hutch

They're on life support.

It's not that they forgot to apply. They couldn't. They would have been turned down.

It seems that they got what they paid for there then.

Nick, You can relax a bit. There is an impression among some here that, because the WUP went to Court, that the Judge on the day would deal with anything and everything that had a "whiff" of illegality about it, including sending directors to jail. She couldn't. She was confined to the WUP, a civil proceeding against the Company which owns the club. IMO, although I'm not an insolvency practitioner, temporarily trading while insolvent, with a reasonable expectation that something is about to happen (a stupid new owner with money to throw away and no brains, perhaps?) in the near future which will bring an end to that temporary technical insolvency, can be justified. But very risky if the saviour fails to appear, both for the Company and the individuals concerned. That's the card PCFC played. I don't think anybody disputes that the SoA shows that, at that time, they were technically insolvent. But they qualified that with upbeat statements about new owners any day now. So their defence is that a temporary technical insolvency was in the long term best interests of the creditors. They knew they couldn't play that card again, and didn't (and still don't) have any others. So they cooked up an "administration", to stave off the WUP. That fake administration will shortly be exposed and nullified. These things have to take their course. HMRC and the Judge(s) are being ultra careful, given the media spotlight, to make sure that PCFC don't have any grounds for appeal. Phil and others have, correctly IMO, speculated that it's in the PL's interest to find a way of letting Pompey fulfill their fixtures this season, but get relegated. That may extend to the PL standing as guarantor to a new independent administrator, against future payments, to borrow enough to fund a proper administration process. It's in the balance next week. They will either be liquidated, or go into "proper" administration. Nobody's going to pay their bill to HMRC before that. Nothing has happened in the past couple of months to change my humble opinion. They will either start next season in non-league football, or in the CCC with a further points deduction. Either way, their prospects are very bleak. Depending on your definition of toast, they are either toast, or the bread's very, very hot.

IIRC it was documents lodged by close on Friday 12th (4pm), and hearing during w/c 15th. Not necessarily on Monday 15th (personally, I hope it isn't. I will be in Court myself on 15/16/17 on a winding-up related matter - I wouldn't want to miss the fun).

No it doesn't. It correlates with missing several league games because of our cup run(s). Our "dip" in form would have prevented us from improving our position significantly since then, though.

No it doesn't. It correlates with missing several league games because of our cup run(s). Our "dip" in form would have prevented us from improving our position significantly since then, though.

Or was it the £4m that PCFC told the Judge in February that they'd offered to pay to HMRC, but HMRC had refused to accept it? Robbing Peter to pay Paul (and Ethel, and Mavis, and ......).

Or was it the £4m that PCFC told the Judge in February that they'd offered to pay to HMRC, but HMRC had refused to accept it? Robbing Peter to pay Paul (and Ethel, and Mavis, and ......).

I heard that too. I also heard a week ago last Friday that the administrators would IMMEDIATELY address the significant cash burn, and cut costs to the bone.

I heard that too. I also heard a week ago last Friday that the administrators would IMMEDIATELY address the significant cash burn, and cut costs to the bone.

UHY Hacker Young will carry indemnity insurance. Andy will be indemnified by the firm, provided that he acts within the law and the appropriate procedural rules applicable to the administration. I would expect them to be covered against pretty much everything short of "deliberate negligence". And HMRC are only dotting the i's and crossing the t's, after all. If any body was to suffer inadvertently, provided everything is above board, they will be compensated. On that basis, there is no reason NOT to proceed, and, conversely, every reason TO proceed, as quickly as possible. Every day that passes without cutting costs is increasing the debt, and diminishing the return to the creditors.

UHY Hacker Young will carry indemnity insurance. Andy will be indemnified by the firm, provided that he acts within the law and the appropriate procedural rules applicable to the administration. I would expect them to be covered against pretty much everything short of "deliberate negligence". And HMRC are only dotting the i's and crossing the t's, after all. If any body was to suffer inadvertently, provided everything is above board, they will be compensated. On that basis, there is no reason NOT to proceed, and, conversely, every reason TO proceed, as quickly as possible. Every day that passes without cutting costs is increasing the debt, and diminishing the return to the creditors.

So, more than a week down the road, and still not a sign of any administrating being done. Isn't that "curious"? I was staggered a couple of minutes ago to hear Avram Grant on Sky News saying he hasn't even met the administrator yet. I had to rewind it to make sure I hadn't misheard him. And "curiouser"? It's almost as if the whole administration thing isn't real, but just some kind of ruse to avoid a Winding Up Petition. I'm watching the front page of the UHY Hacker Young website. The PR statement announcing their appointment is still on there, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it disappear sometime soon, followed shortly afterwards by a "Fugleresque" meeting of the Senior Partners.

So, more than a week down the road, and still not a sign of any administrating being done. Isn't that "curious"? I was staggered a couple of minutes ago to hear Avram Grant on Sky News saying he hasn't even met the administrator yet. I had to rewind it to make sure I hadn't misheard him. And "curiouser"? It's almost as if the whole administration thing isn't real, but just some kind of ruse to avoid a Winding Up Petition. I'm watching the front page of the UHY Hacker Young website. The PR statement announcing their appointment is still on there, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it disappear sometime soon, followed shortly afterwards by a "Fugleresque" meeting of the Senior Partners.

It doesn't require an expert. These are facts (which I thought we all knew). Chainrai received the equivalent of £17m from Daddy Gaydamak's frozen bank account in Israel, by Court Order, after winning a Court case against him there. Shortly afterwards, and purely by chance, Chainrai lent £17m to a Company called Falcondrone, based in British Virgin Islands. The real identity of the beneficial owner of Falcondrone is unknown.

Now there's a thought. I think you already know the answer to that.

For Tony's peace of mind, I'll have a go at answering this one. I don't think anyone's suggesting that what has gone on w.r.t. the use of Fugler's client account is actually illegal. Not at this stage, anyway. What is being suggested is that payments which are claimed to have happened may not actually have happened, and those which have actually happened may not support the case which has been presented by PCFC. No worries there, Mate.

It has been explicity posted on here recently. But, much more worryingly for the Blue Few, it was floated on here many months ago. But at that time it was as part of an "off the wall" and ludicrous conspiracy theory. As a result of what has transpired since, it is now not only part of the mainstream debate, but most probably true. Any guesses who actually owns Falcondrone? I well remember the comments about where the Falcon in Falcondrone may have come from. The Judge doesn't know. Ali Al-Faraj is one possibility.

Just by way of a quick summary, It started off with a FAKE owner, Gayda Junior Then came the FAKE Doctor, with his FAKE consortium of wealthy men Then came the FAKE Sheikh, with another FAKE consortium of wealthy men Then came the Saviour, with his FAKE loans And they've ended up with a FAKE administrator Has anybody else noticed a bit of a trend here, or is it just me being overly suspicious?

Another nice quote from the comments on the recent "News" article: "I doubt there is any truth in the rumour established by HMRC that the administration has a cloud hanging over it - simply another piece of dirt-mongering. I wonder what the cost of last Tuesday's hearing and the subsequent one-day hearing still to come will be? The Revenue and Customs would think twice about taking this course of action if they were not using public money..." They aren't. If they win, they're using Pompey's money (if they had any).

Not neccessarily. I think that, on balance, he is more likely to be right than wrong.

I don't think we differ here, Guided. Yes, they should play by the rules and do what they're told. But they're at liberty to play the game in any way they see fit, however misguided (no pun intended) that may be. I was speculating on how, based on what I've seen, I think they'll play it, not whether I think it's right, or whether I think they'll win. I agree entirely. I said in my post that, IMO, the Court will NOT appoint Andy & Co. I said that I expect them to ask for that. 100% From the report on the proceedings in the Portsmouth News at http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Pompey-to-go-back-before.6115398.jp "There was also questions raised over money transferred between Balram Chainrai and Falcondrone - the company which owns 90 per cent of Pompey - which the judge said could lead to the administration becoming invalid. The judge has now ordered the club to produce evidence of the payments Portpin ltd has loaned to the club and money paid to Portpin Ltd or Chainrai by Friday, March 12." I think it's common ground that, in the absence of their own bank account, PCFC were "transacting" via their client account at Fuglers at the time in question.

There are a couple of points there, Guided, where we do differ. PCFC can play the game and lift the shadow, by accepting that there might, however unreasonable, be some unwarranted doubt hanging over Andy & Co's. original appointment, accepting the challenge, and proceeding to ask the Court to make the appointment instead of Baloo. They have already said this is in their plans, in a round about sort of way. And, as I understand it, the scrutiny of Fuglers accounts, AT THIS STAGE, is focussed only on whether Baloo is a bona fide creditor or not, and therefore entitled to appoint an administrator. More will, no doubt, follow.