Ans you thought your squad was weak?

http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/first-team.aspx

Wow. Reminds me of Xerez last year. They only had 11 players on the books when they started their preseason training.

I still don't get whole Portsmouth situation - theoretically they shouldn't have very high budget, over last 24 months they sold a few players for a big money and yet, they are over 100m in debts, without having any more players to sell

stinger wrote:I still don't get whole Portsmouth situation - theoretically they shouldn't have very high budget, over last 24 months they sold a few players for a big money and yet, they are over 100m in debts, without having any more players to sell

They got so ridiculously in debt that they were selling players merely to meet running costs and pay wages. Their wage bill is obviously massively reduced now, but at best that probably just means they're making enough to cover the interest on their debts.

The problem is all with their former owner. And really i never understand how this works. Owners can buy a club put money into and then demand it back if they want?

L r dd wrote:The problem is all with their former owner. And really i never understand how this works. Owners can buy a club put money into and then demand it back if they want?

Their investments in the club are usually in the form of loans.

I think I'm right in saying all the money Abramovich has put into Chelsea is actually loaned - if he was to sell up and demand repayment, they would be screwed (although I imagine there is lots of contingencies, etc, built in to these loans).

debaser wrote:

L r dd wrote:The problem is all with their former owner. And really i never understand how this works. Owners can buy a club put money into and then demand it back if they want?

Their investments in the club are usually in the form of loans.

I think I'm right in saying all the money Abramovich has put into Chelsea is actually loaned - if he was to sell up and demand repayment, they would be screwed (although I imagine there is lots of contingencies, etc, built in to these loans).

Not any more. He wrote off all his loans as of 2008 I think. So it was basically as if he had just given them a check for 300 million or whatever it was they had spent since 2003. Don't know whether their debt has built since then.

Poor Pompey

fcb wrote:

debaser wrote:

L r dd wrote:The problem is all with their former owner. And really i never understand how this works. Owners can buy a club put money into and then demand it back if they want?

Their investments in the club are usually in the form of loans.

I think I'm right in saying all the money Abramovich has put into Chelsea is actually loaned - if he was to sell up and demand repayment, they would be screwed (although I imagine there is lots of contingencies, etc, built in to these loans).

Not any more. He wrote off all his loans as of 2008 I think. So it was basically as if he had just given them a check for 300 million or whatever it was they had spent since 2003. Don't know whether their debt has built since then.

Not true though. He paid off their debt to other places but they STILL technically owe him..it's fucked up how this works. Cos really you can destroy club if you want to and probably not lose anything.

L r dd wrote:

fcb wrote:

debaser wrote:

L r dd wrote:The problem is all with their former owner. And really i never understand how this works. Owners can buy a club put money into and then demand it back if they want?

Their investments in the club are usually in the form of loans.

I think I'm right in saying all the money Abramovich has put into Chelsea is actually loaned - if he was to sell up and demand repayment, they would be screwed (although I imagine there is lots of contingencies, etc, built in to these loans).

Not any more. He wrote off all his loans as of 2008 I think. So it was basically as if he had just given them a check for 300 million or whatever it was they had spent since 2003. Don't know whether their debt has built since then.

Not true though. He paid off their debt to other places but they STILL technically owe him..it's fucked up how this works. Cos really you can destroy club if you want to and probably not lose anything.

What do you mean not lose anything ?

He'll never get back what he has pumped into Chelsea. The club owe him about £800m and make a very very heavy loss every year. How does he get this back ?

COTR wrote:

L r dd wrote:

fcb wrote:

debaser wrote:

L r dd wrote:The problem is all with their former owner. And really i never understand how this works. Owners can buy a club put money into and then demand it back if they want?

Their investments in the club are usually in the form of loans.

I think I'm right in saying all the money Abramovich has put into Chelsea is actually loaned - if he was to sell up and demand repayment, they would be screwed (although I imagine there is lots of contingencies, etc, built in to these loans).

Not any more. He wrote off all his loans as of 2008 I think. So it was basically as if he had just given them a check for 300 million or whatever it was they had spent since 2003. Don't know whether their debt has built since then.

Not true though. He paid off their debt to other places but they STILL technically owe him..it's fucked up how this works. Cos really you can destroy club if you want to and probably not lose anything.

What do you mean not lose anything ?

He'll never get back what he has pumped into Chelsea. The club owe him about £800m and make a very very heavy loss every year. How does he get this back ?

They'd have to repay him right or go under...so what would they do? Sell all the players....maybe the stadium rights or whatever it takes then they'll be in a Portsmouth situation nobody left facing dropping out of the division and he'll have most of it back really.

L r dd wrote:

They'd have to repay him right or go under...so what would they do? Sell all the players....maybe the stadium rights or whatever it takes then they'll be in a Portsmouth situation nobody left facing dropping out of the division and he'll have most of it back really.

The Pompey creditors got about 10 or 15 % back Lrd, plus Roman would be pretty much last in the list of getting his money back. He'll have to settle Flump, Terry and Cole's contract first before he gets his share. The weaker he makes the club the more the value he'll get back will drop.

COTR wrote:

L r dd wrote:

They'd have to repay him right or go under...so what would they do? Sell all the players....maybe the stadium rights or whatever it takes then they'll be in a Portsmouth situation nobody left facing dropping out of the division and he'll have most of it back really.

The Pompey creditors got about 10 or 15 % back Lrd, plus Roman would be pretty much last in the list of getting his money back. He'll have to settle Flump, Terry and Cole's contract first before he gets his share. The weaker he makes the club the more the value he'll get back will drop.

They owe nobody else. Portsmouth owed a lot of people. So if Abram just decides he's had enough and wants his cash back what exactly would they do then?

Wouldn't it be what i said? And with the players they have and the position they are in i think he'd be getting at least 600 mill back.

BTW DC United beat Portsmouth 4-0 the other day. Portsmouth played in DC united's away kit cos they cant afford their own

No, it was because their baggage got lost. But yeah, the tour was a disaster for them. One of their players apparently even got a serious injury in that friendly.

Ah. But yeah most guys had to play 90 minutes due to the numbers also. They cuuld be a decent bet for a double relegation