Mooster

This content is not viewable to guests.

Not necessarily saying it's a good or bad thing, just that given the frequency you hear the arguments on here about how much more you can see if you are at the game as opposed to watching it on telly I think it's interesting that some managers seem to spend their time travelling to games to watch in person, whereas some presumably rely on other people's scouting reports/videos etc. Maybe it depends on how much you trust the scouts in question? Or maybe how desperate you are to avoid going home in the evening?

Something that I've wondered recently, does Rafa go to watch other teams in person? The TV often show other managers sat watching other team's games, but I can't remember them spotting Rafa (apart from LFC TV showing him at the occasional reserve game.)

Does this not constitute putting the mockers on the mockers? Can this be wise? It's the mockering equivalent of the large hadron collider.

This is what strikes me about the whole situation. Changing a manager at the best of times is a huge upheaval for a club, surely it's even more so if the manager is in charge of as much as Rafa is? Set aside the first team's performance for a minute, Rafa has set this club going down a particular route with the changes at the Academy for example, changes I think that were seen as positive by the majority on here. If Rafa goes, where does it leave things. Will Borrell and Segura and even Dalglish follow him out of the door? Would they want to work under Mourinho or god help us O'Neill? Changing a manager isn't like dropping an underperforming player, it changes the entire club. I don't absolve Rafa of any blame for this season, but neither do I think he's entirely to blame. He's also proven in the past that he can turn things around, and above all else that he can manage teams that win things. To bin him now just seems to me to be way more of a gamble than keeping him.

knew I should have avoided this thread, it's totally killed my Mancs losing/Rooney damaged buzz.

Anyone got figures for O'Neill's n*t sp*nd since Lerner turned up? Off the top of my head the impression I have is that they've spent quite a lot, but they still get to this stage of the season and look totally knackered and lacking in squad depth.

Surely the stage is set tonight for van Bommel to do what no one in the english game would dare to in a World Cup year, and put in what Big Ron used to refer to as a reducer on Rooney. Early doors too (to continue with the Ron-isms)?

Haven't seen the Vidic/Elmander incident, but on the way home yesterday I felt it was safe to listen to 606 for a change, and they were claiming it was tantamount to an assault. I take it it falls into the category of having been seen by the ref so no further action can be taken, but after the fuss Mr Ferguson made about Gerrard's incident last week and his obvious concern that people are getting away with things maybe the FA should step in on this occasion?

Not just Arsenal and Wenger but the press would be telling us it was the greatest triumph of football history ever since the dawn of time. Plus anything that makes Merson, Nicholas and Groves happy can only be a bad thing.

Wonder how Keys would cope if Mourinho ever did end up as our manager.

Gerrard has only recently started to look anything like fit, and we've heard loads about injections etc. Babel got crocked against Man City I think and was out for a while, Johnson's been out for ages and only lasted an hour last night before departing knackered, and whilst Aquilani may have been fit for selection since before Christmas you only have to compare his energetic performance last night with, say, Bolton at home, to see how much he's improved his mobility. It may not explain the Wigan performance but it seems fair to suggest it's affected the approach of the previous few months.

At the risk of recovering old ground we may well have played a bit more like this over the past six months if certain key individuals had stayed (or arrived) fit though. Torres, Gerrard, Johnson, Aquilani, the addition of Maxi, all crucial to that sort of performance. Personally I'm just glad we've finally seen something approaching the level we'd hoped for at the start of the season, just hope it continues and hasn't come too late.

Thinking about his performance last night compared to when he started the game against Bolton, all I remember from that game was a series of really wayward passes and nothing coming off for him at all (apart from the header for Kuyt's goal). In fact on that occasion I think we improved massively when he was replaced by Lucas. Wonder how much of that was lack of fitness and how much was down to the movement of players around him (against Bolton there was no Torres, and Maxi I think only came on as a sub later).

Has the ref actually said this somewhere or is this just conjecture? Given referees' usual reluctance to give interviews and all?

At the risk of sounding a bit A @ A I reckon he's bound to get a ban given who our next league opponents are...

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

At least it looks as though they are going to have to provide some proof of what the real situation is and some proper guarantees of funding at the next hearing - think it is put up or shut up shop time for real this time.

The more you hear about this the dodgier the whole set up sounds. More shady revelations in here: http://www.portsmout...fore.6115398.jp Pompey to go back before High Court Published Date: 02 March 2010 Pompey will go back to the High Court after a judge said there was a 'shadow cast over the appointment of Pompey's administrators'. The Inland Revenue told Mr Justice Norris they support admministration in principle. But they questioned the validity of administration, whether the administrators were independent, and if administration was feasible. The HMRC say they wanted evidence that funds will be available for administration. It says Pompey needs £7m until end of March and more than £14m until the end of May. At the end of the two-and-a-half-hour hearing Judge Alastair Norris said there was a shadow over the administration that must be removed. Although Pompey said Balram Chainrai's company, Portpin, was making £15m available to the administrator, Mr Justice Norris said there was 'a prospect but no more than a prospect' that funding for administration is available. The judge has now ordered the club to produce evidence of the payments Portpin ltd has loaned to the club and money paid to Portpin Ltd or Chainrai by Friday, March 12. There will then be a day-long hearing on the week commencing March 15. If the administration is not found to be valid, then HMRC will push for Pompey to be liquidated. Mr Justice Norris said: 'It will be necessary for it to be established that new money was given for the charges when granted. 'Unless that can be established the charges will be voided. The Revenue are concerned that no new money was given. The basis for that concern lies in evidence filed by the company in answer to the winding-up petition. 'The company is owned as to 90 per cent by a company called Falcondrone Ltd. The ownership of Falcondrone itself has changed hands on a number of occasions. 'The grantee of the charges on October 6, 2009 and the January 7, 2010, is a British Virgin Islands company called Portpin Ltd, in the ownership of a Mr Balram Chainrai, a welathy Hong Kong businessman. 'In evidence which the company itself filed in response to the winding-up petition, the company's head of finance (Tanya Robins) said Portpin Ltd, Mr Chainrai's company, had provided "initial short-term funding to Falcondrone". 'Although Portpin is a grantee of the two charges, on the evidence it would appear that it advanced no new money to the company but instead advanced money to the owners of the company. 'If that is right, then the charges would not be valid and would not support the appointment of the administrators. 'It might therefore be said that a shadow is cast over the existing appointments of the administrators and it is clear that that shadow should be removed as quickly and as cheaply as possible. 'There is not time nor money to enter into an extended examination of the validity of the appointment.' After the hearing administrator Andrew Andronikou said: 'I'm satisfied with the outcome of the hearing. I think we have all heard the substance of the hearing, but there's not really much for me to add. 'I just want to go back and focus on the issues in hand.' On the £15m Chainrai has promised to the club to help with the administration process, he said: 'Effectively it's there to safeguard the immediate future of the football club.' He added that £15m was more than enough for the administration process. He said £7m would be adequate. Gregory Mitchell, for HMRC, had earlier told the High Court: 'The club is a well loved football club with a long and successful history. 'The question which we and indeed supporters of the club and members of the public ask is how is it possible that this once great club has become insolvent so that its liabilities outweigh its assets by £65m.' Mr Mitchell said there needs to be a probe into Pompey's financial dealings. He added: 'We say there's serious questions which arise and which require full investigation as to what financial dealings there have been between the various different owners of the club and between the club and its owners. 'At the moment everything is shrouded in mystery.' Mr Mitchell said HMRC want proof Pompey can fund the administration process. Pompey will this week ask the Premier League for permission to sell players outside of the transfer window. Mr Mitchell said chief executive Peter Storie had valued players at £38m. 'We say that is all very well, he may have great experience in football but the court should take a conservative approach,' he said. Mr Mitchell said another valuation put players at £21m. HMRC also told the High Court that the administrator planned to sell Fratton Park to Balram Chainrai for £10m. Chainrai, who is owed £13.5m, would then lease it back to the club for £1.2m a year, the court heard. Mr Mitchell said they wanted evidence of the validity of the appointment of the administrators. 'We just want the court to determine that issue on the evidence. They may have satisfied themselves but there may be issues that they have not put their minds to,' he said. Mr Mitchell said the statement of affairs - prepared before Pompey's original winding-up court hearing - shows the club owe Chainrai's Portpin Ltd £13.5m but the HMRC want evidence of that. 'We haven't so far had an answer to that,' he said. Mr Mitchell said there are issues about money loaned to the club. He said finance chief Tanya Robins had said Portpin Ltd had loaned money to Falcondrone, not the club. He said: 'We say that the evidence of Miss Robins is that Portpin provided money to Falcondrone, not to the club, so it's all very mysterious.' Mr Mitchell said the next hearing would determine whether it was valid for the club to be put into administration. If the court determines it wasn't valid then HMRC want a winding-up petition to be heard. He said: 'It would be wrong for the court to proceed today and hear our petition. 'But the question of validity is a matter that requires very urgent determination. 'If there's no valid appointment then the court would go on to hear the petition.' Simon Barker QC, for Pompey, handed a two page document to the court detailing how the club will fund administration. The court heard how Portpin was making £15m available to the administrators. Mr Barker said winding up would be a disaster and administration should cost less than £14m. 'These are early days but what I have in fact been told by the administrators is they think £15m is substantially in excess of what will be needed,' he said. 'I have been told a figure, it would not be right to put it before the court, it needs a little work but I have been told a figure that is substantially less than £15m.' Mr Barker said if the appointment of the administrators is invalid there will be a contingent application for a court-appointed administration. Mr Barker said that since November 11 the club has paid more than £4m to HMRC. Mr Barker said the administrators are experienced people who know what they are doing. 'There is no reason to impugn the conduct of these administrators at all,' he said. Mr Baker said the administrators are independent. 'There's absolutely no basis upon which the court should have any scepticism about their independence,' he said. But Mr Mitchell for HMRC said the evidence of money available for administration is not good enough. He said: 'It doesn't really go very far. It's only a promise, it isn't the provision of funding. Whether or not funding will be provided remains to be seen.' The HRMC had wanted a list of payments made to Chainrai and Portpin to be put before the court by 4pm on Thursday. But Pompey said this was too tight a deadline. Jo Collins of Pompey Supports Trust said: 'I'm very relieved with what happened. It seemed to be touch and go. 'But I always felt fairly confident that the HMRC application wouldn't be entirely successful. 'I did get the impression that they had done it because they did not have the confidence of the appointment of the administrator on an entirely independent basis. 'We live to fight another day. The battle goes on but I am confident having heard the evidence that the administrator will be allowed to do the job and bring it all through to a successful conclusion. 'Certainly liquidation was not an option. I though the judge was a little bit on our side there and I though the judgement was a fair one. 'A lot of Portsmouth fans are keen that as much information comes out about the financial structure of the club and the way money has been transferred and moved around within it.

I hope they are liquidated, and if I were a Pompey fan I'd see it as an opportunity to reclaim the club, start again as a fan's-owned club. No more dodgy owners, no more Peter Storrie shady dealing. We're always hearing about how proud Portsmouth fans are of their club, how it's a proper one-club town where you don't see loads of other club's shirts etc. Surely it would be better for them to start again rather than limp off down the divisions. It wouldn't be like the FC United situation, there would be no other Portsmouth, so they would surely maintain decent numbers of supporters as opposed to only attracting the disaffected. AFC Wimbledon have made it as far as the Blue Square Premier already (and are in the playoff spots) and a new Portsmouth's fan base would far exceed theirs so you would think with the money they would pull in they would move through the non-leagues pretty quickly. People keep complaining about football losing touch with its roots, well it may not be the ideal situation and if they do go bust they'll be loads of weeping blue-painted faces all over the telly for a few weeks but here's their opportunity to change things and start again.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

I don't know why, but I feel more confident looking at that fixture list than I would if it was against Wolves/Burnley/Portsmouth etc - in fact out of those the one that worries me most is Blackburn at the end of the month! Maybe what we need is a run of big high pressure fixtures? (well, that and a few of our players staying fit and finding form etc)

Has Mason ref'd any of the other big teams this season? Be interested to see whether he's made any other (ahem) contentious decisions against them. Also haven't all his games in charge of us have been away? Maybe he's just a massive homer?