Portsmouth AGAIN

bobo the clown · Post by **bobo the clown** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:10 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
dave1980 wrote:Players not been paid again

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 394092.stm
Apparently Palace's players didn't get paid last week either. Oh I do hope that that loud-mouthed orange-skinned tosser's on his uppers!

Unfortunately I think him being on his uppers would make our good times seem a bit meagre.

I met the "orange-skinned tosser" a couple of times. When you atually meet someone in the flesh you realise that they are 3-dimensional human beings with real lives and all the good & bad aspects of the rest of us .... except in his case. He is, simply is a total, 100% tosspot.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:34 pm

bobo the clown wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
dave1980 wrote:Players not been paid again

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 394092.stm
Apparently Palace's players didn't get paid last week either. Oh I do hope that that loud-mouthed orange-skinned tosser's on his uppers!
Unfortunately I think him being on his uppers would make our good times seem a bit meagre.

I met the "orange-skinned tosser" a couple of times. When you atually meet someone in the flesh you realise that they are 3-dimensional human beings with real lives and all the good & bad aspects of the rest of us .... except in his case. He is, simply is a total, 100% tosspot.

Oh I agree, Bobo. I've also met Jordan/Katie Price - the most self-serving, attention-seeking, dim-witted feck* that I've ever met. And I've even included the benefit of the doubt in there!

fozzy · Post by **fozzy** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:13 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
dave1980 wrote:Players not been paid again

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 394092.stm
Apparently Palace's players didn't get paid last week either. Oh I do hope that that loud-mouthed orange-skinned tosser's on his uppers!

I actually quite like Jordan, as strange as it sounds. Says things (dodgy agents, safe standing etc) other Chairmen wouldn't dream of saying.

bobo the clown · Post by **bobo the clown** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:26 pm

fozzy wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
dave1980 wrote:Players not been paid again

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 394092.stm
Apparently Palace's players didn't get paid last week either. Oh I do hope that that loud-mouthed orange-skinned tosser's on his uppers!
I actually quite like Jordan, as strange as it sounds. Says things (dodgy agents, safe standing etc) other Chairmen wouldn't dream of saying.

With respect, that's because you've only ever read about the guy. If you ever met him you'd realise that it's like having a shower with a load of 3 week old haddock.

He walks about surrounded by guys who think they're mafia hoods, breezes with everyone like a poor imitation of Tony Blair and makes weird intimations of threat to anyone he takes exception to. They are the lucky ones. The one's he likes have his personal slime effect poured all over them and he assumes he can pull anything he wishes. He wastes no opportunity, absolutely none, to let you know how rich & powerful he is and will slime over any woman daft enough not to run a mile from him (whether they're with a partner already or not, in fact ESPECIALLY if they are).

Otherwise, I take your point, he's a great guy.

FaninOz · Post by **FaninOz** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:36 pm

I don't understand how they can not be in administration if they can't pay their players salaries! Surely the definition of Administration is a company that can't afford to pay its debts, they already are in default of tranfers payments due and as salaries are also a form of debt then they should be put into admin and docked 10 points! Don't quite understand how they are continuing to be afloat!

bobo the clown · Post by **bobo the clown** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:23 am

dave1980 wrote:Players not been paid again

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 394092.stm

Very, very weirdly ... "some staff haven't been paid".

Some ? How does that work ?

That suggests tey've actually selected who gets paid or who doesn't (my money's on the main players getting their pay, while fringe players & backroon staff, including cleaners & tea ladies on basic earnings, haven't) ... unless the bank simply paid down the payroll instruction list until the money ran out. So that would be be determined by alphabet or NI/Pay Number. If it's that, then it's really serious as it means the bank are by now utterly at the end of their tether.

Agreed that this, given all the other fiasco's of this year, should have them being docked points. I suspect, however, that this relies on the term "bankrupt" and that's a very specific legal status which they've managed to avoid using so far. Maybe the FA should redfine it as being "are, or have been, managed by Harry Rednapp".

BWFC_Insane · Post by **BWFC_Insane** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:39 am

bobo the clown wrote:
dave1980 wrote:Players not been paid again

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 394092.stm
Very, very weirdly ... "some staff haven't been paid".

Some ? How does that work ?

That suggests tey've actually selected who gets paid or who doesn't (my money's on the main players getting their pay, while fringe players & backroon staff, including cleaners & tea ladies on basic earnings, haven't) ... unless the bank simply paid down the payroll instruction list until the money ran out. So that would be be determined by alphabet or NI/Pay Number. If it's that, then it's really serious as it means the bank are by now utterly at the end of their tether.

Agreed that this, given all the other fiasco's of this year, should have them being docked points. I suspect, however, that this relies on the term "bankrupt" and that's a very specific legal status which they've managed to avoid using so far. Maybe the FA should redfine it as being "are, or have been, managed by Harry Rednapp".

Agreed.

rockthereebok · Post by **rockthereebok** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:42 am

bobo the clown wrote: Maybe the FA should redfine it as being "are, or have been, managed by Harry Rednapp".

Imagine how Spurs fans must feel right now... They must be really worried he'll do one. Redknapp leaving a club is the footballing equivalent of the ravens leaving the Tower of London. Still, he might win them the FA Cup before he heads up the road to spend some of Man City's billions... Ha!

Zulus Thousand of em · Post by **Zulus Thousand of em** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:03 pm

bobo the clown wrote: Otherwise, I take your point, he's a great guy.

I have had the misfortune of being in contact with him briefly on a couple of occasions and I watched him operate. The man's a nice person of the first order. Him and Meggo would surely be a dream ticket - particularly if you could find a role for Barry Fry in the equation.

boltonboris · Post by **boltonboris** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:46 am

This 10 point penalty for clubs going into Administration.. Does this apply for Premiership teams, or is it just for Football League clubs? I know the Football League and the Premier League have some laws that differ, but I'm genuinely unsure

Athers · Post by **Athers** » Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:15 pm

Off top of my head I think it's 9 points because of the shorter season.

bobo the clown · Post by **bobo the clown** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:49 am

rockthereebok wrote:
bobo the clown wrote: Maybe the FA should redfine it as being "are, or have been, managed by Harry Rednapp".
Imagine how Spurs fans must feel right now... They must be really worried he'll do one. Redknapp leaving a club is the footballing equivalent of the ravens leaving the Tower of London. Still, he might win them the FA Cup before he heads up the road to spend some of Man City's billions... Ha!

Portsmouth director Sulaiman Al-Fahim has blamed former manager Harry Redknapp and former owner Sacha Gaydamak for the financial trouble at the south coast club.
Full story: The Sun

Well, firstly "no shit, Sherlock" and secondly, did you not investigate the shambles they'd left before you bought into the place ??

Anyway, at last someone with the details in front of him confirms what we've all known for years. Let's hope he throws the books to the investigators.

boltonboris · Post by **boltonboris** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:04 am

Redknapp has been told by Spurs that there'll be no money available to him in January, whether he sells or not

Mar · Post by **Mar** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:56 am

boltonboris wrote:Redknapp has been told by Spurs that there'll be no money available to him in January, whether he sells or not

Good. The less money that man has to piss down the shitter the better. His win record pales in comparison to the amount of money he's spent and achieved only average sides. How he's got away with it over and over is ridiculous.

boltonboris · Post by **boltonboris** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:00 pm

Mar wrote:
boltonboris wrote:Redknapp has been told by Spurs that there'll be no money available to him in January, whether he sells or not
Good. The less money that man has to piss down the shitter the better. His win record pales in comparison to the amount of money he's spent and achieved only average sides. How he's got away with it over and over is ridiculous.

Check out this fantastically contradictory piece on BBC's gossip column!

Redknapp is also chasing Lazio's Macedonia striker Goran Pandev, 26, who is available for between £3-4m despite being told by Spurs chairman Daniel Levy that there is no money for new players.
Full story: Daily Mirror

How the feck will he get him then? Or will it be a 'Redknapp special'*

*Disclaimer: In no way is Boltonboris, or the-wanderer, indicating any ilicit activity has been carried out by the bent, saggy faced b*stard in the past, present or future

Lord Kangana · Post by **Lord Kangana** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 2:42 pm

Anyway, if the players are unpaid for a period of time, doesn't that mean they can break their contract and leave on a free? Maybe we could get Tal Ben back?

boltonboris · Post by **boltonboris** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:33 pm

Lord Kangana wrote:Anyway, if the players are unpaid for a period of time, doesn't that mean they can break their contract and leave on a free? Maybe we could get Tal Ben back?

I think it goes into months rather than weeks though

bobo the clown · Post by **bobo the clown** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:46 pm

boltonboris wrote:
Lord Kangana wrote:Anyway, if the players are unpaid for a period of time, doesn't that mean they can break their contract and leave on a free? Maybe we could get Tal Ben back?
I think it goes into months rather than weeks though

In general, no, this would be breach of contract. If they employer doesn't fulfill his part of the contract the employee can seek to end the contract. That would require some steps & can't be automatic, but they'd win.

Of course I can't see their contracts, but it's very unlikely to have a clause saying " ... & if you aren't paid youhave to put up with it"

boltonboris · Post by **boltonboris** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:49 pm

bobo the clown wrote:
boltonboris wrote:
Lord Kangana wrote:Anyway, if the players are unpaid for a period of time, doesn't that mean they can break their contract and leave on a free? Maybe we could get Tal Ben back?
I think it goes into months rather than weeks though
In general, no, this would be breach of contract. If they employer doesn't fulfill his part of the contract the employee can seek to end the contract. That would require some steps & can't be automatic, but they'd win.

Of course I can't see their contracts, but it's very unlikely to have a clause saying " ... & if you aren't paid youhave to put up with it"

But as we well know, Footballers contracts are very different to normal employment ones

Wandering Willy · Post by **Wandering Willy** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:33 pm

boltonboris wrote:Redknapp has been told by Spurs that there'll be no money available to him in January, whether he sells or not

Looks like it's having an immediate impact.

If it wasn't for the 3 points Wolves got I'd be having a good laugh now.

Connect with your social network account

Portsmouth AGAIN

Who is online