Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Really looking forward to those games actually.

> Four-nil though. That must have hurt.


At least were in it to get hurt, unlike your mob who aren't and have only been in it once. That must hurt.

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Err.. oh yes we have Parkdrive but it was called

> the European Cup then. You might not know that

> though because you're an Arsenal fan.

>

> Sorry ratty are we keeping you up?



You did send me off to be honest!


Pompey in court at 10:30 today! Never a dull moment!

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Two bald north Londoners arguing over a

> > comb.......or something ;-)

>

> Jah and Atila...separated at birth?

>

> http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/commercials/20

> 08/12/hamlet-photobooth.jpg


My wife is his agent and demands ?49,000 pounds for posting that image.

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yeah... very funny. Anyway, looks like Portsmouth

> have been shafted again and that's not funny at

> all. I feel for their fans.



On this occasion we are very happy to go into admin, not just because we were facing a winding up petition on Monday, but becaue we can now clear the toxic administrator Andronikou out of the club (Trevor Birchbwas appointed) and also, because the judge started to question the debenture of our previous "owner" Balram Chanrai. Our debt is tiny in footy terms (?4m) so this administration should be hugely beneficial to the club.


What has been going on in Pompey has been has been criminal and all down to Chanrai, who alleges he loaned ?17m to the club and uses this to be the main secured creditor, despite him having no evidence of the loan. This is the man that tried to pocket personally the money from the sale of Kaboul and who also failed to pay local charities money raised by the club on match days, presumably trouser ing this too.


So not so much of a sad day for us yesterday. Hopefully the start of something positive!

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> On a footballing front though, is 10 points not

> too little a punishment given it's the second time

> it has happened? I think it should be automatic

> relegation in the interests of those clubs who try

> to run their financial affairs properly.



Are you being serious here? All relegation would do, is punish the fans, and none of this is their fault.

The thing is, this administration has nothing to do with unsustainable borrowing. Like I said, you need to be armed with the full facts. The football league are, hence their decision to only deduct ten points. The judge was also, hence his decision to bar Urnst, Hacker, Young as being the Administrators.


We have the smallest squad in the championship. Don't really say how we can be said to have borrowed irresponsibly. Money has been stolen from the club, systematically by one man over three years. Hence, no funds.


Honestly, someone should write a book about the corruption that has gone on at Pompey in the last 2 years. Starting with the "owner" the club had that never existed, but who still mangaged to pass the FA's fit and proper person test.

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am serious. How many clubs have 'overachieved'

> with the help of unsustainable borrowing? Rangers

> for one and maybe Portsmouth too. Fans of other

> clubs get punished by being at a disadvantage when

> it comes to competing against the naughty

> borrowers.


Could not agree more. Rangers were effectively using the government's money to fund player acquisitions and salaries over the last ten years. Rangers fans then suggest if Celtic win the title this year it will be tarnished. Neil Lennon suggested they turn the spotlight on themselves.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Andy is an absolute star. Have used him for years and he’s become a hugely trusted and valued friend as well as handyman. Always willing to go the extra mile and doesn’t cut corners, but great on pricing. Can’t recommend enough.
    • Surely you are still covered under these circumstances even if you don't have the physical licence? I can't believe you would be prevented from driving? That would be a ridiculous system. I don't recall any delays   when mine was renewed. Why would their medical department be involved if you have no medical issues? Could someone have made some admin mistake somewhere along the line?
    • Does anyone have the same problem.  I am 79 and have sent my licence renewal form to the DVLA on the 21st October 20 which they have received. I have just received a letter from them them dated 22 December 2025 today saying my licence is with their Drivers Medal Department and will be processed as soon as possible. This follows my telephone call to them after three weeks  from the October date as I had not received my licence back as per their time frame. I also followed this up mid December after finally getting through but did not get any confirmation as to what the situation was. Is this normal practice? On the 7 January 2026 I will be unable to drive as my licence has not been sent back. I have no medical issues and meet all the requirements with no problem as per previous renewals in fact nothing has changed health wise.Their the letter states if they need any more details from me, they will contact me directly. Why has it taken 2 and a half months get get this far? Is this some sort of ploy to get older drivers to finally give up their driving by making life difficult as possible.  Has anyone else experienced this. Read Medical not Medal.
    • You're being a little disingenuous here. It is simply not true that "the area should remain suburban 2/3 storeys maximum" because: -> the area the development is in isn't 2/3 storeys maximum today - as evidenced by the school on the lot adjoining the development to the south, as well as the similarly-sized buildings to the north and east.  -> the SPG doesn't preclude this type of development anyway. This "genie in a bottle" stuff is desperate barrel-scraping. Now you're raising the spectre of a 9 storey building on the Gibbs & Dandy site (the chance would be a fine thing) but also arguing Southwark is too slow to approve things and opposed to development more than 2-3 storeys!
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...