trousers Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 So, if football debts are repaid in full then the unsecured debt would drop to 70 million, and HMRC's 17.1 million is 24.4% of the unsecured debt total which would mean they can not block the CVA.... quite handy..... With AA's past track record of inflating debt in precisely this sort of scenario I can't imagine HMRC are going to be particularly happy with this 24.4% figure. Perhaps Markus could offer to pay some of the other smaller creditors a coincidently similar amount to that which they are owed by PFC so that they withdraw themselves from the creditor list thus boosting the HMRC percentage....? Just a thought....
JackFrost Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Perhaps Markus could offer to pay some of the other smaller creditors a coincidently similar amount to that which they are owed by PFC so that they withdraw themselves from the creditor list thus boosting the HMRC percentage....? Just a thought.... that would confirm his "legend" status :wink:
Doctoroncall Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 F*** me. What a disaster Poopey are. If "football debt" is classified as unpaid transfer fee's, unpaid salaries/bonuses and unpaid agents fees then this is 21.2 million, which needs to be stumped up for them to continue playing. 91 million of unsecured debts, and HMRC owed 17 million. Secured debt of 14 million. So, if football debts are repaid in full then the unsecured debt would drop to 70 million, and HMRC's 17.1 million is 24.4% of the unsecured debt total which would mean they can not block the CVA.... quite handy..... With AA's past track record of inflating debt in precisely this sort of scenario I can't imagine HMRC are going to be particularly happy with this 24.4% figure. To obtain a CVA it's 75% of unsecured debt which includes the footballing debt. It's a seperate issue that all footballing debt is repaid as that relates to PL(?) and FL rules to gain entry to the league for the club. Also, from next season, all clubs in the FL will have to inform the FL authorities about their finances as to whether they can complete the season. So they have to pay the following. £28mill of footballing debts. £14mill of secured debts. £12.6mill of unsecured in using 20p per £1. £54.6mill to start with! Call it £55m just to pass go! They would then have to reduce costs drastically as I would expect that either the first parachute payment (or loan against it) or the £5m of TV money plus outstanding January transfer fees is currently being used to cover costs up to end of the season.
Viking Warrior Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Im no accountant but i can't see Aruna Dindanes salary included in the above figures and the transfer figures do not appear to include the £4 million owed to Lens for when he was due to paly x amount of games. I know the skates have been given permission to play him in the final but was this a case of delaying the £4 milllion owed ? Please advise
Wes Tender Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 (edited) Wow, that PDF contains some absolute gold. For example, the NON-PLAYING staff have agreed to defer a percentage of their wages. Absolutely no mention of the players. Fratton Park is valued at £7.7m on the balance sheet, but "for the purposes of this exercise, we believe the value to be nearer to £15m"... sorry, what?? Nobody else seems to have responded to this with a comment. Do you read it as I do, that it is a device to up the debts to reduce the percentage that HMRC holds as a creditor of the overall debt? The only reason that I can think of for a disparity of the value of Fratton Park, is whether it is valued as a football ground, or as development land available for housing. Naturally, the higher valuation would be the one for development, which almost infers that Chainrai who apparently owns it, has plans for selling it off. But there are covenants designating it for sports usage, so surely the valuation should be based on that premise. And anyway, I would have expected that the valuation would have to be determined by say three independent and professionally qualified land agents, not some figure plucked from the air to suit Android's purposes. Edited 21 April, 2010 by Wes Tender The stadium is an asset not a debt, thinking about it. So what are the implications? I'm stumped.
krissyboy31 Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Palace were in administration for two years. I believe the FL rules are that no club can to start a second season in Administration.
bridge too far Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Nobody else seems to have responded to this with a comment. Do you read it as I do, that it is a device to up the debts to reduce the percentage that HMRC holds as a creditor of the overall debt? Is there an instrument for those creditors on the Creditors' committee to challenge the figures? The only reason that I can think of for a disparity of the value of Fratton Park, is whether it is valued as a football ground, or as development land available for housing. Naturally, the higher valuation would be the one for development, which almost infers that Chainrai who apparently owns it, has plans for selling it off. But there are covenants designating it for sports usage, so surely the valuation should be based on that premise. And anyway, I would have expected that the valuation would have to be determined by say three independent and professionally qualified land agents, not some figure plucked from the air to suit Android's purposes. Can the District Valuer advise on this too?
Wes Tender Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Can the District Valuer advise on this too? As I edited it having realised, the stadium is an asset, not a debt, surely? But it is secured against Chainrai's debt, so he effectively owns it. I'm trying to figure out Android's angle for increasing its value. Any ideas, anybody?
Barry the Badger Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 I have read and re-read the Begovic thing, and I still don't understand how they can owe Spurs 1 million for him.
Gemmel Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 "Neither UHY Hackey Young, or any of its employees, have had any prior connections or dealings with the debenture holder or any connected or associated partner" http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=ryzymcj5zie&thumb=6
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 As I edited it having realised, the stadium is an asset, not a debt, surely? But it is secured against Chainrai's debt, so he effectively owns it. I'm trying to figure out Android's angle for increasing its value. Any ideas, anybody? Well if you increase the value of an asset it decreases the net debt. Why he would do that I cannot say.
View From The Top Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 They really are in serious sh*t. HTF are they going to pay off all those footballing debts in time for the FL not to dock points? Are the monies owed for players image rights part of the footballing debt or is it unsecured?
krissyboy31 Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 I like Resolution No.5: "In the event that a CVA is not approved that the Administrators be able to exit via CVL or a Compulsory Liquidation or dissolution whichever is appropriate." I presume that is a standard statement in these cases but still sounds good!
stevegrant Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Are the monies owed for players image rights part of the footballing debt or is it unsecured? They're part of the player's contract, so they would be footballing debts.
tony13579 Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 As an observation These numbers look made up to me. £200,000 not £20,635.25 They are made up or estimated debts... yet the debt to st johns ambulence is exact
View From The Top Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 They're part of the player's contract, so they would be footballing debts. So that makes it nearly £58mill they need to clear and that's at 20p in the £ for the non footballing and non secured debt!
for_heaven's_Saint Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Only recently registered for poopeyonline so I can have a laugh at the rubbish they're spouting. Why the f*ck are all the threads upside f*cking down?!
Gingeletiss Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Can't do this 'multi' quote thingy, however. It is yet again my understanding, that the figures submitted to the courts (Vantis S of A), are the debts that are now a legal undertaking. All these so called 'other' debts, are over and above those that were put before Judge Judy at the winding up hearing. Again, my understanding is that all further debts are liable to the Administrator. If I'm wrong on this summerisation, can someone please correct me!
OldNick Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Can't do this 'multi' quote thingy, however. It is yet again my understanding, that the figures submitted to the courts (Vantis S of A), are the debts that are now a legal undertaking. All these so called 'other' debts, are over and above those that were put before Judge Judy at the winding up hearing. Again, my understanding is that all further debts are liable to the Administrator. If I'm wrong on this summerisation, can someone please correct me! New debts are down to AA. The ones on this latest statement are the old debts.
Gingeletiss Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 New debts are down to AA. The ones on this latest statement are the old debts. As I said nick, the S of A is a legal document now, I don't think you can just add things as you think of them.
Psycrow Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 I have read and re-read the Begovic thing, and I still don't understand how they can owe Spurs 1 million for him. I can't remember the figure for the Kaboul transfer, but lets say it was 5 Mill at a guess... then I think it worked like this. Spurs offered £5 Mill for Kaboul and Begovic. Begovic refused to sign a contract, but Spurs still paid the full amount on condition that if Begovic transferred to another club they get £1 of the transfer fee. I know it sounds stupid, but its the only way I can make sense out of it.
rallyboy Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 SSN reported that the creditor list published by AA is inaccurate and that there are people on that list who have already been paid. Also Terry the builder says he's had no contact at all even though he should have had legally, and he's owed £54K. Azougy reckons the debt has leapt £40M in a few months. Is AA making it up as he goes along?
OldNick Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 I can't remember the figure for the Kaboul transfer, but lets say it was 5 Mill at a guess... then I think it worked like this. Spurs offered £5 Mill for Kaboul and Begovic. Begovic refused to sign a contract, but Spurs still paid the full amount on condition that if Begovic transferred to another club they get £1 of the transfer fee. I know it sounds stupid, but its the only way I can make sense out of it. i expect that is hw they will dress it up. Who buys someone without them signing but still pay?
OldNick Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 SSN reported that the creditor list published by AA is inaccurate and that there are people on that list who have already been paid. Also Terry the builder says he's had no contact at all even though he should have had legally, and he's owed £54K. Azougy reckons the debt has leapt £40M in a few months. Is AA making it up as he goes along? Oh that is better news
Guided Missile Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 They're part of the player's contract, so they would be footballing debts. Maybe not, according to the Independent Article: Similarly, it seems certain that historic outstanding bonuses to a range of players (including Johnson, owed £265,080, and Peter Crouch, owed £282,000) will be treated as "football debt" and those players will get their money through the insistence of the Premier League, if not the law. But cash owed to players for image rights is not necessarily protected as football debt.
LostBoys Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Its a riveting read. One of my clients is a small creditor (yes I advised him not to provide credit) and so I will not say more but the figures are astonishing and the directors actions beyond incompetent into another arena.
OldNick Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Maybe not, according to the Independent Article: Similarly, it seems certain that historic outstanding bonuses to a range of players (including Johnson, owed £265,080, and Peter Crouch, owed £282,000) will be treated as "football debt" and those players will get their money through the insistence of the Premier League, if not the law. But cash owed to players for image rights is not necessarily protected as football debt. Im not sure if that is good or bad news. If those rights become unsecured it reduces the HMRC's share and I doubt many players would vote against another clubs CVA
krissyboy31 Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Im not sure if that is good or bad news. If those rights become unsecured it reduces the HMRC's share and I doubt many players would vote against another clubs CVA You're presuming that all of the other creditors are going to vote yes! Why should they accept a fifth of what they're owed! Bet Sol Campbell doesn't, I bet Grosvenor Estates don't either and KES will want 100% or they will evict the Skates from Wellington IMO.
OldNick Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 James is down on the list 3 times for the exact same amount , why is that?
buctootim Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 the figures are astonishing and the directors actions beyond incompetent into another arena. to the extent of making the directors personally liable or criminally negligent?
Vershinin Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 SSN reported that the creditor list published by AA is inaccurate and that there are people on that list who have already been paid. Also Terry the builder says he's had no contact at all even though he should have had legally, and he's owed £54K. Azougy reckons the debt has leapt £40M in a few months. Is AA making it up as he goes along? It is absoloutely staggering that no-one seems willing to import any amount of justice in this saga. SSN interviewed one of the agents they claimed was owed a substantial amount of money and he said that he wasnt owed anything. It is blatently obvious that the **** administrator is dressing up the numbers firstly to freeze out HMRC and secondly to encourage some of the creditors to take a lower amount of P in the pound. Surely this is illegal/not allowed and should qualify for fraud as he is going to prevent small business' getting a fairer share and denying the country some much needed tax money. How they have managed to lie and fraud their way this far is unbelievable, and this is the latest gem. It is ****ing staggering how he can just lie and is ****y enough to believe he will get away with it.
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 So that makes it nearly £58mill they need to clear and that's at 20p in the £ for the non footballing and non secured debt! £58m! wow what a bargain. For that you get a clapped out stadium, no training ground, guaranteed crowds of 14k and a team likely to be battling relegation, not to mention a likely points deduction and the potential of further (re: financial irregularities). I expect Android's been busy beating away the interest parties!
JackFrost Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 They really are in serious sh*t. HTF are they going to pay off all those footballing debts in time for the FL not to dock points? Are the monies owed for players image rights part of the footballing debt or is it unsecured? Parachute payments?
Doctoroncall Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Im not sure if that is good or bad news. If those rights become unsecured it reduces the HMRC's share and I doubt many players would vote against another clubs CVA All the debt (including football related) is unsecured. The only way to get them off the unsecured 'list' is to pay them... something that will come out of the PL in way of income. That is my understanding anyway, happy to be corrected.
OldNick Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 £58m! wow what a bargain. For that you get a clapped out stadium, no training ground, guaranteed crowds of 14k and a team likely to be battling relegation, not to mention a likely points deduction and the potential of further (re: financial irregularities). I expect Android's been busy beating away the interest parties! Sorry but you have made one big mistake..... you put guarenteed crowds of 14k
Gemmel Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 to the extent of making the directors personally liable or criminally negligent? Over and above all the other percieved underhand dealings, accusations and thoughts of impropriety, (Which may or may not proved), An appointed adminstrator has published and signed and document which has a 50 million pound delta between that and a court assigned accountancy firms "Statement of Affairs", for which the Directors were legally obliged to co-operate in full with and disclose the relevant information. I am am no expert, but unless I have missed something, either AA or story/other pfc directors is lying or has lied. Does that make them criminally neleglient, i don't know, but i have a feeling that a file is getting bigger and bigger and closer and closer to the man at the CPS.
trousers Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 i expect that is hw they will dress it up. Who buys someone without them signing but still pay? Someone with previous connections to PFC? :confused:
trousers Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 James is down on the list 3 times for the exact same amount , why is that? Perhaps the image rights gets paid on a royalties basis? i.e. a payment for each product range that uses his 'image' ? Dunno TBH
View From The Top Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Parachute payments? 1st year payments won't cover that plus they have the secured to pay, which takes priority as footballing debts are actually unsecured and only enforced by the EPL and FL.
trousers Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 It is absoloutely staggering that no-one seems willing to import any amount of justice in this saga. SSN interviewed one of the agents they claimed was owed a substantial amount of money and he said that he wasnt owed anything. It is blatently obvious that the **** administrator is dressing up the numbers firstly to freeze out HMRC and secondly to encourage some of the creditors to take a lower amount of P in the pound. Surely this is illegal/not allowed and should qualify for fraud Someone should report this 'crime' to the police then? Won't they be duty bound to investigate? Indeed, we will all be accessories to the 'crime' if we don't report it as it's against the law not to report a crime, isn't it?
JonnyLove Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 From the Administrators Statement. "As a result of the petition the clubs bankers withdrew it's banking facilities rendering the club incapable of trading". Therefore trading illegally and should of been thrown out of the FL,PL, Cups and anythings else. They should of been wound up and ceased trading. CHEATS.
Guided Missile Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Im not sure if that is good or bad news. If those rights become unsecured it reduces the HMRC's share and I doubt many players would vote against another clubs CVA The good news is that the money grabbing players who tried to save some tax and NI payments by the image rights scheme, have now discovered that if they had taken the money as income, they would have been repaid at 100p in the £, not 23p... Serves Campbell right...
Guided Missile Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 A leopard never changes its spots... ....and this article describes the game being played... The most damaging criticism of Andronikou is within a High Court ruling in December 2008. An appeal judge overturned an attempt by Shami Ahmed, the founder of Joe Bloggs, the clothing company, to avoid bankruptcy through an individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) handled by Andronikou. HMRC and a spread-betting firm then known as Tradindex had opposed the IVA, which needed approval from three-quarters of Ahmed’s creditors. The fashion boss had run up more than £4m in gambling debts. But the IVA was successful because Andronikou had accepted the validity of £8m in alleged loans to Ahmed from members of his family, thereby making them creditors and giving them a vote on the IVA. At an appeal by Tradindex, the judge took a different view and disallowed £5m of these family loans, thereby overturning Ahmed’s IVA, and he was forced into bankruptcy. The judgment said: “Mr Andronikou’s conduct in these proceedings, particularly in relation to evidence filed by him on behalf [of Ahmed and his family], was manifestly inappropriate.” The judge also found that Andronikou “did fail to meet the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent insolvency practitioner”.
rpb Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Talksport are just going to discuss, 'Is it about time to close down Portsmouth?'
positivepete Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 (edited) So in 2007 they invested £1m in a 26% share of a joint radio venture. Is that where it all went wrong? http://www.uhy-uk.com/media/news/PFC%20-%20Report%20to%20creditors%20Adobe%207.pdf Edited 21 April, 2010 by positivepete add source (makes good reading!)
saint_in_munich Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Yeah Love it, they said "Bring down the shutters" "they can go off and play in the park" "makes the Leeds situation seam like nothing" ha ha ha
WestSaint Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 (edited) The Hacker Young summary of assets values Fratton Park at £15m as a football stadium with a book valuation of only £7m- It goes on to say that this amount is not a formal valuation but an estimate It then goes on to advise the training ground improvements as £2.2m but have quoted Edmond Symmons Valuers as saying that in a forced sale situation the amount will not be realised. Why would they not have a professional valuer give an opinion of the Value of Fratton Park but are quite happy to have a professional value of the training facility improvements. Wasn't Our club bought for £15m in its entirety Edited 21 April, 2010 by WestSaint
HK_Phoey Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Sorry but you have made one big mistake..... you put guarenteed crowds of 14k Noticed this myself think you meant 14 surely
Gemmel Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Wasn't Our club bought for £15m in its entirety Somewhere bewteen 11 & 13 Million Squad St Mary's Staplewood Houses in Archers Road (Just about to be sold) Jacksons Farm vs 15 million for fratton park :D
krissyboy31 Posted 21 April, 2010 Posted 21 April, 2010 Somewhere bewteen 11 & 13 Million Squad St Mary's Staplewood Houses in Archers Road (Just about to be sold) Jacksons Farm vs 15 million for fratton park :D Yes, You can see why potential buyers are flocking in their droves to purchase such a bargain, can't you!
Recommended Posts