Put yer money where your mouth is

[Miss Tickle's bottom]

My mate , big Liverpool fan , is very surprised that this said clause is still active. He said that Johnson joined Liverpool in June 2009 and one would have thought that such a clause would have said something along the lines of "if we win the league in the next 3 years" rather than "if we win the league at some time in the future and Johnson is still playing for us"

Why do people assume that just because someone supports a particular football team, they know everything about that team? I know at least three Pompey fans and at least two of them haven't a clue about Pompey other than where we play home games and what division we're in (and one of them regularly gets that wrong).

[RubiconCSL]

I think at the very least, Glenda could pop out to B&Q and nick a toilet seat for us.

[Earl Grey]

I think at the very least, Glenda could pop out to B&Q and nick a toilet seat for us.

Wonder if he ever got his FA Cup medal back?

[rumourmonger]

My mate , big Liverpool fan , is very surprised that this said clause is still active. He said that Johnson joined Liverpool in June 2009 and one would have thought that such a clause would have said something along the lines of "if we win the league in the next 3 years" rather than "if we win the league at some time in the future and Johnson is still playing for us"

Why do people assume that just because someone supports a particular football team, they know everything about that team? I know at least three Pompey fans and at least two of them haven't a clue about Pompey other than where we play home games and what division we're in (and one of them regularly gets that wrong).

I'm not assuming anything about Kev's knowledge of Liverpool . He is , and has been for the 11 years that I have known him , very well versed in the affairs of Liverpool Football Club. He also writes blogs on t'internet about football and makes it his business to find things out.

[Miss Tickle's bottom]

My mate , big Liverpool fan , is very surprised that this said clause is still active. He said that Johnson joined Liverpool in June 2009 and one would have thought that such a clause would have said something along the lines of "if we win the league in the next 3 years" rather than "if we win the league at some time in the future and Johnson is still playing for us"

Why do people assume that just because someone supports a particular football team, they know everything about that team? I know at least three Pompey fans and at least two of them haven't a clue about Pompey other than where we play home games and what division we're in (and one of them regularly gets that wrong).

I'm not assuming anything about Kev's knowledge of Liverpool . He is , and has been for the 11 years that I have known him , very well versed in the affairs of Liverpool Football Club. He also writes blogs on t'internet about football and makes it his business to find things out.

That's all very well, but your post didn't contain any valid information revealed by your mate Kev, it just posted his guesses. These guesses, to me at least, are not worthy of any greater respect just because he happens to support one of the teams involved.
Anyway, here's hoping that very soon you will be able to say "Yah boo sucks!" to Kev.
My own personal view is that the clause is valid. Two reasons:-
1. The News and BBC (and other media outlets, but I suspect Neil Allen at the News uncovered the story) hve been pretty unequivocal in the way they have reported the story.
2. Neither club has refuted the claim.
Remember, though, these are simply the views of an ordinary Pompey fan who has no blog and doesn't really make it his business to find things out..

We'll see...

[Lost in Transportation]

I suspect Neil Allen at the News uncovered the story

[Pompey Mike in Suffolk]

I can't believe that Liverpool will pay (although I hope they do) as they do not honor contract clauses. look at them with the transfer of Suarez to Arsenal, they just refused to accept the clause existed and then when everything had settled down admitted that the clause was real.

[Milkins]

I can't believe that Liverpool will pay (although I hope they do) as they do not honor contract clauses. look at them with the transfer of Suarez to Arsenal, they just refused to accept the clause existed and then when everything had settled down admitted that the clause was real.

Mmmm - that was dealing with Arsenal and a few of their board members.


This is dealing with Pompey and thousands of very angry owners who will probably be quite happy to convoy up to scouseland for a row with J Dubbya Red Sox Y'awl Henry.


We've been in the bottom league and gone to Liverpool in the past - we can do it again!!!


Stand and deliver - your money or your hubcaps...

[Earl Grey]

"Your money or your kneecaps", has more urgency to it...

[Milkins]

"Your money or your kneecaps", has more urgency to it...

Admittedly just as shiny but, to a Scouser, not as valuable.

[WheresWally/ScottMcGarvey]

Do you work for the beeb? It's the phone in on 5 live this morning.

Me...? Want Liverpool. Fear it may be Chelsea.

Genuinely didn't catch 5 live, just thought I'd have a little pole, err... poll.

Wonder if he ever got his FA Cup medal back?

He did. Ashdown too. Weird story, as Glen was recounting it not long ago (I mean in the last month or two). He *really* did 'bury' it, it wasn't as if the whole bag/kit was stolen. So seems an inside job (allegedly).

Right-o

The count was (I think - bit 'murky' with the "Glenda clause" being debated! )

Was:

Chelsea 4 votes,
Liverpool 2 votes,
City 1 vote.

(not inc a couple of yer covering your bases!)

Liverpool will argue we're a different concern now, different company name to the one that is owed the million sovs.

The joys of the much maligned football creditors rule.

It means as the inheritors of PFCs history we are entitled to all monies due to previous incarnations of the club

I missed that from Earl. I agree, if football creditors debts are passed then so are the credits. Sorry Earl but that's nonsense.

(Just me not being able to read it properly I expect... ) But sorry LiT, which bit are you saying is nonsense?

Back to the title race, that was a biggie (Sunderland) today. But I still can see Chelsea winning at Anfield for some reason. Yet the bookies (from MOTD):

Liverpool 1/4
City 4/1
& Chelsea 22/1 (!)

I think we'll see a couple more twists yet!

Could be one tomorrow. There must've been plenty of us that can remember a spell (I'm sure I'm not imagining/remembering this wrong - but 'refuse to google') - of previous when it comes to Liverpool & Norwich - going back to the 80's? Liverpool getting turned over I mean - against the odds. Big one then tomorrow. Would be 'nice' if the title race ends up with a finish similar to 2 years with City's (courtesy of Aguero?) But again, though I like Jose* (who was mightily p*ssed at the result today - and I have to agree with Shearer, was a bit churlish at the end there with his 'interview' with the beeb, I hope Liverpool take it, purely for the chance of Pompey getting some dough.

* I just think the Premier is that much more interesting with Jose managing in it, no fondness for any Premiership club at all. And yep, I take the 'they're mostly foreign mercenaries with little to do with English football' point - but I still cheer on any English (or Scottish!) side in Europe. Would like to see Mourinho's lot take the Champions League, so he's got a full trophy cabinet with them - and then has done 3 (?) Champions League titles with different clubs - is that unprecedented? 77 games unbeaten at home too, that was some record.

FWIW, I thought it *wasn't* a penalty for Sunderland today (but am in the minority), for me, Altidore (sp) trod on Azpulicueta's leg. I don't think that should count as impeding. But there should have been a sending off for Chelsea, but Mike Dean missed it (how? - he was 3 yards behind them!) - a straight red for Ramires for hitting the Sunderland player (actually watched his blow land, lol). He (JM) will (should) get some serious 'hit' though for that interview and what he implied with 'Mike Riley and their objective' I would have thought.

[Earl Grey]

Liverpool will argue we're a different concern now, different company name to the one that is owed the million sovs.

The joys of the much maligned football creditors rule.

It means as the inheritors of PFCs history we are entitled to all monies due to previous incarnations of the club

I missed that from Earl. I agree, if football creditors debts are passed then so are the credits. Sorry Earl but that's nonsense.

x

(Just me not being able to read it properly I expect... ) But sorry LiT, which bit are you saying is nonsense?

He's saying that to claim Liverpool will duck the 1 million squid by arguing that Pompey are under a different company name now is not a valid argument because debts have moved to Pompey so the good stuff should move too.

FWIW, I thought it *wasn't* a penalty for Sunderland today (but am in the minority), for me, Altidore (sp) trod on Azpulicueta's leg. I don't think that should count as impeding.

I have to sort of agree with you. It wasn't like the Chelski guy worked out the stride pattern of the Black Cat player to deliberately place his leg where his opponent needed to step next. But he did cause him to be upended so I'm not really sure about what the rules say.

[WheresWally/ScottMcGarvey]

He's saying that to claim Liverpool will duck the 1 million squid by arguing that Pompey are under a different company name now is not a valid argument because debts have moved to Pompey so the good stuff should move too.

FWIW, I thought it *wasn't* a penalty for Sunderland today (but am in the minority), for me, Altidore (sp) trod on Azpulicueta's leg. I don't think that should count as impeding.

I have to sort of agree with you. It wasn't like the Chelski guy worked out the stride pattern of the Black Cat player to deliberately place his leg where his opponent needed to step next. But he did cause him to be upended so I'm not really sure about what the rules say.

Cheers FTA, I thought so, but it didn't 'scan' so well... "Fersure" what contracts GJ has signed 'individually' at the Reds *should* have no bearing whatsoever (e.g. elsewise they could've put his money up by £1 p/m to 'lose' the clause). Also 'whilst he's there' seems logical. And yerp - I would've *thought so* when it comes to the 'inheriting'. Good-oh with Neil Allen. Interesting silence on it from both clubs. Sure, there *might* be some legal challenge, I hope not (*IF* it comes to it). I don't give a monkey's that it all (?) goes to the creditors, we pay them back earlier, same(ish) net result.

Agreed on the pen, and same - no idea on the rules.

No 'shock' at Norwich then, good-oh! What we got next? The 'biggie' (Chelski vs 'Pool). And room for dropped points with a safe Palace at home to City.

[Lost in Transportation]

But sorry LiT, which bit are you saying is nonsense?

He's saying that to claim Liverpool will duck the 1 million squid by arguing that Pompey are under a different company name now is not a valid argument because debts have moved to Pompey so the good stuff should move too.

Precisely and because there are political ramifications to this, if the footballing authorities (Premier League, Football League) start undermining their own football creditors rule then how valid is it to apply to the next crisis club? There is Damian Collins' private members bill which seeks to remove the protection of football creditors currently active in Parliament. Any weakness in position would see HMRC looking to exploit it.

It would create problems for the football 'family' to allow this to occur.

[WheresWally/ScottMcGarvey]

Precisely and because there are political ramifications to this, if the footballing authorities (Premier League, Football League) start undermining their own football creditors rule then how valid is it to apply to the next crisis club? There is Damian Collins' private members bill which seeks to remove the protection of football creditors currently active in Parliament. Any weakness in position would see HMRC looking to exploit it.

It would create problems for the football 'family' to allow this to occur.

Had always thought that it had more than just "legs" from the report, & then the silence(s) etc.. Good point tho' on the football creditors position (keeping HMRC at arm's length for all their worth I mean - amongst other considerations) - hadn't thought of that/them.

Fingers crossed for the Scousers v Chelski on Sunday anyway.