Apparently the new owners will be running the club on a strict budget, and the profile of Burley is certainly higher than I was expecting, he seems to have a good record with clubs on a restricted budget, and likes to encourage young players, so its looking good.
As for alleged drinking problems, it doesn't seem to have done Alex any harm in sunny Manchester.
You could say Burley is the Southampton version of your Alan Pardew (If that make sense)
Below average manager, likes to drink, likes to spend, likes to drop star strikers.
He is one of many reasons we ended up in administration.[/quote]
How can you blame a manager for one of the reasons you went into administration? Rupert Lowe and co sanctioned the transfers and contracts, not Burley. The protests, one against Palace funnily enough suggested the board were to blame and everybody knew Lowe was a c*nt.
I'm happy to have him at Palace. Got a decent club record overall, would of loved Sean O'driscoll but although the new consortium said there is money to spend, I'd be surprised if they spend much.
You could say Burley is the Southampton version of your Alan Pardew (If that make sense)
Below average manager, likes to drink, likes to spend, likes to drop star strikers.
He is one of many reasons we ended up in administration.
How can you blame a manager for one of the reasons you went into administration? Rupert Lowe and co sanctioned the transfers and contracts, not Burley. The protests, one against Palace funnily enough suggested the board were to blame and everybody knew Lowe was a c*nt.
I'm happy to have him at Palace. Got a decent club record overall, would of loved Sean O'driscoll but although the new consortium said there is money to spend, I'd be surprised if they spend much.
Because the board at the time gave him £7m to get us promoted. He was fully aware that we needed promotion but he fooked that £7m on a bunch fo crap.
We just managed to get into the play offs on the last day of the season.
[cite]Posted By: Addickted[/cite]It would be nice if they spent more than the 1p in the £1 on those businesses Palace owe money to.
Bet you're missing that Palace in administration thread.............
Don't you agree though?
Well yes and No, to be honest. I have from day one said that it's entirely wrong the way football clubs are allowed to use/treat administration as an escape route, and the whole prefered football creditors issue, just stinks. So that's my Yes.
The No is, that as long as the rules are the way they are then it makes no sense at all for the new owners to pay debts of the previous owners, the new owners played no part in the carnage created by SJ, they have just thrashed out the best deal for themselves, and all the times the rules allow this, then this will continue to happen...........that's business, nobody said it was nice or fair, but it is what it is.
[cite]Posted By: WestStandCookie[/cite]Portsmouth are paying back 20p in the £1 to their creditors over 5 years - I suppose their debt is a bit larger than the Stripey Nigels though.
I don't think Portsmouth are going to be splashing the cash any time soon, unlike the Palace consortium's promises. I don't like the administration or coming out of administration rules, but the very least I expect is that the new buyers do their best to pay off debts to ordinary creditors, even if that means the club is cash-strapped for a few years. As far as I know, Southampton paid their debts in full, so it's not unheard of. If Palace go three or four years without spending on player transfers, then I won't begrudge them the 1p in the £ deal. Something tells me that won't be the case and they'll be buying players sooner rather than later.
Son of Selhurst, Palace got a lot of sympathy from other football fans. Shame that Palace fans don't have any real sympathy for the ordinary people who lose out as a result of this "deal". You don't like the rules, but as far as you're concerned, they're just a convenient loophole.
Son of Selhurst, Palace got a lot of sympathy from other football fans. Shame that Palace fans don't have any real sympathy for the ordinary people who lose out as a result of this "deal". You don't like the rules, but as far as you're concerned, they're just a convenient loophole.
All very fair comments, however as a fan of a club in that situation, all you can really hope for, is for the club to exit administration, in as fit a state as possible.
I'm not aware of Charltons particular state, but I know administration was considered a possibility recently, if this was to happen, then surely as a Charlton fan, your only real concern was that your club continued to exist, regardless of whom the money was owed to.
Portsmouths situation is unique, as I believe a lot of there debt is being financed by the parachute payments, Palaces buyers weren't in that situation, and I don't know where you have read that they will be splashing the cash, my understanding, is that they are going to be very prudent.
[cite]Posted By: WestStandCookie[/cite]Portsmouth are paying back 20p in the £1 to their creditors over 5 years - I suppose their debt is a bit larger than the Stripey Nigels though.[/quote
Son of Selhurst, Palace got a lot of sympathy from other football fans. Shame that Palace fans don't have any real sympathy for the ordinary people who lose out as a result of this "deal". You don't like the rules, but as far as you're concerned, they're just a convenient loophole.
Absolute bollox, I have said consistantly that this process, is floored, incorrect and actually imoral! But wake up! All the time the rules allow this, then people will use/bend them. That's not specific to Palace, it's human nature, you have lived in the real world have'nt you?
As an aside, I'll wait to observe you moral disgust when CAFC use administration to restructure their finances..................
[quote][cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]Really hope the CVA gets blocked.
What palace are trying to get away with should be criminal.[/quote]
We were put in administration by Agilo. Jordan should never of got the club into the mess it was admittedly, but Agilo were responsible for putting us in admin.
I feel for the creditors, it's not on that they're getting back 1p in the £1. But let's be honest, it's not the fault of the CPFC2010 consortium so why should they pay for Jordan's mess? Baring in mind Agilo are getting around 90% of their money back so in effect we're paying back much more than people give them credit for.
Our situation was very different to Southampton's. Let's not forget they tried to cheat the points deduction and the Football league rightly stopped that happening.
[cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]Really hope the CVA gets blocked.
What palace are trying to get away with should be criminal.
We were put in administration by Agilo. Jordan should never of got the club into the mess it was admittedly, but Agilo were responsible for putting us in admin.
I feel for the creditors, it's not on that they're getting back 1p in the £1. But let's be honest, it's not the fault of the CPFC2010 consortium so why should they pay for Jordan's mess? Baring in mind Agilo are getting around 90% of their money back so in effect we're paying back much more than people give them credit for.
Our situation was very different to Southampton's. Let's not forget they tried to cheat the points deduction and the Football league rightly stopped that happening.
So CPFC have done a deal with Agilo whereby they get back 90p on the £1, but the other creditors like HMRC, St Johns Ambulance and about 400 other local businesses get shafted?
What about the long term ST holders? Do they get to watch one home match every four seasons? Or are they being treated as preferential creditors by your saviours?
Oh, and CPFC2010 have negotiated with the largest creditor to ensure a CVA is agreed, whereby you don't get a further points deduction to start the coming season - so cheating, but unlike Southampton, you'll be getting away with it.
[cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]Really hope the CVA gets blocked.
What palace are trying to get away with should be criminal.
We were put in administration by Agilo. Jordan should never of got the club into the mess it was admittedly, but Agilo were responsible for putting us in admin.
I feel for the creditors, it's not on that they're getting back 1p in the £1. But let's be honest, it's not the fault of the CPFC2010 consortium so why should they pay for Jordan's mess? Baring in mind Agilo are getting around 90% of their money back so in effect we're paying back much more than people give them credit for.
Our situation was very different to Southampton's. Let's not forget they tried to cheat the points deduction and the Football league rightly stopped that happening.
So CPFC have done a deal with Agilo whereby they get back 90p on the £1, but the other creditors like HMRC, St Johns Ambulance and about 400 other local businesses get shafted?
What about the long term ST holders? Do they get to watch one home match every four seasons? Or are they being treated as preferential creditors by your saviours?
Oh, and CPFC2010 have negotiated with the largest creditor to ensure a CVA is agreed, whereby you don't get a further points deduction to start the coming season - so cheating, but unlike Southampton, you'll be getting away with it.
It stinks and you know it.
Surprised you included St Johns Ambulance in that, as I'm sure you know that the Palace fans repaid all that was owed, plus extra.
It's been said many times already though, if Charlton were in the same position they would do exactly the same.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Covered End[/cite]Charlton would do the same as would any club. Sour grapes. It's the rules that are wrong, but we escaped our debts in 1984.[/quote]
Yes we did and Palace,if im not mistaken,escaped theirs in 1986,2000 and now 2010? Rules are rules though,wrong as they are!
Comments
Allegedly
You could say Burley is the Southampton version of your Alan Pardew (If that make sense)
Below average manager, likes to drink, likes to spend, likes to drop star strikers.
He is one of many reasons we ended up in administration.
Still hope for Palace, then.
;o)
Apparently the new owners will be running the club on a strict budget, and the profile of Burley is certainly higher than I was expecting, he seems to have a good record with clubs on a restricted budget, and likes to encourage young players, so its looking good.
As for alleged drinking problems, it doesn't seem to have done Alex any harm in sunny Manchester.
higgins?
You could say Burley is the Southampton version of your Alan Pardew (If that make sense)
Below average manager, likes to drink, likes to spend, likes to drop star strikers.
He is one of many reasons we ended up in administration.[/quote]
How can you blame a manager for one of the reasons you went into administration? Rupert Lowe and co sanctioned the transfers and contracts, not Burley. The protests, one against Palace funnily enough suggested the board were to blame and everybody knew Lowe was a c*nt.
I'm happy to have him at Palace. Got a decent club record overall, would of loved Sean O'driscoll but although the new consortium said there is money to spend, I'd be surprised if they spend much.
Agree 100%
Sean O'Driscoll... yeah right.
Bet you're missing that Palace in administration thread.............
It'll be back next year!
Shortly after the Charlton in Administration thread then...........
Because the board at the time gave him £7m to get us promoted. He was fully aware that we needed promotion but he fooked that £7m on a bunch fo crap.
We just managed to get into the play offs on the last day of the season.
Well yes and No, to be honest. I have from day one said that it's entirely wrong the way football clubs are allowed to use/treat administration as an escape route, and the whole prefered football creditors issue, just stinks. So that's my Yes.
The No is, that as long as the rules are the way they are then it makes no sense at all for the new owners to pay debts of the previous owners, the new owners played no part in the carnage created by SJ, they have just thrashed out the best deal for themselves, and all the times the rules allow this, then this will continue to happen...........that's business, nobody said it was nice or fair, but it is what it is.
I don't think Portsmouth are going to be splashing the cash any time soon, unlike the Palace consortium's promises. I don't like the administration or coming out of administration rules, but the very least I expect is that the new buyers do their best to pay off debts to ordinary creditors, even if that means the club is cash-strapped for a few years. As far as I know, Southampton paid their debts in full, so it's not unheard of. If Palace go three or four years without spending on player transfers, then I won't begrudge them the 1p in the £ deal. Something tells me that won't be the case and they'll be buying players sooner rather than later.
Son of Selhurst, Palace got a lot of sympathy from other football fans. Shame that Palace fans don't have any real sympathy for the ordinary people who lose out as a result of this "deal". You don't like the rules, but as far as you're concerned, they're just a convenient loophole.
What palace are trying to get away with should be criminal.
Rumour: CAFC in administration by Christmas. Mind you, if we get 1.5M for Bailey, perhaps not?
What palace are trying to get away with should be criminal.[/quote]
We were put in administration by Agilo. Jordan should never of got the club into the mess it was admittedly, but Agilo were responsible for putting us in admin.
I feel for the creditors, it's not on that they're getting back 1p in the £1. But let's be honest, it's not the fault of the CPFC2010 consortium so why should they pay for Jordan's mess? Baring in mind Agilo are getting around 90% of their money back so in effect we're paying back much more than people give them credit for.
Our situation was very different to Southampton's. Let's not forget they tried to cheat the points deduction and the Football league rightly stopped that happening.
So CPFC have done a deal with Agilo whereby they get back 90p on the £1, but the other creditors like HMRC, St Johns Ambulance and about 400 other local businesses get shafted?
What about the long term ST holders? Do they get to watch one home match every four seasons? Or are they being treated as preferential creditors by your saviours?
Oh, and CPFC2010 have negotiated with the largest creditor to ensure a CVA is agreed, whereby you don't get a further points deduction to start the coming season - so cheating, but unlike Southampton, you'll be getting away with it.
It stinks and you know it.
Surprised you included St Johns Ambulance in that, as I'm sure you know that the Palace fans repaid all that was owed, plus extra.
It's been said many times already though, if Charlton were in the same position they would do exactly the same.
It's the rules that are wrong, but we escaped our debts in 1984.
It's the rules that are wrong, but we escaped our debts in 1984.[/quote]
Yes we did and Palace,if im not mistaken,escaped theirs in 1986,2000 and now 2010? Rules are rules though,wrong as they are!
Marriage made in heaven.