Jump to content
N-Europe

Football Season 2007/2008

flameboy

By flameboy
in General Chit Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

motion Newbie

motion

Posted
Posted
I heard it's going to be so big once they add the extension to accomodate Jamie Carraghers monsterous cock that it's going to be declared as a new country and Liverpool are going to win the World Cup.

 

Just to give you an idea of the scale of the size of how immense it is and just why it is going to be bigger and have more people in it than China, if you printed out every post Ant has made on it, scrumpled them up and threw them into the stadium you could nearly fit them all inside.

 

 

Right I'm not taking sides in all this arguing, and Ant you know I have much :heart: for you but this post made me laugh my fucking arse off.

 

Don't take offense buddy, twas just funny ;)

  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Babooo Newbie

Babooo

Posted
Posted

Saturday, 11 August 2007

 

Aston Villa 1-2 Liverpool, 17:15

Bolton 0-1 Newcastle

Derby 0-1 Portsmouth

Everton 2-0 Wigan

Middlesbrough 1-1 Blackburn

Sunderland 1-3 Tottenham, 12:45

West Ham 2-1 Man City

 

Sunday, 12 August 2007

 

Arsenal 3-0 Fulham, 12:00

Chelsea 2-0 Birmingham, 13:30

Man Utd 3-0 Reading, 16:00

Noodleman Newbie

Noodleman

Posted
Posted

Arsenal 3 v 1 Fulham

Aston Villa 0 v 2 Liverpool

Bolton 0 v 0 Newcastle

Chelsea 2 v 0 Birmingham

Derby 0 v 2 Portsmouth

Everton 2 v 0 Wigan

Man Utd 2 v 0 Reading

Middlesbrough 0 v 1 Blackburn

Sunderland 0 v 3 Tottenham

West Ham 2 v 2 Man City

Max Newbie

Max

Posted
Posted

I) actually think chelsea will struggle vs bermingham.

 

cant wait for bolton Vs newcastel (big sam moment).

flameboy Newbie

flameboy

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well the football season has barely started and already I am sick of the arguements with my brother who cannot see that Newcastle are not as great as they once were. They aren't going to challenge for the title or Champs League places again for a good while.

 

For some odd reason he still seems to think despite us having a great season last season and them having by their standards had a crap season. He won't accept that Pompey had a better season! Couple this with the fact that he thinks Newcastle will easily qualify for UEFA Cup and challenge for both cups I think we have one very deluded fan.

 

I mean I by no means think Pompey will find it easy to finish as high as we did last season, but we without a doubt have a stronger side than last season and plenty of depth, we've also had a fantastic pre-season, unbeaten and only conceded 2 goals so I think we will come into this season on fire and have a great start like we did last season, (although this year will be much harder as we face top 4 all straight away)

 

Newcastle are going in the right direction,but it took Big Sam a good few yrs to get Bolton to where they were. I know Newcastle are a "Bigger" club but I still think that finishing in the top half would be a massive achievement for them (toon fans may hate to admit that)

 

Fact remains Pompey are one of the smallest teams in the Premiership, even the likes of Sunderland and Birmingham are in some respects bigger teams despite being down in the Championship, we've got so far though and I and so many others are thrilled by it.

 

The second issue was David James and Sol Campbell. They should both be in the England squad at this current moment in time. The England team is in a rut and needs a kick up the arse to help galvanize them and try and get into the top 2. Whilst I think we should always look to the future I think we need some experience to help us out (much like France did recalling Thuram and Zidane and others to help them qualify for the world cup) I think there are few better keepers in the Prem than James at the moment, he is one of the most natural shot stoppers around and for the most has got rid of most of his calmaty moments (can only think of one dropped cross last season)

 

As for Campbell, I challenged my brother to name one better defender who should be in the squad now theres an injury crisis (I even argued for experience he should still be in the squad before this happened) and he said there were tons yet didn't manage to name any he said there were countless better defenders but wouldn't say any of them were good enough for England he said Steven Taylor was better but not good enough for England, what a load of bollocks...

 

Phew RANT over...thought I'd post it on here as it may provoke some discussion not only on Pompey, but the English keepers issue, smaller teams in the league. (this post is a bit shorter than planned as Computer being slow...)

flameboy Newbie

flameboy

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Campbell's form merits a place in the England team and he has proven experience at that level. Also why not put somebody in the squad who actually wants to be there and is optimistic like Sol? Rather then wasting time on Carragher after he has already more or less quit.

 

Where as David James had the best form last season out of any english keeper and definetly deserves his chance with Ben Foster out and Paul Robinson looking dodgy in the last few internationals.

 

Thanks at least I'm not completely mad! Agree what you've said about Sol as well he has a new vigour and passion for his footie at the moment and that can only be good for England. I don't think he should go for Carragher and try and get him back, as soon as Terry and Ferdinand are back he will be out of the team and unhappy with the situation again and retire again. I think Jamie should stick to his guns that he has done it to prolong his club career and give his all for Liverpool.

 

Looks like Mclaren will making his first visit to Fratton Park as England Boss...

BlueStar Newbie

BlueStar

Posted
Posted

Campbell was cracking last season. Wish we'd got him but that oaf Roeder said he was "Too old" when he said he'd love to come to Newcastle on a free, what a fuckwit. Then he bought Sibierski.

conzer16 Newbie

conzer16

Posted
Posted

For anyone who's interested, there is a Football League meeting tomorrow where the other 71 clubs will take a vote whether to uphold or quash the 15 point penalty that the FL has given Leeds United.

 

Leeds' Chairman Ken Bates has sent a letter to each othe FL clubs. This is how it reads:

 

Aug 8, 2007

 

Dear Chairman,

 

Re: Leeds United

 

Lord Mawhinney was kind enough to send me a copy of his letter to you dated 3rd August.

 

As you know our appeal against the deduction of 15 points will be heard on Thursday and I felt compelled to write to all the Chairman of Football League Clubs to set out the true facts relating to the administration of Leeds United Association Football Club Limited and the subsequent purchase of its assets. I am disappointed but not surprised to have to say that the standard of reporting of the process has been appalling and in the main has been based on guesswork.

 

First of all let me confirm that the administration of the Club was not pre-planned. My staff at Leeds fought tooth and nail to get Leeds through to the start of the coming season when the last of the contracts that remained from the days of "living the dream" would have at last expired. We had procured external funding of approaching £25m in our attempts to keep the Club alive. We spent 9 months looking for external partners but as our playing fortunes declined during last season investors waited to see what would happen and this combined with falling gate receipts meant that by the end of the season funding had run out. We had paid HMRC some £25m during the period from January 2005 to April 2007 but the Revenue would not allow us more time to pay the outstanding arrears and whilst acknowledging our efforts issued a winding up petition due to be heard on 1st June 2007. Following the issue of the petition administration or liquidation was really the only option.

 

We approached one of the leading insolvency practices in the world, KPMG, to advise. They were concerned that with the close season upon us there would be no income to run the Club and advised that administration followed by a sale to a party willing to fund the Club during the Administration process was the best approach to adopt.

 

We have attracted some criticism for going into administration before the end of the 2006/07 season, and thus triggering the 10 point deduction during that season when we were almost certain of relegation. I think this criticism is unfair. Lord Mawhinney has stated publicly that the approach we took was completely within the rules. As directors of the Club we had a duty to act in the best interests of the Club and we believe that in taking the actions we did we discharged our obligations properly. The supporters of Leeds United would have rightly been appalled if we had been relegated and then have taken a ten point deduction that could have been taken during the 2006/07 season.

 

Lord Mawhinney's letter to you highlights the fact that the Football League have imposed, "a fifteen point sanction"

 

"sanction" is defined in the Oxford English dictionary as meaning "a penalty for breaking the rules". We believe that Leeds have broken no rules and have complied with the regulations of the Football League to the absolute extent it was in their power and control to do so. We have no reason to think that KPMG have acted other than in accordance with the law of the land in conducting the administration. In these circumstances we believe that no "sanction" is appropriate.

 

KPMG put a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) to creditors of the Company on 14th May and this was approved more than 75% of the creditors of the Company as required by the Insolvency Act 1986, only just, but a win is a win.

 

Following approval there is a 28 day period during which creditors can appeal against the conduct of the CVA. During this period various parties made threatening noises but did not appeal. I think the reason for this was that KPMG had sought the advice of two independent counsels before admitting any claim to vote in the CVA. It is difficult in such circumstances to see how the Administrators could be said to have acted unreasonably.

 

The Revenue however were still making demands and in an attempt to placate them we increased the sum payable under the CVA. Creditors were now being offered circa 8.5 pence upfront with a further 30 pence if the Club attained Premier League status within the next 10 years.

 

Despite the improved offer the Revenue appealed at approximately 15:00pm on the last day for appeals. Their appeal was based on the acceptance by the Administrator of three debts upon which the Administrator had taken independent advice.

 

In our view the appeal was a sham. The Revenue could have appealed against the admission of the debts on day one but it chose to wait until the 28th day to do so. It is our view that the decision of the Revenue was vexatious, and I think that this is confirmed by what happened next.

 

At a directions hearing for their appeal on the 6th July a representative of the Revenue told the Administrator's lawyer that they would withdraw what they described as a protective appeal provided Leeds put all sums into the CVA immediately and instead of paying "Football Creditors" paid the sum set aside for "Football Creditors" into the CVA for the benefit of the unsecured creditors generally. At last the true motive of the Revenue had been revealed. Their appeal was yet another attack on the "Football Creditor Rules" something the Revenue had sought to attack since their preferred status had been withdrawn in September 2003.

 

The Revenue knew we could not and indeed would not want to break the Football Creditors Rules, but I think they were surprised when we agreed to do the next best thing. We met their demands by increasing our payment into the CVA by an additional sum equal to the sum being set aside for Football Creditors. We put the unsecured creditors of the Company in the position that the Revenue had required, but we were still paying the Football Creditors, which was unacceptable to the Revenue.

 

The question of the Football Creditors Rules has been litigated to the Court of Appeal in the Wimbledon case. For the Revenue to over turn that position the case would have to go to the House of Lords and whilst the Revenue have our taxes to pay for that litigation, the Club could simply not afford it.

 

In these circumstances we approached the Administrator and offered to purchase the Club unconditionally and take our chances with the Football League, we felt that the Revenues position represented an attack on football generally and on Leeds in particular. The circumstances seemed to us to be the "exceptional circumstances" referred to in the Football League Insolvency Rules.

 

On Tuesday last week Leeds meet with the Administrators and the League. Initially the League expressed the view that "exceptional circumstances" did not exist, a position that frankly we found unbelievable.

 

The League did not dispute that the offer we had made was the best offer on the table but wanted it put to a new creditors meeting. Because we had paid the players wages and some players had moved on during the close season the "football debts" had reduced meaning the Revenues votes as a proportion of the whole had increased. The Administrators were of the view that the Revenue now represented 24.4% of the debt and this would enable them to block any CVA.

 

It was agreed to approach the Revenue to seek to persuade them to withdraw their objection. Their response was catagoric. They stated on the record that if a revised CVA was presented "as a matter of policy, HMRC would vote against any CVA that resulted in Football Creditors being paid in full". If the CVA was passed they would appeal again and would litigate all the way. Their position means that unsecured creditors generally including themselves will get a lower payment than they would have done under the CVA.

 

In the face of this intransigence by the Revenue the Administrators said a further meeting was futile and the League eventually agreed that "exceptional circumstances" existed and agreed to transfer the League share subject to the sanction now under the appeal.

 

So exactly what rules have been broken?

 

1. Lord Mawhinney has acknowledged that going into administration as and when we did, broke no rules.

 

2. The League press release states:

 

"notwithstanding the manner in which this administration has been conducted the Club should be permitted to continue in the Football League"

 

If that is a criticism of Leeds then it is misplaced. The Administration has been carried out by KPMG if the League have complaints about the process they should be addressing them to the Administrators not the Club. The Club could have had no influence over the Administrator who was independent.

 

3. Finally the CVA was approved by the requisite number of creditors but completion of it has been blocked by the Revenue for what can only be described as political reasons. Leeds should not be punished because the Revenue are intransigent.

 

We have broken no rules. The "exceptional circumstances" rules were introduced to cover exactly the situation that exists today. We can only speculate as to the reasoning behind the imposition of a sanction when no rules have been broken. We believe such a sanction is wholly unfair and a breach of natural justice. On Thursday we will be asking you to overturn its imposition.

 

If we can clarify any aspect of the matter for you, please feel free to contact my fellow directors Shaun Harvey or Mark Taylor.

 

With Kind Regards

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

K. W. BATES

 

 

Glentoran v Man. United on SS1 right now.

 

None of the blackstuff here, it's champagne and prawn sandwiches all round

 

The most anti Irish (Republic/Catholic) comment I've ever heard on Sky Sports.

Ant-Shimmin Newbie

Ant-Shimmin

Posted
Posted

I don't understand why Sol would want to be in a team picked by the Media...

 

Infact I don't see why anyone in their right minds would want to play for the ******* God-Forsaken side that is England...Stay Out of It Sol...

 

...End Rant...

flameboy Newbie

flameboy

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Funny how Adrian Charles said prisoners of war live in better conditions then you get at Fratton Park.

 

Gave me a chuckle, went down the other day tho and noticed a roof on the Milton End. Big step, considering its the worst stand in exsistence :D

 

yeah finally got the permission to pop a roof on there. The Council kept rejecting it, we've applied every year since we got in the Premiership and never got it accepted until now...

harribo Newbie

harribo

Posted
Posted

They didn't get any punishment for a pitch invasion, they cheated their way into administration and now have the cheek to appeal a 15 points deduction.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...