One of the reasons for the debate's being fortuitous is that we should be looking to the premiership to put together some safety net for clubs in that position. The premiership cannot deny that it has some responsibility for what has happened, and I believe that it owes it to clubs such as Portsmouth—and more importantly, the people who pay week after week to watch the matches, whether on a big screen or live in a stadium—to show them some loyalty, perhaps by bailing out situations like the one in Portsmouth, just to keep the club in being.
As the Sky sports commentator said,"““the difference between administration and liquidation is the difference between intensive care and burial.””"
Liquidation would mean the immediate end to Portsmouth's season and the club, but administration might give it just enough time in intensive care to make a case to stay in existence. The premiership owes that to teams like Portsmouth, and it owes it to football to do something to protect the interests of the fans, which it has neglected since it has been involved.
Professional Football (Regulation)
Proceeding contribution from
Mike Hancock
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 10 February 2010.
It occurred during Adjournment debate on Professional Football (Regulation).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
505 c308WH 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-05 23:37:20 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_621925
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_621925
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_621925