angelman

Didn't Matthew Harding leave some money to SFC in his will, as he considered us Chelsea by the Sea?

I presume that is aimed at me. As someone who has a severely mentally retarded kid, I think that I might know a bit more than some others. I suppose that this was aimed at me again. I don't think that "we" all laugh at people's mental antics.

if Thorpe had bothered to quote the last bit then he shouldn't be offended, although to be fair to you solentstars, you do say what I said. Which was that (using the example of headaches) that there were sure to be bona fide examples which get sullied by those that have bogus "claims".

You are totally wrong. You should google Civil List and see the history of it. You should also look up the Crown Estate website and look at their accounts. Basically the income from the Crown Estate goes to the government and in return for this, the Civil List is paid. The Crown Estate contributes more than the amount given back in form of the Civil List. And then there is the business/tourism that they bring in, etc etc. And I quite like the quaintness of it - much better them than a president. (I suppose you could ask how the Crown Estate was amassed in the first place). As for IB scroungers, they annoy me. My son is on the higher rate because he is missing a chromosome and that has screwed him up. We went through lots of doctors reports etc to get any benefit. I would also look at the doctors who have given reports for the fraudsters and take them to task. Apparently of the 2.5m who claim, as many as 1.75m are either on the wrong rate or shouldn't be getting IB at all. Depression - what is the point of getting IB and then staying at home all day? What these people need to do is get a job and get out into the world rather than mope around the house all day. There are a few thousand that claim because they say that they are too fat to work - bull. Those with headaches possibly should have their eyes tested and get some glasses. Etc etc. While no doubt there are some who do have a valid reason like headaches, there are far too many who sully the waters for them.

Would that be because no one else out there can see how cr*p he really is? Most people like to see their assets in the shop window for as long as possible, where they can show off their talents!

Verbal contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on, as the old but very true cliché goes. And why would someone of Kanu's (dubious) age not have it in writing? Smells a bit fishy to me.

To be honest I am bored with Pompey now and don't care what happens to them. I am much more interested in seeing AA royaly shafted and Chainrai losing all his money. Primarily AA. If HMRC shaft Poopey as well, then that's a bonus and of course it would be good to see them having a few "obstacles" placed in their way.

I am a little confused about a couple of things, and hope someone can explain: 1) Paul Hart. If footballer's wages and bonuses are secured why is PH an unsecured creditor? 2) Gayboy - why has he written off £24m (if we do believe that he and Chainrai are not connected)? He sold the club and hasn't been paid for it or possibly he has been paid but made loans to the club. If the former, then surely this above all else is a football debt as it is THE club. If the £30m were loans, why are they treated differently from Chainrai's which are secured? But above all, it seems very strange that Gayboy has kissed good by to £24m (unless of course there is some dodginess going on and surely that wouldn't be the case now, would it!?)

LOL Paul Hart. But why isn't he and Smith's agent footballing creditors?

Is it really surprising? These debts can be off set against tax, so might not end up being that much. And when the phoenix company arises from the ashes, who do you think will get the business?

Even if the embargo is lifted, they might find it hard to sign players. Agents have been stung and clubs haven't been paid on time. Therefore they might have to work on cash with order, rather than the more usual deferred payment method. To be honest you would have to be crazy to accept a deferred payment until a new owner is in place. I still am not sure that anyone will buy the club, so that would mean that Chainrai would have to finance it himself. Unless he has some epiphany and decides that he loves football and Pompey, is he likely to dip into his pocket even more?

I'm not so sure that it is a good thing to get HMRC under 25%. If they did that then I could imagine that it would end up in court quick smart. And if they start playing games with HMRC, HMRC might play their remaining ace. That is fines and charges for erroneous payments which can be levied at 100% of what is outstanding, ie doubling what they are owed. As I have said before, you really don't want to play brinkmanship with HMRC. If you do, you have to be 100% certain of your position - 99% isn't good enough - and in this case, I can't believe that AA can possibly be anywhere near 100% certain of his position.

I too find this ceiling of £10,000 per week risible. THEY HAVE NO MONEY. Maybe the ceiling should be £5000 per week or even £2500 per week. I think that you would be able to get a lot of professional football players playing for your team for that amount. Whether they can be competitive in the CCC is immaterial. AA has a duty to pay the creditors rather than making sure that PFC can compete in CCC. £10k a week is £520,000 a year. Not a bad wage!! £5k is £260,000 a year. £2.5k a week is £130,000 a year. I imagine that most people on here would be happy with £2.5k a week, let alone £10k a week. If I was a creditor, I would be mighty ****ed off with AA saying that he is prepared to still pay ridiculous wages - frankly £10k a week for most/all players is far too much, especially when THERE IS NO MONEY and huge debts still outstanding. I know some get paid £125k a week but that is the insanity that is modern football.

Agree. If you are owed a lot and see the HMRC are going to vote against the CVA, you will most likely then think that your chances of getting more back are higher if you stick with HMRC. As discussed, whether it makes more sense to write off the whole lot against your tax is another question.

Why do they have to go to Malta to have a FL meeting? Somewhat typifies the wastefulness of the people in charge. Hope they sort things out and knock AA down a few pegs as it's about time he has more to winge about

So not really any point in accepting the CVA then if it is 20p over a number of years. I presume that Gaydamak might be able to write off the £30m as well, so it is only HMRC who would lose out as he can't write it off. So maybe it would be best if HMRC was under 25% of unsecured debt, and the rest refuse the CVA. People are saying that it would be better for HMRC to accept something rather than nothing (in the event of a liquidation). I am not sure what their long term view on this is, and might they not accept a liquidation in order to try and avoid problems with other clubs in the future. While they may lose out now (presuming that the directors couldn't afford to pay any of it), maybe in the long run they will save money. If they do accept CVA, I think that I might try this and run up huge debts while enjoying life, and then offer to pay 20% over 4 years. Once HMRC set a precedence, isn't it just asking for trouble and again it might cost more in the long run when a plethora of companies use this in court.

Question about CVA and suppliers. If a CVA is agreed at 20p, I presume that 80p is written off by suppliers and off set against tax. Therefore the 20p is still outstanding, and as a debt owing, no doubt it is accruing interest by the supplier's bank, say at 4%. Might it not be better for some suppliers to off set 100p against tax and refuse to accept the CVA at 20p? Need someone good at accounts here......Say you are owed £50k. You write off 80% and are owed £10k under the CVA. Interest £10k @ 4% = £400 £7.5k @ 4% = £300 £5k @ 4% = £200 £2.5k @ 4% = £100 So you might end up with £1000 interest charges, or 10% of the 20p. I know the figure is probably a bit high, but I would have thought that it would be better to write off 100% against tax rather than take this ridiculous 20p over 5 years. Off course Gaydamak and HMRC are slightly different!

The Skates might be OK from their advanced season ticket sales..... http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Pompey-season-ticket-sales-off.6319666.jp

Does the ceiling of £10k a week apply to the manager as well? If so will David James "throw away" £1.5m a year to become their manager? I think not!

As someone who has a disabled kid, I suppose that I have to agree with the both of you. Having said that, life's got too many problems to get worked up by what people think is funny.

and possibly Cardiff, so that may be 3. I think Cardiff are really banking on promotion or bust, so we should know in a week's time. So that is 3 clubs at in CCC who seem to think that they don't have to pay the taxman, while I slog my guts out and get raped by him.

"The board of the club face a challenging economic climate and is disappointed that HMRC have taken this action in respect of a debt which is around 20 days overdue. "We will be looking at our options to solve the issue next week." I run my own small business and the thought of not paying my tax bill or being late with it never even crosses my mind. In fact quite the opposite. I am getting a little ****ed off that these football clubs seems to think that they can tell the tax man to wait a bit while they sort their other problems out. Basically they have run the club badly and over spent in the attempt either to get promoted or to be competitive in the league, and think that the tax man is not the most important person to pay. Why do football clubs think that normal business practice is not applicable to them? I am sure that it has something to do with the football creditors rule, and to be honest the sooner that is scrapped the better. Disappointed that HMRC has taken this action - well they are either very, very naive or very, very stupid but most likely both. Looking at options to solve it - easy. Pay your bloody tax bill. At this rate we may be promoted to CCC before the end of the World Cup.

I think Andronikou thinks he is a clever. What he fails to realise is that HMRC will let him dig his own grave and then shaft him good and proper. Anyone who thinks that they can get one over HMRC is not overly intelligent. If it is obvious to us that he is trying to make sure that HMRC cannot block a CVA, then it will most certainly be obvious to HMRC. How they can determine what the debt is without doing a forensic investigation of the books is a mystery to me. If AA does manage to swing it so that HMRC appears to have less than 25%, then I imagine that it will end up in court again with forensic accounts being called in to go over the books. I realise that they want to do this 9 months down the road and once a new company has been set up, but if he tries to freeze out HMRC I suspect that they will dump on him from a very big height. I am not sure if what he is doing is fraudulent or not, but if a custodial sentence is the punishment, then I wouldn't be surprised if they go after him.

Do people really expect the club to be bought even if there is a CVA? Is Chainrai going to finance it when there is no buyer on the horizon? I sincerely hope that he looses alot of money in this. I do feel sorry for the fans (well maybe only just a little bit) who have had their club used as some part of vendetta. I personally would probably buy Reading for less. At least they have a squad, a modern ground that holds more than FP and that is owned by them rather than some money lender, a similar population, in the right half of the country, they are up for sale and have been for a while, no potential on the horizon for further points deduction, no bad name like Poopey, the list goes on and on. As do the number of more attractive clubs. Why, in this day and age of supposed austerity, would anyone buy Poopey for footballing reasons?