foghornred Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Portsmouth Football club are on the brink but still spend money,will they ever learn ? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19284581 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Portsmouth Football club are on the brink but still spend money,will they ever learn ? http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/19284581 Yes I think finally they have learnt but in order to play a football match you do, ideally, need 11 players on the pitch and at least the bare minimum in the dugout. Further, you could not really sign a player for much less than a month. So, all in all, this is the new prudent pompey perhaps not by their choice but certainly by necessity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbred Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Yes I think finally they have learnt but in order to play a football match you do, ideally, need 11 players on the pitch and at least the bare minimum in the dugout. Further, you could not really sign a player for much less than a month. So, all in all, this is the new prudent pompey perhaps not by their choice but certainly by necessity. Hang on, they managed to field a team in the cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Bristol-City_ Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Hang on, they managed to field a team in the cup. They're not paying wages for the 10 players are they?! And... 10 teenagers, they'd get relegated straight away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron10bc Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 They've signed lee Williamson aswell I thought a championship side was chasing him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbred Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 They're not paying wages for the 10 players are they?! And... 10 teenagers, they'd get relegated straight away Where does it say they are not paying them wages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Bristol-City_ Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Where does it say they are not paying them wages? It was more of a... Shocked question, if they are its crazy!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbred Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 It was more of a... Shocked question, if they are its crazy!!! I see! I expect they are, unless they want to play for free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Bristol-City_ Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 I see! I expect they are, unless they want to play for free? They're on loan aren't they? Or some of them; could their parent clubs be paying them or a majority of the wages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pride of the west Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 I still dont understand why the administrators sanctioned a jolly to spain for preseason. Cant imagine many other teams in that league who pay their way managed to get out on a training camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 I still dont understand why the administrators sanctioned a jolly to spain for preseason. Cant imagine many other teams in that league who pay their way managed to get out on a training camp. Wasn't it funded by someone outside the club? I'm sure I read that somewhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pride of the west Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Wasn't it funded by someone outside the club? I'm sure I read that somewhere! Ah right. Still could have spent the cash else where. The price of that trip woild have probably paid for half a seasons over night stops for away games. Now those over night stops will have to be put on the slate like all their other out goings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbred Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 They're on loan aren't they? Or some of them; could their parent clubs be paying them or a majority of the wages? No, they are all unattached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Ah right. Still could have spent the cash else where. The price of that trip woild have probably paid for half a seasons over night stops for away games. Now those over night stops will have to be put on the slate like all their other out goings Would have been better going to small businesses pompey shafted I reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pride of the west Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Would have been better going to small businesses pompey shafted I reckon. Yes absolutely agree but they owe so much it would be like a bum fight for the local creditors to get their hands on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchred Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Yes absolutely agree but they owe so much it would be like a bum fight for the local creditors to get their hands on it. Careful, people in glass houses and all that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Careful, people in glass houses and all that! I think our club shat on a load of businesses back in the 80's its not right, even if it is the club I support. Portsmouth are even worse, 3 times they have done it now isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Yes absolutely agree but they owe so much it would be like a bum fight for the local creditors to get their hands on it. Every little helps, may have kept 1 or 2 that went bust, in business. Makes me sick the amount administrators take, then try enforce the lowest pence in the pound rate for those that are actually owed. Parasites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philly The Kid Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 pompey mate says they're all being signed on monthly rolling contracts with no signing on fees, and are free to leave if they get a permanent deal elsewhere. Apparently, they've all viewed it as an opportunity to play first team football, get and stay fit etc. If and when pompey come out of admin, the manager can offer permanent contracts (subject to them all agreeing a deal).... Where the player is under contract to another club and is on loan, the parent club is paying the wages and pompey only pay expenses and bonuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
22A Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 Friday night and they are still here. 15,000 tickets sold already for Saturday's game v Bournemouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 They're not paying wages for the 10 players are they?! And... 10 teenagers, they'd get relegated straight away So let them play 10 teenagers then. If you can't pay £5k per week for a player, you play your £50 per week youth team. We had to play a bunch of kids in 82 and slid down to the bottom of the league. Why shouldn't they have to do the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor10 Posted August 17, 2012 Report Share Posted August 17, 2012 So let them play 10 teenagers then. If you can't pay £5k per week for a player, you play your £50 per week youth team. We had to play a bunch of kids in 82 and slid down to the bottom of the league. Why shouldn't they have to do the same? Agree. They should be forced by the football league to play the kids until a take over is completed. They need all the money they can get. Rolling contracts or not, they need to sort themselves out financially before drafting in a new squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 So let them play 10 teenagers then. If you can't pay £5k per week for a player, you play your £50 per week youth team. We had to play a bunch of kids in 82 and slid down to the bottom of the league. Why shouldn't they have to do the same? Because, as Spas has already explained, they are not paying anywhere near all of the costs and if they are to try and improve the league position of the club who wouldn't take that opportunity? You need fans coming through the turnstiles and its blatantly obvious the better you do the more you have. How do we know that some of the unpaid suppliers may have agreed to continue supplying the 'new co' with payment on the slate in order to keep some of them going. As much as many people love the idea of kicking something in the bollox when its down it serves absolutely nobody least of all the small guy trying to keep a small business afloat. However unpalatable the past is a dead Pompey would hurt the local economy and put a depressed smog over the entire town. No decent football fan wants that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 totally with the guy above. sensible post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton1 Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 Careful, people in glass houses and all that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton1 Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 Are you implying we are similar? We have no creditors, we owe nothing to small business that are struggleing to stay afloat. Yes we are in the red, but that's ongoing running costs like the many other medium to large clubs have surely, ie man u are hundreds of millions in the red, (running costs) Not good ethier way, but we can a least afford to pay our ongoing running costs/outgoings something that Portsmouth could not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redhyde Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 Are you implying we are similar? We have no creditors, we owe nothing to small business that are struggleing to stay afloat. Yes we are in the red, but that's ongoing running costs like the many other medium to large clubs have surely, ie man u are hundreds of millions in the red, (running costs) Not good ethier way, but we can a least afford to pay our ongoing running costs/outgoings something that Portsmouth could not BCFC's history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton1 Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 BCFC's history? 82,was a very long time ago, and at least we seemed to learn a lesson (I hope) But I guess I know where you are coming from! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
City Ben Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 Every little helps, may have kept 1 or 2 that went bust, in business. Makes me sick the amount administrators take, then try enforce the lowest pence in the pound rate for those that are actually owed. Parasites Hi mate You've got this a bit the wrong way around. I know a bit about being an administrator so I feel compelled to set this right! Administrators are appointed - and employed - by a court. Their sole job - the only thing that they are tasked to do - is to get as much money as possible for the creditors. So, the opposite of what you've put above. Now, some of them are better than others, same as anything. But their job is to work FOR the people owed money. They're not employed by the owners, the club or anyone like that. Now, on to their pay. They've got to be paid something or no-one would do it. And if no-one did it, no creditors would get anything. And what they get paid is governed and checked by the court to make sure that it's fair. The real villain in this story is the stupid "football creditors" rule, whereby anyone in football gets paid first. Eg if another club is owed transfer fees. By definition when a company is insolvent there's not enough money to pay back all of the people who are owed. Other football clubs get preference, which means that other creditors - the local St John's Ambulance, for example, or the pie shop in the corner of the ground - are likely to get stiffed, and get nothing or minimal amounts back. Actually, the real villains SHOULD be the owners who ran the club so badly. The administrators are there to pick up the pieces and get as much back for the creditors as possible. They're not the bad guys here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 Hi mate You've got this a bit the wrong way around. I know a bit about being an administrator so I feel compelled to set this right! Administrators are appointed - and employed - by a court. Their sole job - the only thing that they are tasked to do - is to get as much money as possible for the creditors. So, the opposite of what you've put above. Now, some of them are better than others, same as anything. But their job is to work FOR the people owed money. They're not employed by the owners, the club or anyone like that. Now, on to their pay. They've got to be paid something or no-one would do it. And if no-one did it, no creditors would get anything. And what they get paid is governed and checked by the court to make sure that it's fair. The real villain in this story is the stupid "football creditors" rule, whereby anyone in football gets paid first. Eg if another club is owed transfer fees. By definition when a company is insolvent there's not enough money to pay back all of the people who are owed. Other football clubs get preference, which means that other creditors - the local St John's Ambulance, for example, or the pie shop in the corner of the ground - are likely to get stiffed, and get nothing or minimal amounts back. Actually, the real villains SHOULD be the owners who ran the club so badly. The administrators are there to pick up the pieces and get as much back for the creditors as possible. They're not the bad guys here. I understand they get as much back for the creditors after they have had their piece of flesh. I the Portsmouth example, I don't like the way the have tried to belittle players in the media. Has their been anything published how much the administrators will be paid for the Portsmouth job? I am sure if players had not agreed to tear up contracts, the club would have gone under and the creditors would not have been paid either. Or am I wrong in the assumption that the players would have had first dibs on the money if all the assets were sold? Administrators do a job, but from afar, the motives of some are questionable at best, you just have to look at the last administrator at Portsmouth to see that. From afar, it and it doesn't help with this silly rule in football as you say, that administrators who deal with football clubs seem to act differently to standard administrators, well from my experience any way from being a creditor twice in my life time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.