The mancityfans.net football forum

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1252078/Portsmouth-plea-sell-players-outside-transfer-window-passed-FIFA.html

Portsmouth's attempt to sell players outside the transfer window to ease their financial plight will be considered by FIFA - but looks doomed to failure as it would set a dangerous precedent.

The Barclays Premier League and the FA have passed on the request to football's world governing body, who will have the final say on whether Portsmouth can receive special treatment.
It is a desperate effort by Portsmouth to raise cash and reduce the wage bill before they return to the High Court on March 1 to face a winding up petition from HM Revenue and Customs.

But any bending of FIFA's rules would raise other issues, such as which clubs would be invited to buy the players outside the transfer window.

johnpb78 wrote:Surely this means they are not just close to administration, but close to going out of business full stop - the move is unprecedented, and has to be an absolute last resort - you dont do this just to avoid administration.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1252078/Portsmouth-plea-sell-players-outside-transfer-window-passed-FIFA.html

Portsmouth's attempt to sell players outside the transfer window to ease their financial plight will be considered by FIFA - but looks doomed to failure as it would set a dangerous precedent.

The Barclays Premier League and the FA have passed on the request to football's world governing body, who will have the final say on whether Portsmouth can receive special treatment.
It is a desperate effort by Portsmouth to raise cash and reduce the wage bill before they return to the High Court on March 1 to face a winding up petition from HM Revenue and Customs.

But any bending of FIFA's rules would raise other issues, such as which clubs would be invited to buy the players outside the transfer window.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 03602.html

Simon Wilson, a partner with Zolfo Cooper the restructuring experts, warns that Pompey, despite handing in their Statement of Affairs, still face the very real threat of extinction and that going into administration is an unlikely salvation.

"Arguably, the level of debt associated with this case, will mean that it is unlikely that a suitable or willing benefactor will be found," said Wilson.

"Portsmouth therefore face the very real threat of liquidation because it is increasingly unlikely that an administration order will be sought or granted.

"In this eventuality, the players contracts are no longer assets of the club and it would lose its membership of the Premier League.

"The role of the liquidator would be to realise whatever free and available assets still remain.

"The value of these assets would be nominal. While the unsecured creditors, including HMRC, would likely see no return from such a process, it is not in their interests to continue to support a business that is simply not viable and has no financial substance.

"To continue to underwrite the club would most likely result in greater losses at a later date. This would be an unprecedented case in the realms of the Premier League and would throw light on the fact that clubs can no longer rely on 'white knights' to rescue them from financial ruin.

"Many football clubs have allowed their levels of debt to grow to immense proportions. These debts cannot be serviced and investors simply don't have the appetite or ability to take on such poor business propositions."

Kiss_The_Goat wrote:

johnpb78 wrote:Surely this means they are not just close to administration, but close to going out of business full stop - the move is unprecedented, and has to be an absolute last resort - you dont do this just to avoid administration.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1252078/Portsmouth-plea-sell-players-outside-transfer-window-passed-FIFA.html

Portsmouth's attempt to sell players outside the transfer window to ease their financial plight will be considered by FIFA - but looks doomed to failure as it would set a dangerous precedent.

The Barclays Premier League and the FA have passed on the request to football's world governing body, who will have the final say on whether Portsmouth can receive special treatment.
It is a desperate effort by Portsmouth to raise cash and reduce the wage bill before they return to the High Court on March 1 to face a winding up petition from HM Revenue and Customs.

But any bending of FIFA's rules would raise other issues, such as which clubs would be invited to buy the players outside the transfer window.

wow. Yeh it really shows the level of desperation they've reached and how seriously the FA are taking it if they're even willing to consider allowing them to sell players. I mean, they've hardly got any players as it is?! How many players can they afford to sell before they cant field a full team? They've already had less than 7 on the bench a few times this season.
What a total mess.

irblinx wrote:To do this they would not only be allowing Portsmouth to sell outside the window but obviously someone else to buy outside the window, there'd be total uproar. Surely to they have to say no, and therefore Pompey look well and truly screwed

Ted Hughes wrote:Didn't think this would actually happen, thought they'd go into administration. Terible news for them & bad news for us.

gillie wrote:Harry twitchy fuckin Redknapp is the one that fucked them over signing players to contracts that they did not have a hope in hell of being able to sustain.

gillie wrote:Harry twitchy fuckin Redknapp is the one that fucked them over signing players to contracts that they did not have a hope in hell of being able to sustain.

johnpb78 wrote:

gillie wrote:Harry twitchy fuckin Redknapp is the one that fucked them over signing players to contracts that they did not have a hope in hell of being able to sustain.

The board had to sanction the deals. Harry didnt have the chequebook, and arguably had he stayed there would have been successful

If you are a manager of any business, you only work to the budgets you are given. If you manage to that and the business struggles as a result, that is NOT the managers fault, it is the people who sanctioned your activity.

Beefymcfc wrote:

johnpb78 wrote:

gillie wrote:Harry twitchy fuckin Redknapp is the one that fucked them over signing players to contracts that they did not have a hope in hell of being able to sustain.

The board had to sanction the deals. Harry didnt have the chequebook, and arguably had he stayed there would have been successful

If you are a manager of any business, you only work to the budgets you are given. If you manage to that and the business struggles as a result, that is NOT the managers fault, it is the people who sanctioned your activity.

It's fair to say that the board have a massive say on what goes on money wise, but if you put your trust in a manager with his long term plam and that manager then decides to flee for greater riches, taking the crown jewels, I'd say that that said manager has a lot to answer for.

johnpb78 wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:

johnpb78 wrote:

gillie wrote:Harry twitchy fuckin Redknapp is the one that fucked them over signing players to contracts that they did not have a hope in hell of being able to sustain.

The board had to sanction the deals. Harry didnt have the chequebook, and arguably had he stayed there would have been successful

If you are a manager of any business, you only work to the budgets you are given. If you manage to that and the business struggles as a result, that is NOT the managers fault, it is the people who sanctioned your activity.

It's fair to say that the board have a massive say on what goes on money wise, but if you put your trust in a manager with his long term plam and that manager then decides to flee for greater riches, taking the crown jewels, I'd say that that said manager has a lot to answer for.

He does, but he is not reponsible for the financial security of the club. There are people going to be banned from being directors with companies house and possibly facing prosceution here because of their lack of controls in this case

Beefymcfc wrote:

johnpb78 wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:

johnpb78 wrote:

gillie wrote:Harry twitchy fuckin Redknapp is the one that fucked them over signing players to contracts that they did not have a hope in hell of being able to sustain.

The board had to sanction the deals. Harry didnt have the chequebook, and arguably had he stayed there would have been successful

If you are a manager of any business, you only work to the budgets you are given. If you manage to that and the business struggles as a result, that is NOT the managers fault, it is the people who sanctioned your activity.

It's fair to say that the board have a massive say on what goes on money wise, but if you put your trust in a manager with his long term plam and that manager then decides to flee for greater riches, taking the crown jewels, I'd say that that said manager has a lot to answer for.

He does, but he is not reponsible for the financial security of the club. There are people going to be banned from being directors with companies house and possibly facing prosceution here because of their lack of controls in this case

It may have been a bit rash of them to jump into Twitchy's boat, but he got them a cup, got them into Europe and most probably promised them the realistic chance of CL (which he would've probably achieved with the funding). The custodians of the club took achance like many others would do, it's just a shame someone shafted 'em up the arse without the decency of wiping them afterwards.

Yes, the Pompey board were niaive, but Twitchy has a hell of a lot to answer for!

PS. I don't really care about either of them, but I do feel sympathy for the fans. We are the same regardless of the badge we wear.

sweenyuk wrote:If they do go out of business what will that guy with the bell do..?? He has far too many tattoo's to switch to another club and as mental as he is, loves his football.. All very sad...