Anyone else sick of Portsmouth?

leninbenjamin

noodler wrote: »

I am sure this has been mentioned elsewhere but when you look at what Pompey recieved in transfer fees over the last few years it is almost hard to phathom why they are in trouble.

The issue actually isn't the transfer fees, it's that the club didn't have the revenue to support the kind of wages they were paying. Money that should have gone into paying off their transfers ended up being paid out to staff.

therecklessone

noodler wrote: »

Sold Crouch, not sure of the fee.

£9m was the widely reported fee I believe.

Defoe was £15m, and I'm fairly certain he cost less that the £12m Fred mentioned above.

Diarra to Real for £20m+ needs to be added as well.

GLaDOS

noodler wrote: »

I am sure this has been mentioned elsewhere but when you look at what Pompey recieved in transfer fees over the last few years it is almost hard to phathom why they are in trouble.

The Johnson fee was around 17m

Sold Crouch, not sure of the fee.

Muntari for 12m I thought was some wad of cah from Inter.

3.25 for Begovic seems generous in today's climate.

14(?) for Defoe.

Banjani for 4m.

The only one which was weird was Krancjar for 2m but of course that was probably Spurs saying "ah here, we have overpaid you halve a dozen times - do us this one favour".

Diarra went to Madrid for a decent fee aswell didn't he? £20M according to wiki

everdead.ie

In fairness to Redknapp Westham where always a sell to buy club and it wasn't untill the likes of kieron Dyier came in on big wages long after redknapp left that westham got really really into trouble.
Southampton I don't know anything about the financial state there in but i thought it was a very short spell there for him.
Portsmouth he does have some responsibility to take but at least the players he brought in where sold for big money bar only a few.

noodler

leninbenjamin wrote: »

The issue actually isn't the transfer fees, it's that the club didn't have the revenue to support the kind of wages they were paying. Money that should have gone into paying off their transfers ended up being paid out to staff.

Absolutely and one-off sums are hardly much use for paying your regular costs but I still thought they would have been in a stronger position to stave off this kind of meltdown.

They really must have some negotiating power when it comes to selling players, the guy who does it must have been sick the day Niko was sold.

EDIT: Wow, forgot all about Diarra.

everdead.ie

therecklessone wrote: »

£9m was the widely reported fee I believe.

Defoe was £15m, and I'm fairly certain he cost less that the £12m Fred mentioned above.

Diarra to Real for £20m+ needs to be added as well.

I think we sold him for 8m

kippy

Bodhidharma wrote: »

I never said I wanted them to fold. I said they will most likely go into administration and be relegated. And if this happens, hopefully other clubs will learn from it.

Learn from what and which clubs do you want to learn?
You said specifically that they had annoying fans.



3 owners in one season, every single f'ing one of them passing the "fit and proper" test.
Do the FA/PL think about what happens the fans in these situations. In this instance it may have saved the club for another while but a lot of absolute cowboys have taken over clubs in the last 8 years.
Each owner at Pompey seems to have creamed off as much as they could before moving on.
Its a joke.

Fratton Fred

As a point of order, Redknapp was recruited by Milan Mandaric, not Gaydamak.

As I said earlier as well, the transfers were big, but each contained sell on clauses. I think we still owe Chelsea £2m for selling Johnson to Liverpool.

Fair dues to David James as well, if he plays 23 games this season he is automatically entitled to a new contrac. He today announced he is going to waive this so there is no concerns about the manager selecting him.

therokerroar

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Oh come off it, Portsmouth aren't exactly the only black sheep in the Premiership when it comes to debt.

Portsmouth gambled with the overspending and their luck ran out. Other Premier League clubs have debt but they can at least pay their staff and players wages on time.

Niall Quinn summed up the situation perfectly when he said of Pompey and their spending:

"Sometimes when you gamble, you don't win"

Fratton Fred

noodler wrote: »

Absolutely and one-off sums are hardly much use for paying your regular costs but I still thought they would have been in a stronger position to stave off this kind of meltdown.

They really must have some negotiating power when it comes to selling players, the guy who does it must have been sick the day Niko was sold.

EDIT: Wow, forgot all about Diarra.

You are presuming Portsmouth football club ever saw any of that money. All those players were sold whilst Gaydemak owned the club.

Incidentally, 28 of the 60m debt is owed to Gaydemak by Falcondrone, not Pompey. I think today Pompey have effectively had £28m of debt taken off their hands and the Gaydamak family have to pursue Faraj for it, which may not be that easy for them.

Fratton Fred

therokerroar wrote: »

Portsmouth gambled with the overspending and their luck ran out. Other Premier League clubs have debt but they can at least pay their staff and players wages on time.

Niall Quinn summed up the situation perfectly when he said of Pompey and their spending:

"Sometimes when you gamble, you don't win"

Out of curiosity, where would Sunderland be if Short hadn't come in and guaranteed their £40m of debt?

therokerroar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Out of curiosity, where would Sunderland be if Short hadn't come in and guaranteed their £40m of debt?

The thing is though, Drumaville and Quinn had a financial plan in place as soon as we came back up to the Premier League, making each new signing sign a clause in their contract with a relegation wage reduction of 40%, if they didn't, then they were told their services weren't required.

The fact of the matter is, if Short hadn't come on board, we could have got a different owner and could now be challenging for Europe, we could also be fighting relegation battles in the Championship. Who can tell?

One thing I know for sure though is, whether we were in the Premier League or the Championship, we had and still have a financial plan in place to ensure we won't be bordering on extinction, unlike a certain club I can think of :rolleyes:

leninbenjamin

therokerroar wrote: »

The fact of the matter is, if Short hadn't come on board, we could have got a different owner and could now be challenging for Europe, we could also be fighting relegation battles in the Championship.

You're missing the point. Sunderland needed a new owner. that means their current financial practices were unsustainable without outside investment.

And Sunderland aren't the only club. Birmingham needed outside investment. Everton are looking for outside investment. Villa required outside investment. City required outside investment. West Ham could so easily have gone the same way as Portsmouth. Chelsea were royally f*cked until Ambramovich came along. Liverpool, with one of the largest fan bases in England, require outside investment to service their debt. There's noises made about Fulham, Blackburn, Hull and Bolton too...

What's the difference between Sunderland and Portsmouth? Sweet **** all but for who bought them out...

DazMarz

Poor Pompey... I remember being in the Bridge for Chelsea v. Pompey, and they had really, truly terrific fans. A shirtless (in the middle of December!) and unruly mob that really brought the house down.

Poor Pompey....... But still, this is the money-driven world of football nowadays..

therokerroar

leninbenjamin wrote: »

You're missing the point. Sunderland needed a new owner. that means their current financial practices were unsustainable without outside investment.

And Sunderland aren't the only club. Birmingham needed outside investment. Everton are looking for outside investment. Villa required outside investment. City required outside investment. West Ham could so easily have gone the same way as Portsmouth. Chelsea were royally f*cked until Ambramovich came along. Liverpool, with one of the largest fan bases in England, require outside investment to service their debt. There's noises made about Fulham, Blackburn, Hull and Bolton too...

What's the difference between Sunderland and Portsmouth? Sweet **** all but who bought them out...

I think I'd know a slight bit more than you about my own club than you mate.

I'm not missing the point at all. You say " Sunderland needed a new owner. that means their current financial practices were unsustainable without outside investment", that much is true however I then go on to say: "The fact of the matter is, if Short hadn't come on board, we could have got a different owner".

I know we needed a new owner, and as I stated, who's to say we wouldn't have got an owner with more money than Short? Who's to say that we would have got one with less? No-one knows.

There's a much bigger difference between us and Portsmouth than just who owns us mate, we had financial plans in place BEFORE Short came on board as the main owner to ensure we wouldn't end up like Pompey regardless of who took over.

Ellis Short WAS the outside investment when Drumaville were the main owners.

I'd suggest you do your research before making presumptions.

leninbenjamin

therokerroar wrote: »

There's a much bigger difference between us and Portsmouth than just who owns us mate, we had financial plans in place BEFORE Short came on board as the main owner to ensure we wouldn't end up like Pompey regardless of who took over.

I have financial plans too mate. I plan to make a million before the year is out. ****ed if I know how, but I still plan too...

Fact of the matter is you have absolutely no more idea about their finances than I do. Who's to say SUnderland didn't have a payment deadline on a particular loan? Do you in your capacity as such a loyal and clearly knowledgeable fan have access to their accounts to deny this? Sunderland, like so many other clubs before them, were on a knife edge. They simply fell on the right side of the blade...

edit: Short only became involved with the club directly in 2008. Drumaville was established 2006. Short only became involved because of a share issue to raise 50 million according to Wiki. I wonder why a club engaging in such "sustainable financial practices" would need to raise 50 million...

therokerroar

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I have financial plans too mate. I plan to make a million before the year is out. ****ed if I know how, but I still plan too...

Fact of the matter is you have absolutely no more idea about their finances than I do. Who's to say SUnderland didn't have a payment deadline on a particular loan? Do you in your capacity as such a loyal and clearly knowledgeable fan have access to their accounts to deny this? Sunderland, like so many other clubs before them, were on a knife edge. They simply fell on the right side of the blade...

Aye, because that situation in which you plan to make a million is exactly the same as a club making plans to ensure they can manage their finances (which they already have/are guaranteed i.e. television money) properly isn't it? So there's part 1 of your completely ludicrous logic shot down.

The last time Sunderland were on a financial knife edge was in the 1950's when their status as "The Bank of England Club" came to an end. In the last 50 years we have never been in danger of winding down in any way, shape or form. How do you explain the theory that we've been constantly able to get relegated from the Premier League only to then come straight back up without falling into any difficulty financially, unlike numerous other clubs? Did you ever think it might have been down to these plans the club have in place to keep the club stable unlike some who will go all out to win an FA Cup not giving a **** what happens in the long term, and thus not being able to pay their employees, even coming very, very close to ceasing to exist, no? We weren't on a financial knife edge at all.

You're having an absolute 'mare here.

leninbenjamin

therokerroar wrote: »

You're having an absolute 'mare here.

Clearly then because you say so. Why I don't I put this into the simplest terms possible for you?

Portsmouth are in the situation they are in because they spent more money in a particular period than they earned.

Sunderland are in the situation they are in because they spent more money in a particular period than they earned.

The difference? Sunderland were lucky enough to find someone from the outside willing to invest in their club, i.e. someone else paid off their debt. Portsmouth tried to do the same, but failed as Al Fahim and then Al Faraj never invested their own money in the club (reportedly because of a dispute over the property for what it's worth).

All the 'financial plans' in the world don't change the above. Financial plans are about positioning, minimising the external factors at play, but at the end of the day every single activity in business carries with it risk, i.e. it's a gamble. Gaydamek gambled with Portsmouth and lost, Drumaville gambled with Portsmouth and won. A gamble.

Whatever about the likes of Gaydamek or Short, Portsmouth fans deserve no more or no less than Sunderland's for the loyalty they have shown the club. So you can get off the moral high ground now thanks.

Bodhidharma

kippy wrote: »

Learn from what and which clubs do you want to learn?
You said specifically that they had annoying fans.

I think Portsmouth will become a footballing by-word for overly ambitious, and trying to run before they can walk.

The Portsmouth situation is to me, quite unlike that of Leeds. In the case of the latter, they had the fans, the history and most importantly the 'potential' to become a top four team. Portsmouth on the other hand are a club that are only in the top flight for the last 7 years.

Portsmouth remind me of what happened at Bradford, they paid Carbone £40k a week trying to mix it with the big boys, and now look at them.

I would hope that clubs coming up to the premiership, and some that are already there, will see that administration in the Premiership is as possible as it is in any division, and cut their cloth accordingly.

. . . and yes i said they have annoying fans, whats your point? I didn't say that because I want them to go bust, I said it in reference to their fans being generally annoying on SSN, and of course the bell man.

Fratton Fred

Bodhidharma wrote: »

I think Portsmouth will become a footballing by-word for overly ambitious, and trying to run before they can walk.

The Portsmouth situation is to me, quite unlike that of Leeds. In the case of the latter, they had the fans, the history and most importantly the 'potential' to become a top four team. Portsmouth on the other hand are a club that are only in the top flight for the last 7 years.

Portsmouth remind me of what happened at Bradford, they paid Carbone £40k a week trying to mix it with the big boys, and now look at them.

I would hope that clubs coming up to the premiership, and some that are already there, will see that administration in the Premiership is as possible as it is in any division, and cut their cloth accordingly.

. . . and yes i said they have annoying fans, whats your point? I didn't say that because I want them to go bust, I said it in reference to their fans being generally annoying on SSN, and of course the bell man.

We won the first division (that's what the premiership was called before sky came along in case you didn't know) in 1949 and 1950. we first won the FA cup in 1939 (we have held the FA cup longer than any other team btw) which was out third final.

I'm sorry, but you are coming over as a typical armchair sky sports footballtainment scholar who has no idea what supporting a football club is about.

annoying fans....why is that, because we have the cheek to make a lot of noise? does it get in the way of what Andy Gray is saying about football tactics?

Bodhidharma

Fratton Fred wrote: »

We won the first division (that's what the premiership was called before sky came along in case you didn't know) in 1949 and 1950. we first won the FA cup in 1939 (we have held the FA cup longer than any other team btw) which was out third final.

I'm sorry, but you are coming over as a typical armchair sky sports footballtainment scholar who has no idea what supporting a football club is about.

annoying fans....why is that, because we have the cheek to make a lot of noise? does it get in the way of what Andy Gray is saying about football tactics?

Wow, thats amazing insight, so let me get this straight, there was football before Sky, I find that hard to believe. I guess your right, winning two league titles over 50 years ago entitles you to be among the premiership elite. I'm glad you set me straight.

This is exactly why they are annoying, this attitude of entitlement. The FA should have protected us blah, blah, blah, rich history,carnival atmosphere. As far as I am aware the rules which apply to Portsmouth apply to all other teams as well. Bigger teams than Portsmouth have f**ked up big time, Forrest and Leeds, and they've been punished. Whether you like it or not, football is a business and a business that isn't run properly goes to the wall.

Fratton Fred

Bodhidharma wrote: »

Wow, thats amazing insight, so let me get this straight, there was football before Sky, I find that hard to believe. I guess your right, winning two league titles over 50 years ago entitles you to be among the premiership elite. I'm glad you set me straight.

This is exactly why they are annoying, this attitude of entitlement. The FA should have protected us blah, blah, blah, rich history,carnival atmosphere. As far as I am aware the rules which apply to Portsmouth apply to all other teams as well. Bigger teams than Portsmouth have f**ked up big time, Forrest and Leeds, and they've been punished. Whether you like it or not, football is a business and a business that isn't run properly goes to the wall.

OK, explain to me what West Ham, Sunderland, Bolton, Burnley, Hull, Man City, Stoke, Birmingham, Wolves or Wigan have won lately.

no one is saying we are entitled to be there, but I take issue with people who say we should not be.

By your logic the Premiership would consist of 6 teams, but then, most armchair fans think that anyway.

Frisbee

therecklessone wrote: »

Diarra to Real for £20m+ needs to be added as well.

We got about 20% of that transfer fee, so only 16M then, still though, big amount.

Fratton Fred

Frisbee wrote: »

We got about 20% of that transfer fee, so only 16M then, still though, big amount.

Not until last week you didn't!

kippy

Bodhidharma wrote: »

Wow, thats amazing insight, so let me get this straight, there was football before Sky, I find that hard to believe. I guess your right, winning two league titles over 50 years ago entitles you to be among the premiership elite. I'm glad you set me straight.

This is exactly why they are annoying, this attitude of entitlement. The FA should have protected us blah, blah, blah, rich history,carnival atmosphere. As far as I am aware the rules which apply to Portsmouth apply to all other teams as well. Bigger teams than Portsmouth have f**ked up big time, Forrest and Leeds, and they've been punished. Whether you like it or not, football is a business and a business that isn't run properly goes to the wall.

Can I ask whom you support?

Fratton Fred

Personally I think it would be extremely hypocritical if Bodhidharma supported any team that was ever in financial trouble, involved in a scandal or had acquired their present league position because it was considered they had a "Right" to be in the top flight of their league.

You know, like the way Fiorentina were given special treatment after going bust, reforming, being allowed to skip divisions etc etc.

So, Bodhidharma, who is it you support?

Bodhidharma

I'm a United fan, how does that make me hypocritical? In an ideal world football would be played on a level playing ground, where financial prudence was rewarded, unfortunately we dont.

As regards Fiorentina, thats a different matter altogether. The club's finances were probably as bad as Portsmouth's, but, and here's the distinction, Fiorentina were relegated four divisions and had to basically begin again.

So would you be happy with AFC Portsmouth put into league 2? That would solve everything, i'll email the FA later.

Fratton Fred

Why am I not surprised by that. And to think Man united fans wonder why they are disliked so much. It wouldn't have anything to do with the annoying arrogant attitude a lot of their armchair fans have by any chance?

Would that be the Man United that owe £550m? Financed in part through loans from a bank that had to be bailed out by the British tax payer? Makes our few million of debt to private individuals seem rather low don't you think?

If Pompey go bust and reform, they will go down to about the 8th or 9th tier of English football, the same way Aldershot did. There will be no special dispensation given because of our sporting heritage.

Fratton Fred

Oh yeah LOL at a Man U fan calling Pompey supporters annoying!

therecklessone

Bodhidharma wrote: »

So would you be happy with AFC Portsmouth put into league 2? That would solve everything, i'll email the FA later.

As long as when they win League 2 they get promoted to the Championship, just like Fiorentina did. That would be fair, right?

But they probably wouldn't be admitted to League 2, if the club ceases to exists they'll be reconstituted as AFC Pompey or some such, and start much further down the football league pyramid, maybe tier 9 like AFC Wimbledon (the Combined Counties League)

Funny how you're such a huge fan of clubs learning their lessons, yet when the Viola were punished for cheating (Calciopoli, you remember that don't you?) you believed they still "deserved" to compete in the CL.

I am a fan of Fiorentina, and i will defend my club. I think we deserved champions league football because we played well throughout the season. You may not agree, but i'd like to see how you would react if it happened to your club.

Finally, by my count that's twice Fiorentina have been given a dig out by the Italian FA in the last decade (the double promotion, and the reduction of punishment for cheating from relegation to a points deduction), so in fairness I suggest you stop chucking stones at least until you vacate that glass house.

pickarooney

SantryRed wrote: »

I'm sorry but aren't you a Man United fan?

Christ no, whatever gave you that impression?

Mitch Connor

pickarooney wrote: »

Christ no, whatever gave you that impression?

Maybe Rooney being in your name.

pickarooney

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Maybe Rooney being in your name.

Riiiight. It's an inspired guess if that was the reason, I'll give you that

Bodhidharma

So now you're comparing Portsmouth to Man Utd? Why? Utd haven't broken any rules, unlike Portsmouth.

The Italian FA punished Fiorentina twice though. When they were relegated to the 4th tier they got promoted and they were invited to play in Serie B because the Italian FA expanded the league. And they were docked 15 points over the Juve scandal. So thats two occasions where they were seen to do wrong and punished for it, I dont understand the correlation between that and what i'm saying about Portsmouth? If you're trying to suggest I cant have an opinion about Portsmouth because Man Utd have large debts and Fiorentina have broken rules in the past, I dont see your logic.

Although I am touched that you've put so much effort into finding some sort of contradiction in a post I made years ago, I'm sorry, I couldn't be bothered stalking someone to make a half assed point.

Mr Alan

so who do you support-United or Fiorentina?

Bodhidharma

I support United, but have a soft spot for Fiorentina

Mr Alan

I have a soft spot for Fiorentina as well. I do not call them 'my team' and refer to them as 'we' though. Very strange.

Bodhidharma

Mr Alan wrote: »

I have a soft spot for Fiorentina as well. I do not call them 'my team' and refer to them as 'we' though. Very strange.

Perhaps my spot is softer than yours

I dont have a problem referring to them as 'my team' and 'we'. Its about emotional investment in the team. I dont think its strange, do you refer to Ireland as 'my team'? Its all context.

3greenrizla's

Poor old P*mpey, I just hope they last until Saints take revenge on the 13th.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT_DZuT8euw&feature=related

One Team In Hampshire....

Fratton Fred

What rules have Pompey broken? Not being fashionable enough to grace the premiership?

They missed some payments, but plenty of clubs have done that.

Don't talk about emotional commitment, I really really really don't think you have the slightest clue what it means, if you did, you would not be so keen to see Pompey thrown out of the league.

Fratton Fred

3greenrizla's wrote: »

Poor old P*mpey, I just hope they last until Saints take revenge on the 13th.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT_DZuT8euw&feature=related

One Team In Hampshire....

Who?

Are you the lot that play in pyjamas, or is that Bournemouth, I always get you two mixed up.

therecklessone

Bodhidharma wrote: »

The Italian FA punished Fiorentina twice though. When they were relegated to the 4th tier they got promoted and they were invited to play in Serie B because the Italian FA expanded the league.

As a Fiorentina fan I'd have thought you'd be a bit more familiar with the details than I...

They were not relegated to Serie C2, at the end of season 2001/02 they were relegated to Serie B after finishing in the bottom 4 of Serie A, then in the summer of that year entered administration and thus were denied a place in Serie B, effectively ending the club's existence.

They were promptly reformed as Associazione Calcio Fiorentina e Florentia Viola and admitted to the lowest level of the professional league system, Serie C2 which they won with ease. That should have won them promotion to Serie C1, but due to another fúck up by the Italian FA which meant that Serie B was enlarged from 20 to 24 teams to accomodate Catania, newly promoted Fiorentina were picked to compete ahead of every other Serie C1 team. Why they needed four teams is beyond me, and Fiorentina benefited from a double promotion one year after ceasing to exist. Sounds fair...

In the Summer of 2003 the club bought back the right to call themselves ACF Fiorentina along with their original club logo.

And thus Fiorentina were reborn.

As for Calciopoli, the club were originally punished by relegation to Serie B which was lifted on appeal.

Any attempt to paint the above as Fiorentina being punished in accordance with the rules is utterly laughable to be quite honest, but I'd expect nothing better from a keyboard warrior who has no concept of what it means to invest your life in supporting a football club.

Although I am touched that you've put so much effort into finding some sort of contradiction in a post I made years ago, I'm sorry, I couldn't be bothered stalking someone to make a half assed point.

No bother at all old chap, and far from stalking it is...simple case of searching the forum for previous posts by you [Search this forum - Advanced search - Search by user name] to give myself some idea of who you are and where you might be coming from.

GLaDOS

3greenrizla's

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Who?

the team who lasted 27 years in the top flight, and despite a recent excursion to the lower leagues are marching back to the prem with £0 debt and a billionaire owner & a decent stadium with higher attendances in L1 than the Blue Few can muster in the prem.

in fairness I do hope P*mpey survive and that we share a year in the CCC on our way back to the top.

Fratton Fred

3greenrizla's wrote: »

the team who lasted 27 years in the top flight, and despite a recent excursion to the lower leagues are marching back to the prem with £0 debt and a billionaire owner & a decent stadium with higher attendances in L1 than the Blue Few can muster in the prem.

in fairness I do hope P*mpey survive and that we share a year in the CCC on our way back to the top.

Ooh, yeah, I remember you guys, have you lot shut up about Matt Le Tissier yet?

In all seriousness, Rupert is/was a bit uf a muppet, but he knows how to run a club on a tight budget. Do you think you will make the play offs?

Bodhidharma

therecklessone wrote: »

They were not relegated to Serie C2, at the end of season 2001/02 they were relegated to Serie B after finishing in the bottom 4 of Serie A, then in the summer of that year entered administration and thus were denied a place in Serie B, effectively ending the club's existence.

They were promptly reformed as Associazione Calcio Fiorentina e Florentia Viola and admitted to the lowest level of the professional league system, Serie C2 which they won with ease.

I'd expect nothing better from a keyboard warrior who has no concept of what it means to invest your life in supporting a football club.

Wow, your ability to search the net for facts and pass them of as your own knowledge amazes me. I am quite aware of what happened. I said that they went down four divisions as a result of financial mismangement.

Secondly, who do you think you are? You have absolutley no knowledge of me or my support of anything. I came on here to make a point, instead I get yourself and Fratton Fred going through my previous postings, making accusations and giving me personal abuse. Arent you a mod?

"Keyboard Warrior"? Look in th mirror bud

DazMarz

Seems Man United are REALLY sick of Portsmouth and all their bullshít......:rolleyes:

noodler

DazMarz wrote: »

Seems Man United are REALLY sick of Portsmouth and all their bullshít......:rolleyes:

LostinBlanch

Portsmouth acted impeccably in the minutes silence today. They were even holding up the Green & Gold scarves like the United supporters. Fair play to them.

Supporters of two clubs at different ends of the league, both united against debt. It's not just limited to both clubs, the way things are it could happen to anyone.

Just one thing though, can you not get rid of the fecker with the bell? :pac:

rednik

I feel sorry for the genuine supporters but on the other hand can we play them ever week.:p