Portsmouth Prepare For Their Day In Court

Ian

Ian began writing Twohundredpercent in May 2006. He lives in Brighton. He has also written for, amongst others, Pitch Invasion, FC Business Magazine, The Score, When Saturday Comes, Stand Against Modern Football and The Football Supporter. Ian was the first winner of the Socrates Award For Not Being Dead Yet at the 2010 NOPA awards for football bloggers.

You may also like...

9 Responses

  1. Peter says:

    They do not deserve any help; they tried to buy success and blew it, no sympathy here.

  2. Michael Wood says:

    Peter is half right. Pompey tried to – and did – get success using a chequebook (along with astute management and player motivation) and that is annoying for other clubs but do we really believe that in football the price of trying to get better should be was massive as it will be at Portsmouth, has been at Leeds, has been at Bradford City?

    If we do – apart from not saying much for the idea of competition but that is by the by – then football needs to put in place laws and rules to prevent a club spending in money the club does not have on the promise of funds in the future.

  3. Martin says:

    Tighter regulation of football would be a comparatively easy and painless way for Cameron’s Tories to pretend that they’re different to Labour and aren’t still the party of un-trendy pure free market capitalism.

    It’s certainly going to be an interesting couple of years.

  4. Poppa says:

    What happens if …
    i)Sky go bust?
    ii)The new owner goes bust after receiving Sky money?
    iii)They go bust next season, do they 2011/12 money to bail them out again?
    iv) Other Premiership Clubs in the same position in the future owe HMRC – will they get future money too?

  5. curranhung says:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8504000/8504689.stm

    Towards the end of this video, in the summing up of the debate, the Tory shadow minister for media, culture and sport, Hugh Robertson, says (at 1:47) that he is “impressed by the way the FA has conducted itself of late”. He then goes on to say (at 1:49) that the football authorities should be left to sort out its own affairs but that “government intervention remains an option”.

    No surprises there, but the Labour Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, Sion Simon, doesn’t say anything significant either.

  6. Rob says:

    “The club will make great play of future television revenue for the remainder of this season and parachute payments that they would receive in the event of relegation from the Premier League, but this is a high-risk strategy. Parachute payments aren’t a contractual obligation on the part of the authorities of the game – they are entirely discretionary and the club has no automatic “right” to them, but how will the court choose to interpret them?”

    There is a contractual obligation – and bear with me, because this is slightly messy, long winded, and goes round in circles – from the Premier League rules:

    B.28. Subject to Rule B.29, the bottom 3 Clubs in the table at the end of the Season shall be relegated to the Football League.

    B.29. If any Club ceases during the Season to be a member of the League, the record of the League Matches in which it has participated that Season shall be expunged from the table and the number of Clubs to be relegated at the end of that Season shall be reduced so as to maintain at 20 (or, if less, as near thereto as may be) the number of Clubs in membership of the League at the beginning of the next Season.

    C.13. “Relegated Club” means a Football League club which was relegated under the provisions of Rule B.28 at the end of either of the 2 previous Seasons.

    C.34. The balance of UK Broadcasting Money shall be divided so that:
    C.34.1 one half shall comprise the Basic Award Fund;
    C.34.2 one quarter shall comprise the Merit Payments Fund; and
    C.34.3 one quarter shall comprise the Facility Fees Fund.
    Each of the Basic Award Fund and the Merit Payments Fund shall be divided into such number of shares as shall be required in either case to put into effect the provisions of Rules C.35.1 and C.35.2 and the Facility Fees Fund shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of Rule C.35.3. {My note – The Merit Payments Fund and Facility Fees Fund aren’t paid out to relegated clubs, so I’ve not included the rules they relate to}

    C.35.1 subject to Rules C.55 and C.59, the Basic Award Fund shall be distributed by way of fees so that each Club receives 2 shares and each Relegated Club 1 share;

    C.37. In consideration of Clubs providing such rights, facilities and services as are required to enable the Company to fulfil any Overseas Broadcasting Contract, as soon as practicable during or after the end of each Season, subject to Rules C.55, C.59 and I.15, the balance of Overseas Broadcasting Money shall be distributed by way of fees so that each Club receives 2 shares and each Relegated Club 1 share.

    C.39. In consideration of Clubs providing such rights, facilities and services as are required to enable the Company to fulfil any Title Sponsorship Contract, as soon as practicable during or after the end of each Season, subject to Rules C.55 and C.59, the balance of Title Sponsorship Money shall be distributed by way of fees so that each Club receives 2 shares and each Relegated Club 1 share.

    C.55. While pursuant to this Section of these Rules a Club is suspended or its suspension is postponed, the Board shall have power, subject to Rule C.58, to make such payments as it may think fit to the Club’s Football Creditors out of:
    C.55.1 any UK Broadcasting Money payable to the suspended Club under the provisions of Rule C.35; and
    C.55.2 any Overseas Broadcasting Money payable to the suspended Club under the provisions of Rule C.37; and
    C.55.3 any Title Sponsorship Money payable to the suspended Club under the provisions of Rule C.39; and

    C.59. Any distribution to a Relegated Club under the provisions of Rules C.35, C.37 or C.39 may be deferred if, on or before the date of the distribution, the Relegated Club has been given notice under article 4.5 of the articles of association of the Football League which has been suspended. Upon such notice being withdrawn the deferred distribution shall be paid but if in consequence of the notice the club to which it was due ceases to be a member of the Football League its amount shall be added to the next distribution made in accordance with these Rules.

    I.15. If a Club fails to provide any of the facilities required by Rules I.13 or I.14, the Board may withhold from that Club its share of Overseas Broadcasting Money to which it would otherwise be entitled pursuant to Rule C.37 until such time as it has provided those facilities.

    http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/7a/20/0,,12306~139386,00.pdf

  7. Jack says:

    Pompey ‘bought success’ by spending money on players, unlike every other club, of course, who operate on a strictly amateur basis. Oh wait.

    I don’t understand that line of attack at all – we spent money unsustainably in the long run, that much is clear, but at the time we had it to spend thanks to investment from Sacha Gaydamak. In that respect we are absolutely no different from any other club who depend on investment or loans from their owners to operate. If there is a problem with that approach, which there evidently is, it is not a problem with Pompey but a problem with football as a whole. If our demise is worth anything it will be worth it if people wake up to this fact; unfortunately, it seems too many people will just blame the club exclusively and do nothing about any other part of the problem.

  8. Martin says:

    Jack, you’re no different to many other clubs, patently.

    But you are most definitely the one caught swimming naked when the tide went out.

    I don’t think anyone really wants to admit where Gaydamak’s “investmeent” actually came from…

  9. ejh says:

    Jack – quite.

    Tighter regulation of football would be a comparatively easy and painless way for Cameron’s Tories to pretend that they’re different to Labour and aren’t still the party of un-trendy pure free market capitalism.

    They are, however, ewntirly beholden to Mr Rupert Murdoch, and Mr Murdoch isn’t going to like it, is he?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>