POMPEY - what a mess!

[Southover Street Seagull]

Ooh, is that the boney finger of circumstantial evidence pointing at mr 'arry Redknapp?

At the time of press(may 2005) pompy aiming to have a squad of 25. They had previously had squads of 44 and had released 17 players since nov 2004-the time that Redknapp left to join Southampton.

6 months after the article is written Redknapp returns to Portsmouth says the squad is lacking in numbers and starts building it up again. The wage bill spirals out of control until in 2009 they accounted for 109% of revenues.

He might not be the main culprit but looking at those facts it's difficult not to jump to conclusions isn't it?

Redknapp is a manager, not a managing director, chief executive or chairman and as such I cannot see how he can be blamed for the financial mess that Pompey or Southampton got themselves into. After all he had no control of the purse strings of the two clubs, or did he? If anyone can prove this then please go ahead and put it on NSC.
It's like saying that Gus Poyet will be able to spend what he likes at the Albion next season, which will quite clearly not happen. Any manager at any club can ask for money to spend on players, it is down to the people running the club to say no if they can't afford it.
The mess that Pompey are in is solely down to Peter Storrie and the other blithering idiots that have been running the club for the past few years.

 

[Easy 10]

The most damaging criticism of Andronikou is within a High Court ruling in December 2008. An appeal judge overturned an attempt by Shami Ahmed, the founder of Joe Bloggs, the clothing company, to avoid bankruptcy through an individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) handled by Andronikou.

HMRC and a spread-betting firm then known as Tradindex had opposed the IVA, which needed approval from three-quarters of Ahmed’s creditors. The fashion boss had run up more than £4m in gambling debts. But the IVA was successful because Andronikou had accepted the validity of £8m in alleged loans to Ahmed from members of his family, thereby making them creditors and giving them a vote on the IVA.

At an appeal by Tradindex, the judge took a different view and disallowed £5m of these family loans, thereby overturning Ahmed’s IVA, and he was forced into bankruptcy.

The judgment said: “Mr Andronikou’s conduct in these proceedings, particularly in relation to evidence filed by him on behalf [of Ahmed and his family], was manifestly inappropriate.” The judge also found that Andronikou “did fail to meet the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent insolvency practitioner”.

Funny how the debt at Pompy shot up from £79m to £119m on publication of the accounts aye...
That guy Androniku was signinig autographs outside Fratton before the Villa game on Sunday. Summink not right about him.

 

[Easy 10]

Mr 10, do you have the various links by any chance? Saves having to search for them, see.

Portsmouth FC forum from footymad.net

Portsmouth Message Board | TrueBlueArmy.com Message Board

Thats a couple of 'em.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

How is it Redknapps fault....

1) Peter Storrie 2005: We must keep spending under control. Most spending is on wages. In the past we have had too many players-squads of 44. We want to have a squad of around 25 players, like Chelsea.

2) 17 players released by Portsmouth in the six months after Redknapp left the first time. Wage bill reduced, Portsmouth make profit.

3)Redknapp returns. Complains that the squad is threadbare. Brings in loads of players. Wage bill spirals, Portsmouth make a loss 4 years in a row. By 2009 wages account for 109% of income.

Like I said, circumstantial and he's not the biggest culprit but it really isn't too difficult to add it up and point a finger of suspicion at him, is it? I know you're a spurs fan and perhaps want to stick up for potentially one of the best managers you've had in a while but you've got to admit the evidence suggests that his cavalier attitude to player acquisition during his time at pompey could, at least, have helped lead them into their current dire situation, no?

 

[Simon Morgan]

1) Peter Storrie 2005: We must keep spending under control. Most spending is on wages. In the past we have had too many players-squads of 44. We want to have a squad of around 25 players, like Chelsea.

2) 17 players released by Portsmouth in the six months after Redknapp left the first time. Wage bill reduced, Portsmouth make profit.

3)Redknapp returns. Complains that the squad is threadbare. Brings in loads of players. Wage bill spirals, Portsmouth make a loss 4 years in a row. By 2009 wages account for 109% of income.

Like I said, circumstantial and he's not the biggest culprit but it really isn't too difficult to add it up and point a finger of suspicion at him, is it? I know you're a spurs fan and perhaps want to stick up for potentially one of the best managers you've had in a while but you've got to admit the evidence suggests that his cavalier attitude to player acquisition during his time at pompey could, at least, have helped lead them into their current dire situation, no?

This

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I posted this a while back - from the very good 'Said and Done' series courtesy of the Obeserver.

Man of the week

"We're in a much better position now than we were a few months ago. We're still here and still working hard: we've managed to keep Portsmouth going for 12 months and I certainly hope to be standing here in 12 months' time with this club still going."
– Peter Storrie, the one constant as Portsmouth's debt rose to £115m and his salary to £1.23m, pledges his loyalty outside court.

Most shocked by Pompey's near-collapse last week: Harry Redknapp.
"It's amazing. The debt that has piled up there is incredible. I didn't see it coming: things looked great when I left."
(48.2%: rise in wage bill in Harry's last year, totalling £55m, 74% of the club's turnover. John Utaka's contract: £80k per week.)

 

[Easy 10]

And bearing in mind Storrie has already openly admitted he was getting paid a BONUS for when a player leaves the club (so it was most certainly in his interest to have a high turnover of players), he got the best POSSIBLE manager in to feed that bonus clause in old wheeler-dealer 'Arry.

A fair bet old Twitchers fingers got sticky as well in the bargain.

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

1) Peter Storrie 2005: We must keep spending under control. Most spending is on wages. In the past we have had too many players-squads of 44. We want to have a squad of around 25 players, like Chelsea.

2) 17 players released by Portsmouth in the six months after Redknapp left the first time. Wage bill reduced, Portsmouth make profit.

3)Redknapp returns. Complains that the squad is threadbare. Brings in loads of players. Wage bill spirals, Portsmouth make a loss 4 years in a row. By 2009 wages account for 109% of income.

Like I said, circumstantial and he's not the biggest culprit but it really isn't too difficult to add it up and point a finger of suspicion at him, is it? I know you're a spurs fan and perhaps want to stick up for potentially one of the best managers you've had in a while but you've got to admit the evidence suggests that his cavalier attitude to player acquisition during his time at pompey could, at least, have helped lead them into their current dire situation, no?

He isn't the culprit at all, Storrie and the idiots that have been running the club for the past few years are.
Do you think next season that Poyet will be given unlimited funds for transfers that put the football club into massive debt? I don't think so, because I think we have a Chairman who is sensible.
All managers, fans and players want their respective football club owners/chairman/chief executive/managing director to put millions and millions of pounds into their club, the difference is that some know when to say no more to their manager, fans and players.
That is what Peter Storrie and Co should have said to Redknapp. Sorry Arry, we can't afford that this season.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Redknapp is a manager, not a managing director, chief executive or chairman and as such I cannot see how he can be blamed for the financial mess that Pompey or Southampton got themselves into. After all he had no control of the purse strings of the two clubs, or did he? If anyone can prove this then please go ahead and put it on NSC.
It's like saying that Gus Poyet will be able to spend what he likes at the Albion next season, which will quite clearly not happen. Any manager at any club can ask for money to spend on players, it is down to the people running the club to say no if they can't afford it.
The mess that Pompey are in is solely down to Peter Storrie and the other blithering idiots that have been running the club for the past few years.

I have no evidence that he had control of the purse strings. I'm merely pointing out some circumstantial evidence that might suggest Redknapp had his part to play. Of course Storrie and whoever else were in charge have more to answer to but I personally can't help but think Redknapp twisted their arm(or was just downright persuasive) into letting him spend money they didn't have. He does like to paint himself in only the most glowing of terms, he possibly/probably didn't fancy two relegations in the space of 12 months on his c.v. so demanded money to bring in the players he felt he needed despite the club being aware that they couldn't really afford too much of an increase in wages.

The buck ultimately stops with the board but...

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

I have no evidence that he had control of the purse strings. I'm merely pointing out some circumstantial evidence that might suggest Redknapp had his part to play. Of course Storrie and whoever else were in charge have more to answer to but I personally can't help but think Redknapp twisted their arm(or was just downright persuasive) into letting him spend money they didn't have. He does like to paint himself in only the most glowing of terms, he possibly/probably didn't fancy two relegations in the space of 12 months on his c.v. so demanded money to bring in the players he felt he needed despite the club being aware that they couldn't really afford too much of an increase in wages.

The buck ultimately stops with the board but...

No buts mate, the buck stops at the board full stop. There are no excuses for the people who ran Pompey, the buck stops with them. If they are so weak that they can get bullied by a manager to make such overspends that the club they are running will be made bankrupt then they shouldn't be running a football club.
It's like blaming a ten year old for spending two grand on stuff in Toys R Us, when the money was given to them by their parents, then the parents default on a mortgage payment that month.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

He's a bent tosser?

You said so yourself...



Shock! Pompy and Bolton are bent - North Stand Chat

Yep he is bent everyone knows this.... But he isnt at fault for Portsmouth being in debt.

Damn I wish I had time to search through Nsc

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

1) Peter Storrie 2005: We must keep spending under control. Most spending is on wages. In the past we have had too many players-squads of 44. We want to have a squad of around 25 players, like Chelsea.

2) 17 players released by Portsmouth in the six months after Redknapp left the first time. Wage bill reduced, Portsmouth make profit.

3)Redknapp returns. Complains that the squad is threadbare. Brings in loads of players. Wage bill spirals, Portsmouth make a loss 4 years in a row. By 2009 wages account for 109% of income.

Like I said, circumstantial and he's not the biggest culprit but it really isn't too difficult to add it up and point a finger of suspicion at him, is it? I know you're a spurs fan and perhaps want to stick up for potentially one of the best managers you've had in a while but you've got to admit the evidence suggests that his cavalier attitude to player acquisition during his time at pompey could, at least, have helped lead them into their current dire situation, no?

Harry Redknapp - I want to sign Utaka
Peter Storrie - How does he want?
Harry Redknapp - 80K a week
Peter Storrie then has two answers he can give... yes because the club can afford it, or no clearly he didnt have any idea about how to run a club

 

[Publius Ovidius]

was storrie the bloke who played football for Arsenal in teh 70's?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Yep he is bent everyone knows this.... But he isnt at fault for Portsmouth being in debt.

Damn I wish I had time to search through Nsc

Bent when it comes to transfers. Plenty of big money transfers coming in. Did it take a genius to work out that Portsmouth couldn't sustain that sort of spending? Plenty of us saw this happening and we weren't even privy to the goings on that a manager is.

You would have plenty of time to use the search function if you were writing a book. Hopefully it will pay to be on the internet.

I wish I had time to post 40,000 + posts on a messageboard of a team I don't support... Actually, no I don't.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I have no evidence that he had control of the purse strings. I'm merely pointing out some circumstantial evidence that might suggest Redknapp had his part to play. Of course Storrie and whoever else were in charge have more to answer to but I personally can't help but think Redknapp twisted their arm(or was just downright persuasive) into letting him spend money they didn't have. He does like to paint himself in only the most glowing of terms, he possibly/probably didn't fancy two relegations in the space of 12 months on his c.v. so demanded money to bring in the players he felt he needed despite the club being aware that they couldn't really afford too much of an increase in wages.

The buck ultimately stops with the board but...

But what The board can turn around and sack redknapp for making demands.

 

[Austrian Gull]

was storrie the bloke who played football for Arsenal in teh 70's?

No, different spelling (Storey).

Didn't he do bird for importing porn?

Storey that is, not Storrie.

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

Harry Redknapp - I want to sign Utaka
Peter Storrie - How does he want?
Harry Redknapp - 80K a week
Peter Storrie then has two answers he can give... yes because the club can afford it, or no clearly he didnt have any idea about how to run a club

What he said.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Bent when it comes to transfers. Plenty of big money transfers coming in. Did it take a genius to work out that Portsmouth couldn't sustain that sort of spending? Plenty of us saw this happening and we weren't even privy to the goings on that a manager is.

You would have plenty of time to use the search function if you were writing a book. Hopefully it will pay to be on the internet.

I wish I had time to post 40,000 + posts on a messageboard of a team I don't support... Actually, no I don't.

Yes... so he may take bungs... still has to have to go ahead from the board to sign them and last time I checked he wasnt on the board....

Its fun you should try it

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Do you think next season that Poyet will be given unlimited funds for transfers that put the football club into massive debt? I don't think so, because I think we have a Chairman who is sensible.

No, I don't. I agree, Bloom appears emminently sensible. I don't expect Poyet to be asking for unlimited funds either.

As I've said, I'm only highlighting circumstantial evidence. Why did they have a massive wage bill the two times Redknapp was manager, only for it to be slashed in the year he wasn't there-in line with the clubs stated principles. Redknapp returns, debts spiral. It could, of course, just be a coincidence and under whichever manager they appointed the wages would have spiralled. It just seems strange that the club 6 months previously state that wages need to be kept under control otherwise a southampton situation could happen only to give their new manager(who has previous with wage spendthriftery...ath their club!) excessive funds. I just can't help but feel that Redknapp must have had some say in the issue. But it could all be coincidental and of course whatever blame might be lain at his door it's nowhere near as much as that which should be thrown at Storrie et al.

 

[Easy 10]

Harry Redknapp - I want to sign Utaka
Peter Storrie - How does he want?
Harry Redknapp - 80K a week
Peter Storrie then has two answers he can give... yes because the club can afford it, or no clearly he didnt have any idea about how to run a club

But...
If Storrie is on a bonus to shift players, as he's said, then its not a HUGE leap to suspect 'Arry could get a little kickback into the bargain as well. It could be in BOTH their interests to maintain this huge turnover in players.

At least until Gaydamak got cold feet and went running for the hills.