Portsmouth finished?

[Kenneth]

Perhaps it's for the best that they go out of business then if their entire business model / plan is dependent on him taking a 20k wage cut.
I don't think there's too many empolyees who'd be keen on taking what amounts to an 80% wage cut.

He and his agent probably know fine well that in England footballers are classed as secured creditors and get first dibs on any money generated by the liquidation of a football club.

as I said earlier, although the player doesn't need the money and could afford it, so could the potential owner. People seem to want him to effectively give money he is contractually entitled to to the new owner, who also is also rich enough to afford it too.

[RichC]

Don't be so simplistic.

It's not hard to understand if the club goes out of business he won't get paid anyway, so whats the use in him holding out for the wages that some idiot agreed to earlier if he's not going to get them and actually end up out of a job unless thats what he's hoping for ?

[spud_gun]

It's not the same and you know it, if this was happening at Liverpool you'd be up in arms at this if it was going to drive the club out of business, football is emotive and not a hard and fast business as you have a responsibility to all the people that made the club exisit i.e. the fans.

It's really not hard to understand, if he doesn't agree to take a pay cut the club goes out of business, he's not the only one I am sure.

So would you accept it if say Gerrard didn't take a pay cut Liverpool would go out of business? See it from a fans point of view, football is far more than a business with a P&L sheet.

He will not be responsible for Pompey going out of business. What's happening here is tantamount to blackmail. Years of financial mismanagement are now resting at this players door. Through no fault of his own he's being named as the person who'll drive Portsmouth out of business if he doesn't accept a draconian 80% wage cut?

As for a similar situation occurring at Liverpool I wouldn't be directing my ire at the individual player. It'd be directed at the person / persons who handed out such outlandish contracts.

[dom9]

I fail to see this 'he's being greedy' train of thought. He signed a contract for X amount. Is it being greedy to expect X amount to be paid?

That's a fairly ****ish move to pull.

As for not getting paid. He probably stands more chance of getting his entire contract paid IF Portsmouth get liquidated. As i said eariler all footballing creditors are classed as secured creditors in England and will get the first dibs on the money raised through the sale of the liquidated clubs assets.

Perhaps that's what he and his agent have his eye on.

Looks like a contradiction to me.

How can it not be 'greedy' to force any company, let alone a 120 year old local institution go out of business simply because you want what you are owed by your contract? If it boils down to that simple, stark choice, then insisting on the full wage at everybody else's claims, entitlement, living, and emotional expense is the definition of greed, no?

Or are you just playing devil's advocate?

[spud_gun]

Don't be so simplistic.

It's not hard to understand if the club goes out of business he won't get paid anyway, so whats the use in him holding out for the wages that some idiot agreed to earlier if he's not going to get them and actually end up out of a job unless thats what he's hoping for ?

See my eariler point about footballers being secured creditors.

[spud_gun]

Looks like a contradiction to me.

How can it not be 'greedy' to force any company, let alone a 120 year old local institution go out of business simply because you want what you are owed by your contract? If it boils down to that simple, stark choice, then insisting on the full wage at everybody else's claims, entitlement, living, and emotional expense is the definition of greed, no?

Or are you just playing devil's advocate?

Being greedy would be to claim over and above what you're entitled to, no?

Is he doing that? No.

He's claiming what his contract says he's entitled to.

I fail to see how he can be accused of being greedy in this situation.

[dom9]

Being greedy would be to claim over and above what you're entitled to, no?

Is he doing that? No.

He's claiming what his contract says he's entitled to.

I fail to see how he can be accused of being greedy in this situation.

It is greed if you insist on getting what you are owed at the expense of absolutely everybody else.

The pot is finite. To insist on a disproportionately unfair share, is greedy.

Sure, it's not his fault the club are in that position, but that is not the point. The point is, that for the club to get out of that position, sacrifices have to be made by everyone. Anything less, boils down to greed.

It really is not hard to understand.

[Gingawaria]

He will not be responsible for Pompey going out of business. What's happening here is tantamount to blackmail. Years of financial mismanagement are now resting at this players door. Through no fault of his own he's being named as the person who'll drive Portsmouth out of business if he doesn't accept a draconian 80% wage cut?

As for a similar situation occurring at Liverpool I wouldn't be directing my ire at the individual player. It'd be directed at the person / persons who handed out such outlandish contracts.

A 'draconian' wage cut that would still see him earning in the region of 250k a year...poor lamb.

[spud_gun]

It is greed if you insist on getting what you are owed at the expense of absolutely everybody else.

The pot is finite. To insist on a disproportionately unfair share, is greedy.

Sure, it's not his fault the club are in that position, but that is not the point. The point is, that for the club to get out of that position, sacrifices have to be made by everyone. Anything less, boils down to greed.

It really is not hard to understand.

Fair points.

I still contend that it's not greed because it's what he's contractually entitled to.

We'll leave it at that though as i dare say we'll just go round in circles.

[dom9]

Fair points.

I still contend that it's not greed because it's what he's contractually entitled to.

We'll leave it at that though as i dare say we'll just go round in circles.

Yup. 2 laps is plenty.

[spud_gun]

A 'draconian' wage cut that would still see him earning in the region of 250k a year...poor lamb.

80% wage cut isn't draconian?

[Kenneth]

It is greed if you insist on getting what you are owed at the expense of absolutely everybody else.

The pot is finite. To insist on a disproportionately unfair share, is greedy.

Sure, it's not his fault the club are in that position, but that is not the point. The point is, that for the club to get out of that position, sacrifices have to be made by everyone. Anything less, boils down to greed.

It really is not hard to understand.

Yes, including, and especially, the greed of the potential owner, who is haggling with the administrators because he wants the best deal. Seems very harsh to call the player greedy for doing the same.

The pot is finite, but it is not clear what the pot actually is. The contract renegotiation is an arbitary condition the buyer has placed on the purchase. Why not buy it and then try to renegotiate them directly himself? He is using their position to blackmail the players for his own ends. The administrator has chosen to publically shame a few players to force their hand, which I think is out of order. i can only assume the administrator is writing off 80% of his fee also.

[ChesterDave]

Ben Haim taking a 5K cut isn't a solution, let alone a £20k cut to drop his wages to £5k.

A real solution would be having that Chainrai nowhere near the club and told to piss off on his ****ty claim for £17,000,000

The club doesn't owe him the money, the guy who borrowed it does and quite frankly if you lend someone you have never met £17,000,000 to buy an asset you don't want if they default then you deserve to lose the money.

[dom9]

Yes, including, and especially, the greed of the potential owner, who is haggling with the administrators because he wants the best deal. Seems very harsh to call the player greedy for doing the same.

The pot is finite, but it is not clear what the pot actually is. The administer has chosen to publically shame a few players to force their hand, which I think is out of order. i can only assume the administrator is writing off 80% of his fee also.

You seem to be implying that I think the player is the only greedy one.

Well of course he's not. As you have pointed out.

[RichC]

the mis-management of Portsmouth has been astounding, these apparent fit and proper persons tests that are supposedly in place are a joke.