TrueBlueArmy Forums

Might be worth having a listen. Wasn't really listening before they went to news/ad break but something to do with defoe and redknapp. Deal might have breached rules due to use of unlicensed agent.

....surely not- with Arry involved?

Fortunately, whatever happened then is now irrelevant, as Pompey had to be reconstituted following administration.

Was it when he signed him for us ? Or when he signed him at Spurs ?

The Spurs deal I would love to understand it the Begovich one!

From spuds to us. Could be some sanctions coming along, but surely, as is said above, we are no longer the same club as was involved then.

And Harry always seemed so squeaky clean and above board. What went wrong?

(21-11-2023, 06:47 PM)FiftyYearsOn Wrote: [ -> ]From spuds to us. Could be some sanctions coming along, but surely, as is said above, we are no longer the same club as was involved then.

A point Tornante's laywers would effortlessly make if it came to it. We'd still be the soft target in this though. The F.A. can't really sanction a retired footballer (and let's have it right, he s the main culprit here -it was his agent) or a retired manager. They're too gutless and toothless to go against a big Premier league club which leaves us. I wonder if Peter Storey enjoyed his cornflakes this morning?

prem and EFL are different entities too

or its all part of a plan to get us to Wembley to win the play off final. That's a trophy we lack.

Reading the Talk Sport briefing it all appears to be aimed at Spuds, and includes a statement from Pompey - - " Not us, before our time guys !

Hopefully we will not be too involved.

(21-11-2023, 09:30 PM)Hammie Wrote: [ -> ]or its all part of a plan to get us to Wembley to win the play off final. That's a trophy we lack.

Oh, we do have something in common with Scummers then?

(22-11-2023, 10:45 AM)firqdays Wrote: [ -> ]Reading the Talk Sport briefing it all appears to be aimed at Spuds, and includes a statement from Pompey - - " Not us, before our time guys !

Hopefully we will not be too involved.

Reading about this today , it looks like it will be us in the dock not Spurs. We were the ones doing the signing. 

The whole thing may hang on what the first investigation was told. If we lied then the fact that the club has changed ownership may not save us, because we were allowed to keep the club's history and this could be said to be part of that history. 

Surely it's time a time limit was put on these sorts of investigation - five years would sound sensible.  

At the very least this will be a hell of a distraction at a bad time even if we get away with it. Let's hope the Eisners have got some good lawyers.

Just read the News article on this. It’s a bit light on content.

Good to see the Clown show at the FA using their precious time wisely. What next - revisiting the 1964 match fixing scandal?

The investigation that is needed is one into the formation of the FA Premier League. Maybe the new Football regulator can get on the case.

Pompey should use the argument that it’s a different company. The formation of which was necessary in part due to the failings of the governing bodies in this country who allowed unsuitable owners to buy PFC.

Just had a breeze through the Spuds forum/site on this. The general consensus is that is :-

a) time expired and going nowhere fast, or

b) an attempted FA stitch up, of Spurs, to avoid pointing too much/many accusations at Man City and Chelski, and the rest of the Prem League.

If the investigation had been started by the FA then that might have been the case. But this is the result of a Times journalist's investigation, the target being the FA for inconsistency in punishments, e.g 10 point deduction for Luton but nothing for Spurs for the same offence.  So the FA have said they will look at it for new evidence etc, but it's unlikely that they will find themselves guilty IMO.