Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

krissyboy31

krissyboy31

Posted
Posted
Errr. email??? Who said it had to be printed?

 

I'm not sure that the High Court are so 'modern' with the way they do things. It probably has to be signed, countersigned and submitted in triplicate.

Amesbury Saint

Amesbury Saint

Posted
Posted
SSN say Portsmouth have yet to receive the report

 

Meaning they have under an hour to get it and hand it to HMRC :)

 

SSN must be wrong.

There is no way PFC would have not received a copy prior to its submission.

krissyboy31

krissyboy31

Posted
Posted
SSN must be wrong.

There is no way PFC would have not received a copy prior to its submission.

 

The reporter has spoken to Vantis and PCFC and the plan was to hand over at 2pm. It still hadn't happened at 2.30 and they spoke to Vantis just before 3 and they could not confirm that it had happened then.

sidthesquid

sidthesquid

Posted
Posted
Here's a possibility (entirely speculation on my part, I hasten to add):

 

It was mentioned in a Guardian article that Vantis had been brought in to Pompey some time back by Tanya Robins, and that when Azougy (who was, of course, never a director at all :D) realised this he immediately gave them their marching orders.

 

Might it be the case that Robins, as FD of PFC, feared that the company may be trading insolvently, and called in accountants - specialists in this field - to investigate? Realising what was going on, Azougy got shot of them as quick as he could. Robbins then resigned as a director, as she could see the way things were headed. As a director she could be liable; as a manager she can't.

 

As I say, pure speculation...

 

I thought I read somewhere that after Chainrai came in she jumped back on the boardroom gravy train

Crab Lungs

Crab Lungs

Posted
Posted
BBC say it has to be presented to HMRC and the court - surely its just for the court as the case is between teh HMRC and PFC?

 

I think we'll hear something before March 1st, depending on whether they can stop laughing in time ;)

Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
I'm not sure that the High Court are so 'modern' with the way they do things. It probably has to be signed, countersigned and submitted in triplicate.

 

Maybe the photocopier broke down whilst it was being triplicated. Where is a photocopy salesman when you need one?

sidthesquid

sidthesquid

Posted
Posted
SSN say Portsmouth have yet to receive the report

 

Meaning they have under an hour to get it and hand it to HMRC :)

 

Boys, there WILL be two copies - one for Poopey, one for the judge

Amesbury Saint

Amesbury Saint

Posted
Posted
Just a simple question.... if the SOA is an independent report, why does it have to be submitted to the board of directors? Can they change any of it, or is it just for their information?

 

As a finance manager, any audit report or SOA I would want to see prior to submision if only to check for errors or to whether prepare my resignation letter!

GenevaSaint

GenevaSaint

Posted
Posted

Not all it seems at Vantis..... Smells big style especially as Vantis were at PFC before the court case as far as we can tell (AFAIK)

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250861/Stars-face-massive-payback-demands-HMRC-probes-2bn-film-tax-loophole.html#ixzz0fo9QKJKl

 

One accountancy firm that directed clients to the film funds now under investigation by Revenue & Customs is Vantis, writes MARTIN DELGADO.

 

Based in Central London and with 1,000 employees across the country, it advises individuals and companies on tax-saving strategies.

 

But last night it became clear that some of its customers did not know how much of their money was being invested with Ingenious. One Vantis client said: 'I have had no paperwork telling me how much I have invested in these film schemes.'

 

Vantis was founded in 2002 from the merger of four accountancy firms, and since then chief executive Paul Jackson has overseen a big expansion.

 

The stock market-listed firm was called in by the High Court last week to investigate Portsmouth Football Club, which is fighting to avoid liquidation.

 

But Vantis has had difficulties of its own. It posted a £6.5million loss for the year to April 2009, forcing it to lay off between 15 and 20 per cent of its staff, according to industry sources.

 

In another embarrassing development, two of its executives were charged last year in connection with an alleged £219million tax scam for wealthy clients involving Gift Aid tax relief on charitable donations.

 

Five people, including Vantis executives David Perrin and Roy Faichney, appeared at Highbury Corner magistrates' court in North London in October.

 

Both men have repeatedly protested their innocence and a spokesman for the company said at the time that the charges would be 'strenuously defended'.

 

Vantis suffered another blow when it was caught up in the fallout from the multi-billion-dollar alleged fraud masterminded by American financier and cricket entrepreneur Allen Stanford, now in a Texas prison awaiting trial.

 

Vantis was unable to collect fees for advisory work carried out on the liquidation of Stanford International Bank because Mr Stanford's assets had, in effect, been frozen by the United States and Switzerland.

Amesbury Saint

Amesbury Saint

Posted
Posted
Not all it seems at Vantis..... Smells big style especially as Vantis were at PFC before the court case as far as we can tell.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250861/Stars-face-massive-payback-demands-HMRC-probes-2bn-film-tax-loophole.html#ixzz0fo9QKJKl

 

One accountancy firm that directed clients to the film funds now under investigation by Revenue & Customs is Vantis, writes MARTIN DELGADO.

 

Based in Central London and with 1,000 employees across the country, it advises individuals and companies on tax-saving strategies.

 

But last night it became clear that some of its customers did not know how much of their money was being invested with Ingenious. One Vantis client said: 'I have had no paperwork telling me how much I have invested in these film schemes.'

 

Vantis was founded in 2002 from the merger of four accountancy firms, and since then chief executive Paul Jackson has overseen a big expansion.

 

The stock market-listed firm was called in by the High Court last week to investigate Portsmouth Football Club, which is fighting to avoid liquidation.

 

But Vantis has had difficulties of its own. It posted a £6.5million loss for the year to April 2009, forcing it to lay off between 15 and 20 per cent of its staff, according to industry sources.

 

In another embarrassing development, two of its executives were charged last year in connection with an alleged £219million tax scam for wealthy clients involving Gift Aid tax relief on charitable donations.

 

Five people, including Vantis executives David Perrin and Roy Faichney, appeared at Highbury Corner magistrates' court in North London in October.

 

Both men have repeatedly protested their innocence and a spokesman for the company said at the time that the charges would be 'strenuously defended'.

 

Vantis suffered another blow when it was caught up in the fallout from the multi-billion-dollar alleged fraud masterminded by American financier and cricket entrepreneur Allen Stanford, now in a Texas prison awaiting trial.

 

Vantis was unable to collect fees for advisory work carried out on the liquidation of Stanford International Bank because Mr Stanford's assets had, in effect, been frozen by the United States and Switzerland.

 

right at home at PFC?

andysstuff

andysstuff

Posted
Posted
Not all it seems at Vantis..... Smells big style especially as Vantis were at PFC before the court case as far as we can tell (AFAIK)

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250861/Stars-face-massive-payback-demands-HMRC-probes-2bn-film-tax-loophole.html#ixzz0fo9QKJKl

 

One accountancy firm that directed clients to the film funds now under investigation by Revenue & Customs is Vantis, writes MARTIN DELGADO.

 

Based in Central London and with 1,000 employees across the country, it advises individuals and companies on tax-saving strategies.

 

But last night it became clear that some of its customers did not know how much of their money was being invested with Ingenious. One Vantis client said: 'I have had no paperwork telling me how much I have invested in these film schemes.'

 

Vantis was founded in 2002 from the merger of four accountancy firms, and since then chief executive Paul Jackson has overseen a big expansion.

 

The stock market-listed firm was called in by the High Court last week to investigate Portsmouth Football Club, which is fighting to avoid liquidation.

 

But Vantis has had difficulties of its own. It posted a £6.5million loss for the year to April 2009, forcing it to lay off between 15 and 20 per cent of its staff, according to industry sources.

 

In another embarrassing development, two of its executives were charged last year in connection with an alleged £219million tax scam for wealthy clients involving Gift Aid tax relief on charitable donations.

 

Five people, including Vantis executives David Perrin and Roy Faichney, appeared at Highbury Corner magistrates' court in North London in October.

 

Both men have repeatedly protested their innocence and a spokesman for the company said at the time that the charges would be 'strenuously defended'.

 

Vantis suffered another blow when it was caught up in the fallout from the multi-billion-dollar alleged fraud masterminded by American financier and cricket entrepreneur Allen Stanford, now in a Texas prison awaiting trial.

 

Vantis was unable to collect fees for advisory work carried out on the liquidation of Stanford International Bank because Mr Stanford's assets had, in effect, been frozen by the United States and Switzerland.

Now this report suggests the High Court appointed vantis which if correct means that PFC board won't get to see the report before the court

qwertySFC

qwertySFC

Posted
Posted

Is there actually anything associated with the Fishy Circus that does not have a dodgy background , Vantis just adds fuel to the fire..

 

You really couldn't make it up

aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted

Surely the Court should have someone independent to produce the SOA?

 

I don't see the point in getting some dodgy tax avoidance people, employed by pompey, to do it, they could write any old ******.

sussexsaint

sussexsaint

Posted
Posted
Sky say that Pompey have altered the document from how Vectis originally submitted it to them.

 

How the hell are they allowed to do that if it has to be collated by an independant firm?

 

presumably it was the adding on and taking away of 00's

krissyboy31

krissyboy31

Posted
Posted
Surely the Court should have someone independent to produce the SOA?

 

I don't see the point in getting some dodgy tax avoidance people, employed by pompey, to do it, they could write any old ******.

 

But it all just stokes up HMRC's fire.

GenevaSaint

GenevaSaint

Posted
Posted

Auditors for Vantis’s interim results warned shareholders that “material uncertainties associated with receipts from the Stanford insolvency ... may cast significant doubt on the company’s ability to continue as a going concern”.

 

Not P*mpey but Vantis, the circus continues, you really really couldn't make it up.

dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted
Apparently there were one or two things that PCFC wanted added to the report after they received it.

 

Vantis probably couldn't keep up and had mistakenly put in last week's owners/Directors/Shadow Directors names:D

Winchester Red

Winchester Red

Posted
Posted
How the hell are they allowed to do that if it has to be collated by an independant firm?

 

presumably it was the adding on and taking away of 00's

 

PFC would have wanted to add some gloss to the facts.

 

Stuff like we are confident that a takeover will be in place soon and our biggest 2 creditors are thinking about writing off the £45m we owe them...... but they want a few years to think about it....

krissyboy31

krissyboy31

Posted
Posted
Vantis probably couldn't keep up and had mistakenly put in last week's owners/Directors/Shadow Directors names:D

 

I heard Westw**d had melted down his bell as scrap and donated it to the club. That's an extra tenner in the income column.

Guest Dark Sotonic Mills

Guest Dark Sotonic Mills

Posted
Posted
That was what I was hinting at (probably badly), but I presume she would still be in trouble personally if they were found to be trading insolvently? It would be pretty obvious as to the reason she resigned as FD, after all...

 

If she was a Director at any point they were trading whilst insolvent, she is liable for legal sanctions.

Foxy

Foxy

Posted
Posted
Foxy i am beginning to worry about your state of mind

 

Well the penalty would be set by a judge, right? So from all I have ever heard about them they're, ahem, broad minded. That said Avram probably has to pay extra for that sort of thing so it mightn't be too much of a punishment.

 

Either way the idea of the lettuce isn't a nice one, so there will be no side salad with the Fox family meal this evening

Shrek

Shrek

Posted
Posted

Saw the mayor being driven towards Fratton earlier, perhaps to switch the last light off or ring that bloody awful bell for the last time?

Guest Dark Sotonic Mills

Guest Dark Sotonic Mills

Posted
Posted
Statement of Affairs has reached the high court.

 

I can hear the guffaws from here...

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...