HMR+C issue Portsmouth a winding up order

Poor buggers.

Could so easily be us in a year or two.

Linky

You can sympathise with the fans of any club in trouble,even Pompey.Must admit that,investment/spend at the right time advocate that i am,Pompey pushed their luck a bit too far and are sowing what they reaped.I understand the arguments about them having a good time and winning the cup,Europe etc but there must be better ways of doing it than that.Maybe a lot of the cash got lost in 'Arry's kennel account.

I see some of these latest football administrations in a smilar light to the great banking rip off and the last four years of slowly slowly transferring the huge majority of all the losses onto the taxpayers of countries all over the world.

These clubs have been stripped bare through ludicrous spending by their owners, they then go into administration, slowly divesting themselves of ll the local small creditors, and the debt is slowly slowly filtered out into the community.I don't have a problem with proper bankruptcy where everyone suffers an equal hit, but the whole football thing is becoming a joke. So, in the end, the assets have been plundered and the 'debt' is left with the community and the club. Obviously, Portsmouth will take a couple of bites to effect the great escape for the money men, while leaving the club down and out where we are, asset less, and yet still owned by some monied twerp without no clue and little interest in the sport itself.

I blame 'arry!

I agree pp. (Monti, I don't think I agree).

I would be interested to find out more about the German model that Moist has talked about. That seemed to imply an ownership by the community - at least to some degree. I have a Crystal Palace friend (who seemed happy with Gullifoyle's administration). He says they had four rich - but not ridiculously rich - real supporters who stepped forward to save the club. He also seems happy with their subsequent engagement with the "ordinary" fans. I know that one of Tony Cholwell's objections to a Trust representation on the board is what he perceives as their lack of business experience. I have no idea if that is true but I'd say that the model of increasingly many clubs going to the wall or threatening to is hardly a recommendation for clubs being run by "proper" businessmen.

knecht wrote:

(Monti, I don't think I agree)

I wasn't being serious, Just after today's events i thought i'd bring it up

monti czardas wrote:

knecht wrote:

(Monti, I don't think I agree)

I wasn't being serious, Just after today's events i thought i'd bring it up

I know

I have no idea if our arry is guilty but the money grabbing of those who have loads already never surprises me.

knecht wrote:

I agree pp. (Monti, I don't think I agree).

I would be interested to find out more about the German model that Moist has talked about. That seemed to imply an ownership by the community - at least to some degree. I have a Crystal Palace friend (who seemed happy with Gullifoyle's administration). He says they had four rich - but not ridiculously rich - real supporters who stepped forward to save the club. He also seems happy with their subsequent engagement with the "ordinary" fans. I know that one of Tony Cholwell's objections to a Trust representation on the board is what he perceives as their lack of business experience. I have no idea if that is true but I'd say that the model of increasingly many clubs going to the wall or threatening to is hardly a recommendation for clubs being run by "proper" businessmen.

Tony is an arch "Conservative" with a big C that thinks no human being can possibly make anything communal work. That underpins everything he says about a Trust. He believes in rule by dictat not committee, not even Board. He'd make Thatcher and Duncan Smith blush I wouldn't listen to his musings.
As far as I know there is little 'business' experience in the current people, but then , that is not what is required of a Trust. It requires steady people who hold a body fairly so that it can represent the feelings of it's members. It's not about to buy out Sainsburys.
Tony fails to comprehend the seperation between policy and executing said policy.

No sympathy at all for them - they haven't learnt the lessons from their recent past.

David Norris was on a very lucrative contract at Ipswich. Yet he said himself the contract being offered by Portsmouth was just too good to turn down. If ever a club deserved to go under due to utter financial stupidity, Pompey are the shining example.

Plus I dislike them (and Cardiff) with a passion.

Are Pompey's administrators being funded? If so that seperates them from us, however someone will buy them. They always do.

Pompey have far too much potential not to be taken over. But IF they're forced down the administration route they'll do it properly and won't be completely screwed over by parasites like us. And Pompey fans can be safe in the knowledge they'll never be faced with non-league oblivion.

The problem they have is that the debt is so massive, they deserve it but the fans don't, no fans deserve it.

The quicker all clubs go tits uo the quicker the fans can reclaim the game.

Bogsider wrote:

Are Pompey's administrators being funded? If so that seperates them from us, however someone will buy them. They always do.

maybe another spiv/shark or even someone that doesn't even exist again