Portsmouth really are a SHAMBLES, aren't they?

[Finchley Seagull]

Reading another website, they have just let Matt Ritchie sign for Swindon while complaining about the number of players they have. Surely they could have kept him (he can't have been on much money) and used him as one of their subs. Their situation just seems to get stranger every time I hear about it.

Can't believe they still have Utaka playing for them who was rumoured to be £80K a week at one point (although no idea if he still is).

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Well to be fair, I'd FAR rather listen to New Order, than bloody Cher. If only that referenced TRAMPS and GYPSIES, too.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Should actually read "Don't Pay Anyone", but hey, Pompey is quite close to the Isle of Wight innit

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

This really is splendid news. Not only should we beat them, but surely relegation can't be ruled out for these tin pot thieving twats and their smelly chav followers?

Almost every report says their first 11 is the strongest in the division - with not much else. If they start fielding the reserves - it could be very amusing indeed.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

 

[Acker79]

[yt]43dxpbVa6Xc[/yt]

 

[Lady Whistledown]

 

[Spiros]

Can't believe they still have Utaka playing for them who was rumoured to be £80K a week at one point (although no idea if he still is).

I thought the reason they were still lumbered with Utaka is because he's on a long and lucrative contract which he has absolutely no hope of getting anywhere else?

 

[Pavilionaire]

What this story says to me is just how greedy the AGENTS are. They make their money from moving their players around and they know a "Games number" clause will usually either trigger a pay rise or a move. Either way it's a "win-win" situation for any agent.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

 

[sten_super]

What this story says to me is just how greedy the AGENTS are. They make their money from moving their players around and they know a "Games number" clause will usually either trigger a pay rise or a move. Either way it's a "win-win" situation for any agent.

While I agree with your general sentiment, I'm not sure that's necessarily the situation in this case. David James last year had a clause which said that if he played a certain number of games then his contract was automatically renewed for a further season on the same terms (some £40k a week I seem to remember), which he waived in order to play himself into the England squad. Given it's the same club it seems feasible that Brown and Hughes have similar clauses, whereas the club don't want to have to pay them Premiership-level wages for another season.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Please tell me why they're willing to sign Lawrence and Kitson for £20k per week contracts, but won't pay Hughes and Brown what they're due?

Oh, I forgot, it's because Lawrence and Kitson will win them games so are well worth spanking cash they don't have on, whereas the other two are lumbering journeymen. Which is the attitude that explains exactly why Portsmouth ended up in the position they were in.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Some decent efforts Edna, but I'm claiming this one, I'm afraid, unless you can find another track that in one go questions their ancestry, hygeine AND morals...

 

[Lady Whistledown]

 

[itszamora]

I don't think they have any reserves or youth team either as they all went to try and cut costs - so literally the 14 or so players they have are ALL the playing staff at the club. Marvellous scenes.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Please tell me why they're willing to sign Lawrence and Kitson for £20k per week contracts, but won't pay Hughes and Brown what they're due?

Oh, I forgot, it's because Lawrence and Kitson will win them games so are well worth spanking cash they don't have on, whereas the other two are lumbering journeymen. Which is the attitude that explains exactly why Portsmouth ended up in the position they were in.

Michael Brown is a FAR better footballer than Kitson, and according to a quote from Liam Lawrence in the Pompey local rag, Brown has offered to waive the clause and take a FIFTY % pay cut, but the club won't talk to them.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Some decent efforts Edna, but I'm claiming this one, I'm afraid, unless you can find another track that in one go questions their ancestry, hygeine AND morals...

Oh, I cheerfully concede you have won this by a country MILE, but I'm just having some fun in the meantime

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I don't think they have any reserves or youth team either as they all went to try and cut costs - so literally the 14 or so players they have are ALL the playing staff at the club. Marvellous scenes.

Yes, for now. Next week they will be signing players, don't worry, despite having STILL not paid their non football creditors

 

[Lady Whistledown]

 

[Pavilionaire]

While I agree with your general sentiment, I'm not sure that's necessarily the situation in this case. David James last year had a clause which said that if he played a certain number of games then his contract was automatically renewed for a further season on the same terms (some £40k a week I seem to remember), which he waived in order to play himself into the England squad. Given it's the same club it seems feasible that Brown and Hughes have similar clauses, whereas the club don't want to have to pay them Premiership-level wages for another season.

Players need to be playing and both players will get games elsewhere if they are moved on. They've obviously said to their agents get us a move, otherwise we'll sit tight and take the cash. David James is a different breed of footballer, a guy who would play if the wages were peanuts - he's made a mssive amount of cash by playing Prem football for 15+ years yet still turns out for Bristol City at age 40. I'd written him off as England keeper, and even allowing for the lack of quality in that position it was remarkable how he fought to regain the top spot at the World Cup just before his 40th birthday.

The likes, of Brown and Hughes, on the other hand, would be quite happy to bleed Pompey dry.