason) even if we're not promoted. What do we want? Do we want to be content with barely scraping away from relegation or do we want to be content with (to quote my whore of an ex) "giving it a real go"? There is no reason why ambition cannot be matched with realism. And apparently we've gotten a lot better since the new manager came in, so it's not over yet! Au contraire, mon ami. Take a look at this: http://www.pompeytrust.com/index.ph...ticle&id=611:elections&catid=34:demo-category Essentially, with the board composition of Portsmouth FC, the PST have three seats on the board and a 52%-ish stakeholding. However, as you can see, there are elections in which PST members vote for the composition of the PST board which in turn makes up the composition of the Portsmouth FC board. So yes, yes the 'fans' do have a say in the same 'way' we all have a say in the running on this country: not directly, but by electing representatives that represent them and (in theory) their views. The fan ownership of Portsmouth is no more a sham than democracy in the UK is (ignoring crazy PMs who do whatever they like and take us into wars no-one wants, but in principle....) I don't know what he is being paid, but I think it's worth pointing out that because someone is too expensive for Bristol, does not mean they are necessarily expensive. To give an example, if the weekly wage budget of Bristol is £50k (that's a random number, I have no idea what it actually is), then any amount above that is in theor more than they can afford. Therefore, Bristol would want to get rid of one or more players, and they would get rid of those which are not necessarily needed for playing reasons even if they're cheap. If a club is downsizing, it will tend to prioritise those players it feels it does not need. Perhaps it would keep them if there was more money, but perhaps not. So for example say Sam Baldock was on £4000 a week and Shorey was on £1000 a week. If the current Bristol weekly budget was £51k, then they would need to get rid of someone, so they'd go for Shorey because he is too expensive because Bristol are over budget but by that same token Baldock is too expensive and so are all of the other players as Bristol are over budget yet Shorey is the one who is let go because clearly his value for money is not considered to be as great as the other players. If that makes any sense. So my point is, to say a player who is too expensive for a team inherently means that he is a expensive in absolute terms is a bit overly simplistic and may not accurately reflect the reality. Essentially, it boils down to the fact that: how expensive (x) a player is based on their value to the team on the pitch (v) compared to their wages (w), therefore we could express it: x = v/w.... or something. For second string players, the value of v will be low, while for first string players, the value of v will be high.
