Deano6

That article finally clears up how old Kanu really is...

There's 2 within a block of each other in the West Village... Tea and Sympathy Myers of Keswick I've got a photo on my phone of a bottle of ribena with £1.99 printed on the label on sale for $7.99!

Then why are there references to Darren Carter and Calderon in bold, plus David James at the end? Very odd thread.

I don't get this thread. Is is about naming players that used to play for us as well as those that didn't, or is specifically about those who got yellow and red cards yesterday? Sorry, I'm confused about the point being made.

It was all considered, but dismissed. Except the Griffins alternative CVA, which was not mentioned. It's in Mr Mann's judgement that someone posted on the last page. I don't think they would have got a bigger share of the pot with the image rights claim. They would just have been able to block the CVA and force Pompey into liquidation, thus getting 0p in the pound. I think they're still entitled to claim for those amounts (may end up going back to court to prove them), and if successful they would get 20% of the amounts [i think]. This is where the share of the pot for voting doesn't necessarily match the share of the pot for receiving money.

That will happen anyway. It's part of the CVA terms. The current club is getting liqidated and HMRC will be able to pursue the former directors. The NewCo will be formed and the league share will be transferred to it (subject to League approval...possibility for points deductions here). That is a separate issue from whether HMRC could benefit from Parachute Payments.

No he's not saying that. He's saying it's ok the agree a CVA where some creditors get paid more than others if that revenue stream funding the difference would never be available to the other creditors. It's the same as Wimbledon (even tho we may not want it to be). In this case he's saying that if the CVA weren't agreed Pompey would go insolvent and the Premier League wouldn't pay the parachute payments at all. There is just no scenario where HMRC could benefit from them, so they are not being unfairly prejudiced. He notes that HMRC would probably disagree with a few of the assumptions, but decides that's how he sees it (and he's probably right). It is not "just because they have rules that say so" but rather because the parachute payments are at the discretion of the Premier League. Besides, judges get to make (and ammend) the laws.

I'll not be doing anything with it - that's not my bag. But if someone wants to highlight it to anyone else feel free. It's all based on information in the public domain. I've also just read through the Mr Mann's judgement and he does answer a few of the questions I couldn't reconcile (tho not in detail). He talks about the additional £30m odd added to the unsecured creditors and gives it the green light, and also says that disallowing the tax claims on Image Rights and EBT was not an unreasonable approach by the administrators - I'm pretty sure now they will only be 20p in the pound if upheld. I'm more interested in seeing whether they'll be able to limp on and meet their CVA payments. Justice Mann does say there is a commercial risk that they won't, but that the alternative of liquidation would be worse for creditors. It's always been my life's dream to be mixed up with Deppo!

Player sales The CVA document cashflow projections gives player sales of: £14m in this transfer window £4.5m in January 2011 £8m in August 2011 £1.25m in each of the following 2 transfer windows There is no budget to sign any players (with transfer fees) Currently they have sold (some of these are undisclosed fees, so may not be exact) Nadir Belhadj: £3.5m Link Papa Bouba Diop: £750k Link Florent Cuvelier: Nothing? Link Lennard Sowah: Free Link Luke Wilkinson: Nothing? Link That's just over £4m Players likely to be sold KP Boateng: around £5-6m ? various Utaka: £1m ? Link Probably won't be sold Nugent: £2m Link Mokoena: £1.5m (complete guess) Ritchie: £0.2m Link Basically I think they could get close to their first £14m target in this window if they sold everyone now, but how they hope to get any more in future is beyond me. Right, that's enough for now. I'm gonna post this before I manage to delete it. I may look more into this later. I'm interested further in the Chanrai loan and the supposed 28% interest due on it, and whether they'll ultimately be able to make their CVA payments.

Been looking through the CVA doc and various sources to try to get my head round all the figures. I've been trying to guage whether the accepted CVA will work or not, especially given the shortfall in player sales. Fill in the blanks if you know them... HMRC Tax Liability I'm a little unclear as to what the exact figures are here. From what I can gather: Winding Up Order (Feb): £12.1m (£6.8m VAT + Surcharges, £5.3m PAYE & NI) Link First UHY Report (19 April): £17.1m Source (Page 10) UHY CVA Document (28 May): £35.3m Source (Page 17) Final admitted amount: £24m of £37m, with £13m image rights not admitted Link I believe the increases were due to accumulating tax liabilities (and fines from HMRC?), along with the infamous £13m of image rights. I'm not sure of the discrepancy between the £35.3m in the CVA document and the £37m being reported from the court case. Now HMRC will get 20p in the pound on their £24m. What happens if they take the image rights case to court and win? Will they get the full £13m back (which Pompey will have to find) or will it still be 20p in the pound? I suspect the latter, and in fact the last link gives a quote from HMRC talking about "the decision to reduce the amount of our claim for voting purposes". Total value of liabilities That last link also says that the total "No" votes is 18.63%. Assuming this is all related to the £24m from HMRC (I think there were a couple of very minor creditors that also voted no, but insignificant), that would make the total creditors eligable to vote £129m. If anyone else voted no then that amount would have to be higher. In the CVA proposal document (page 10), it states the total value of unsecured creditors is £106m. Page 17 confirms that this includes the increased claim from HMRC from £17.1m to £35.3m, of which we know only £24m was allowed. Subtracting off the £11m difference from £106m (I know reports said image rights were £13m, but that's based off a total figure of £37m) gives total unsecured creditors, per CVA doc, of £95m. It's worth noting here that the accepted £24m, even without the disputed image rights, would be just over 25% of the £95m (depending on rounding since it is very close). However as mentioned above the total admitted votes were £129m. So from somewhere a staggering £34m of additional unsecured creditors were found. Presumably this is the players (eg Kevin Prince Boateng) who were voting on behalf of the remaining wages left on their contracts, which is frankly ridiculous. Total to be paid under CVA It's difficult to know where to start for this one. Per the CVA document (page 10), here were the calcs... Total unsecured creditors: £106m ...less Football Creditors: £22m Revised balance: £83m @ 20 pence in the pound: £16.5m Therefore the amounts to be paid are £22m + £16.5m = £38.5m However if the tax liability is reduced by £13m, then @ 20p in the pound this amount can be reduced by £2.6m. If there are an additional £34m of unsecured creditors (see above) then @ 20p in the pound this amount could be £6.8m higher - or even more if they are football creditors. My guess would be the final CVA amount will be pretty close to what was given in the report, meaning the profile of the amounts allowed for voting and the profile of the amounts to be paid under CVA are wildly different - but then we knew that didn't we! Parachute Payments It's been widely reported that clubs will be receiving £48m of parachute payments: £17m in first year, £15m in second year and £8m in third and fourth years. However it was also revealed in court that they have had some of this advanced. This bit I'm struggling a little bit to get straight, but here are the facts as given by Pompey's QC in court (from same link as above): £11m parachute payment in Jan £1.5m payment in Feb £1.7m payment after went into admin This is where things get a bit hazy. This report by Martin Samuel claimed that on 12 Feb, Richard Scudamore was trying to convince the 19 other clubs to agree to give Pompey the £11m advance. But the QC said this had already been paid in Jan! Further, reports in March had the Premier League denying they would advance their parachute payments. What I do remember is that in January the Premier League diverted £7m of Sky broadcast revenue directly to football creditors rather than pay it to Portsmouth directly. I think maybe this is what the QC was referring to, and it has been erroneously labelled at Parachute Payments, which they are not. I'm really not sure tho. The Samuel report continues, saying that the league had already advanced "about £2m" to all it's members which was "not due for another 2 months". This would seem to correspond to the £1.5m Feb payment mentioned by the QC. The Guardian report yesterday would seem to confirm this happened in Feb. The Guardian report then goes on to say "A further sum is believed to have been paid up front to Pompey once their relegation was confirmed." It's not clear whether this was the £1.7m or the £11m. Again my guess would be it's the £1.7m, but I'm not sure whether it came from parachute payments, or an advance of other payments from the Premier League, such as their £800k of prize money for finishing bottom. Since they were in administration by this point I think the Premier League were more relaxed about intervening by making payments early. Why is this important? Well I'm unclear as to how much of the £48m parachute payments has already been taken up front. Given the above it might appear not very much. Matt Slater disagrees And he is right. When we look at the cash-flow projections in the CVA Document (Appendix , we can see they are due to get the following amounts from the Premier League each August: 2010: £9m 2011: £7m 2012: £6.5m 2013: £6.5m As an aside, it's worth noting that in the same line item ("Premiership / Championship") they receive payments of £1.5m every November and March, which I'm assuming are payments made by the Championship to each of their clubs. This report seems to indicate that Championship clubs receive on average £2.4m per year, depending where they finish (not to be confused with the solidarity payments from the Premier League of a similar amount, which Pomey will not be eilgable for as they have parachute payments - also confirmed in that report). Seeing as they are budgeting £3m per season, I do hope their future solvency is not hinging on them finishing in the top half of the table each year! Comparing those amounts to what we would expect (£17m yr 1; £15m ; £8m ; £8m), gives a difference of: 2010: £8m 2011: £8m 2012: £1.5m 2013: £1.5m a total of £19m reduction from their parachute payments. I'm unsure how this reconciles at the moment... Does it relate to the money already advanced to them? But that doesn't seem to add up to the figures we have seen. Could it relate to the football creditors, who get the first slice at this money? Well, the figures are about right, but the cashflow statement already has football creditors being paid £19.6m in year 1 as an outflow and that would be double counting if it were also deducted from the cash inflow

I apologise to the author - I didn't realise it was an intentional wind-up. Seems to have got quite a few others on here too tho! Now do people get the aim of the column? ;-) Although I tend to agree about the Russian 2018 World Cup bid....

Given Scudamore convinced all 19 other teams to agree to it I'd be surprised if Hull and Burnley had anything to say about it at all.

It's quite rare for an article to be COMPLETE bulls*it, but this article has managed it. It may as well have said "Southampton averaged only just over 40 points in their last 10 seasons in the Premiership, so frankly I can't see them getting any more than 50. Plus no manager with a P in their name has ever won League 1 in a year ending in zero."

I also think we'll get relegated. FFS, at the end of last season I thought we'd be in with a shout of promotion, but what with this preseason and with us not buying midfielders that can be good replacements for the injured ones the only way is down. What I'd give to be a Pompey fan right now.

But that's not good enough. We need to know NOW which one it'll be. And once we know we need to find out the reason why we didn't play as well as we should have, so we know who to boo and chant against when Saturday comes.

Oh hi guys. Just logged on here to post some rumours I heard recently, and noticed this thread which seems like a good place to put it (apologies if it's been posted before): - Papa Waigo may be coming back, apparently he's been in talks - Bart is also in talks and hopes to be staying with us with a new contract - AP and Cortese have a great working relationship and have developed a real rapport together. I've heard this from a couple of sources, but the funniest was my mum knows the tea lady at SMS who says she saw AP and NC walking towards each other down a corridor, and rather than just a polite nod to each other they - without speaking a word - gave each other a high five, and then followed through to hit hands again below (a "low 10" is it?) like they do in the volleyball scene in Top Gun. She and her coworkers were falling about laughing, even tho they weren't supposed to have seen it! That's all I have, don't shoot me down if they don't end up coming to fruition, but each is from a good source.

I thought he had a good game personally and looked quite lively as the game was drawing to a close.

Ooops, forgot to quote the post in question. Never mind...carry on.

What are you talking about?

It's funny that they have decided respond in that way to the suggestion that they export terror.

Ok, bye. See you later.

Not true. Skysports confirms that the contract becomes active on 1st August (Sunday), thereby remaining out of contract for the entire month of July and shafting Pompey for an additional £140k, per this article. I always liked the bloke Quotes...

A link to where you said it in the pub?? I think you are spending too much time on the internet.

I'm sure you similarly tell them that everyone on this board is unanimously against Cortese.