Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

EastleighSoulBoy

EastleighSoulBoy

Posted
Posted
nice one Hutch.

I don't mind analysing the basic maths

 

HUGE outgoings - tiny income + insolvent trading x relegation = (BIG TROUBLE x prison)

 

but I get bored with the legal small print and leave that to the experts!

 

 

 

 

Which is perhaps a lesson for AA to consider - know your limitations puppet boy, just hang on the string and dance when Chanrai slips fivers down your thong.

 

:scared: Conjuring images of a ladyboy squatting in the kneehole of Mr Chancer's desk while he entertains guests. :scared:

Gingeletiss

Gingeletiss

Posted
Posted

A snippet from one of their boards...see highlighted, you couldn't make it up, well they can!

 

synergy User is offline

#1 21 Jul 2010 19:26 Complain | Prev | Next | Quote and reply to userReply to user

Signed: July 2009 Developments at Fratton Park..... ...

Posts: 407

International

International

Let me start by saying that though only a part-time poster I follow the board closely. The details I'm posting here are provided by bona fide sources.

 

Firstly, David James wants to stay at Fratton Park and wants to give the Club every opportunity to sort out a new contract. However, the Club's present offer is not acceptable to him.

 

A new external team are now dealing with transfers and Peter Storrie is not involved with this group. They are confident of bringing several new players before the season starts. This is under the instructions of AA.

 

The trip to the US which I have to say I find baffling considering our current situation is costing the Club nearly £70,000! The Club hope to gain tax exemption from HMRC for it!! You couldn't make that up.

 

With respect to next season's kit. That will not be ready for sale until at least the start of October.

 

Oh and as deffo has said previously the whole office organisational set up at FP is a complete mess.

Gingeletiss

Gingeletiss

Posted
Posted

A tale of Poopey's Paul Allen!

 

pompeyblue1980 Posted on 21/07/2010 09:20

Totally made up owner rumour

Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message

 

It's a quiet morning at work down the Harbour this morning.

 

And A nice big yacht just pulled into Gunwharf belonging to a fella named Micky Arison who is an Israeli-American businessman and the Chief Executive Officer of Carnival Corporation, the world's largest cruise operator, and owner of the NBA's Miami Heat. and is worth 6.1 billion.

 

See I could get a job at a newspaper making stories up like this.

 

But it is true his yacht has just pulled in though.

 

As I said it's a very slow day on the trains.

Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted
A snippet from one of their boards...see highlighted, you couldn't make it up, well they can!

 

synergy User is offline

#1 21 Jul 2010 19:26 Complain | Prev | Next | Quote and reply to userReply to user

Signed: July 2009 Developments at Fratton Park..... ...

Posts: 407

International

International

Let me start by saying that though only a part-time poster I follow the board closely. The details I'm posting here are provided by bona fide sources.

 

Firstly, David James wants to stay at Fratton Park and wants to give the Club every opportunity to sort out a new contract. However, the Club's present offer is not acceptable to him.

 

A new external team are now dealing with transfers and Peter Storrie is not involved with this group. They are confident of bringing several new players before the season starts. This is under the instructions of AA.

 

The trip to the US which I have to say I find baffling considering our current situation is costing the Club nearly £70,000! The Club hope to gain tax exemption from HMRC for it!! You couldn't make that up.

 

With respect to next season's kit. That will not be ready for sale until at least the start of October.

 

Oh and as deffo has said previously the whole office organisational set up at FP is a complete mess.

"David James wants to stay at Fratton Park and wants to give the Club every opportunity to sort out a new contract." :lol:

 

Translation: Keep me on £50K per week and I'll be happy to stay. :lol::lol:

Dave Benson Phillips

Dave Benson Phillips

Posted
Posted

Bit of ITK you will all appreciate.

 

The Case Officer for HMRC vs Portsmouth City FC Ltd ( or whatever it is ) is none other than a certain Johnny Harris... whom I have been told by his colleague tonight is only a bloody SFC season ticket holder.

 

I don't think he will be letting them get away easily. :D

 

What's more amusing than seeing the skates slip into oblivion... it being a diehard Saints fan giving the final kick.

Jimmy_D

Jimmy_D

Posted
Posted
Bit of ITK you will all appreciate.

 

The Case Officer for HMRC vs Portsmouth City FC Ltd ( or whatever it is ) is none other than a certain Johnny Harris... whom I have been told by his colleague tonight is only a bloody SFC season ticket holder.

 

I don't think he will be letting them get away easily. :D

 

What's more amusing than seeing the skates slip into oblivion... it being a diehard Saints fan giving the final kick.

 

If true, although funny, it might do more harm than good for HMRC's chances...

Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted (edited)
If this appeal isnt resolved by the time the season starts, do the blue scum start with a points deduction ?

 

They can only get another points deduction if they exit administration without a CVA.

 

The outcome of the HMRC appeal can itself be appealed by the losing party, be it HMRC or Pompey, dragging it out further.

 

As I understand it, if they finally lose the appeal it will either end in a new CVA being made and presented to creditors, or HMRC/administrator may press ahead for the liquidation of the company.

Edited by Matthew Le God
Red and White Army

Red and White Army

Posted
Posted
I thought I would have a look and see if our optimism over HMRC's chances of winning the appeal are just wishful thinking. But they're really not. HMRC have played a blinder, and have shafted Andy royally, and it looks to me as if it was deliberate.

 

At the creditor's meeting on 6th May Andy was authorised to produce a CVA proposal and put it to the creditors for a vote.

 

Chapter 3 of the Insolvency Rules (1986) states:

 

 

 

Andy duly did his duty and sent out the notice on 28th May, with the required copy of his proposal with the statement of affairs and list of creditors with the amount of their debts attached, scheduling the meeting for 17th June. The important page of his proposal is page 52. Note the figure for VAT,PAYE & NIC, and also that he has NOT included the football creditors. He did include Agents, which I think are football creditors, but we can forgive him for that little slip up.

 

So far so good, and all in line with the rules. Remember, at that time, Andy was confident the HMRC would vote in favour, because he agreed to their demand to liquidate the Company after 9 months and then conduct a forensic inquisition. In his published proposal, HMRC have 42% of the unsecured creditor's voting rights.

 

Then, unfortunately for Andy, and after his proposal was published and in the public domain, HMRC had a change of heart. Now they're going to vote against. Oh shyte. Very angry phone calls between Portsmouth and Hong Kong ensue. What to do?

 

Plan A - reduce HMRC's debt to 24m. Good plan, but still gives them 29%. Oh shyte shyte. So why not include the "secured" unsecured football creditors as well? They'll all vote in favour anyway because they get 100%. Job done. Now HMRC only have 22%. Phew.

 

But did he send out a revised notice with the amended proposal to the creditors? It looks as though he forgot.

 

So HMRC turn up on the 17th expecting to vote 42%, and find that they're only voting 22%. I don't think they were chuffed.

 

The right to appeal is in the Insolvency Act (1986):

 

 

 

and that's what HMRC are doing. But they are also challenging him under the rules, which state:

 

 

 

Andy did have the right to reduce part of a creditor's debt, but only if he had no doubt that it was correct to do so. If he had any doubt, he was obliged to let them vote the full amount, and then himself challenge that part which he felt was wrong. In other words, the CVA should have failed at the meeting, and Andy appeal to the Court to have it passed by reducing HMRC's debt in Court!

 

And a couple of other points. Andy's report on the meeting filed at the Court states that the CVA was approved without modification. I don't think so. The proposal attached to the report, which he says was approved, is not the same as the one sent to the creditors before the meeting.

 

And finally, although not strictly relevant, I found this in the rules

 

 

 

Well it made me :)

 

Great work hutch.

angelman

angelman

Posted
Posted

I am not sure it would make a great difference to the case as the law is the law regardless of whether you support their rivals or not. The judge will look at non payment of VAT etc rather than where the prosecution watches football. Having said that HMRC are not stupid and would realise the PR potential (bad).

Dave Benson Phillips

Dave Benson Phillips

Posted
Posted
I am not sure it would make a great difference to the case as the law is the law regardless of whether you support their rivals or not. The judge will look at non payment of VAT etc rather than where the prosecution watches football. Having said that HMRC are not stupid and would realise the PR potential (bad).

 

It wouldn't make a great difference. It is however, quite amusing that it's a Saints fan who is going to give them one last kick on the way down.

Saint in Paradise

Saint in Paradise

Posted
Posted
It wouldn't make a great difference. It is however, quite amusing that it's a Saints fan who is going to give them one last kick on the way down.

 

Ah but what if this particular Saints fan is one of those that don't want Pompey to be totally destroyed ?

Doctoroncall

Doctoroncall

Posted
Posted
Solent is reporting John Stewart has suspected broken leg in Edmunton

How many goalies do they have left???

 

He was a trialist... I wonder if they have a duty of care towards him if he has broken his leg?

eurosaint

eurosaint

Posted
Posted
He was a trialist... I wonder if they have a duty of care towards him if he has broken his leg?

 

:)

They've promised him 4p a year for the next 5 years !

(all they can afford, I presume!).

:)

merrimd

merrimd

Posted
Posted

Leave him alone. Poor bloke. He is only an Administrator. Why should he have any understanding of employment law. Its not like he has had to make anybody redundant before is it...........................

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)
Bit of ITK you will all appreciate.

 

The Case Officer for HMRC vs Portsmouth City FC Ltd ( or whatever it is ) is none other than a certain Johnny Harris... whom I have been told by his colleague tonight is only a bloody SFC season ticket holder.

 

I don't think he will be letting them get away easily. :D

 

What's more amusing than seeing the skates slip into oblivion... it being a diehard Saints fan giving the final kick.

 

Hmmm, the words 'conflict' and 'interest' (separated by 'of') springs to mind.

 

It's almost as 'funny' as a Saints fan being SFC's bank manager....

Edited by trousers
Saint in Paradise

Saint in Paradise

Posted
Posted
Hmmm, the words 'conflict' and 'interest' (separated by 'if') springs to mind.

 

It's almost as 'funny' as a Saints fan being SFC's bank manager....

 

Surely that would only matter if the HMRC bloke fighting the case was suddenly to become the Judge in the case ?

jawillwill

jawillwill

Posted
Posted
Hmmm, the words 'conflict' and 'interest' (separated by 'if') springs to mind.

 

It's almost as 'funny' as a Saints fan being SFC's bank manager....

 

'Conflict if interest' or 'interest if conflict'?

Ken Tone

Ken Tone

Posted
Posted
I know we all like to laugh at what has happened to PFC but this is the really sad side of things.

 

The appalling thing is these poor sods are almost certainly not going to get their money but footballers, and even agents, on vast sums will get theirs. How football can continue with the football creditors rule whilst court judgements like these are worth pretty much nothing is beyond belief.

 

K.

Weston Saint

Weston Saint

Posted
Posted

Surely the employees were laid off AFTER ADMINISTRATION papers filed with the court. Therefore "AA" in his capacity as Administrator of PFC going forward is responsible to pay up? They are not part of the debt at the date of Administration.

Ken Tone

Ken Tone

Posted
Posted
Surely the employees were laid off AFTER ADMINISTRATION papers filed with the court. Therefore "AA" in his capacity as Administrator of PFC going forward is responsible to pay up? They are not part of the debt at the date of Administration.

 

Fair point. Presumably that will be the gist of their legal argument.

 

>>"But the claimants now face a battle to recover that money from the club because it is in administration. They are now set to take on a lawyer to launch a legal process to get the money"

 

But also presumably they will have to decide whether to take the risk of their court case not being successful and thus losing even more money in legal costs. Can't see AA just rolling over and paying up, and he'll have far more money to pay for lawyers than out of work staff.

 

K.

View From The Top

View From The Top

Posted
Posted
Surely the employees were laid off AFTER ADMINISTRATION papers filed with the court. Therefore "AA" in his capacity as Administrator of PFC going forward is responsible to pay up? They are not part of the debt at the date of Administration.

 

Just had that exact conversation.

tony13579

tony13579

Posted
Posted (edited)
The appalling thing is these poor sods are almost certainly not going to get their money but footballers, and even agents, on vast sums will get theirs. How football can continue with the football creditors rule whilst court judgements like these are worth pretty much nothing is beyond belief.

 

K.

They would not be in this state if Peter Storrie had done the decent thing and made them properly redundant and had them paid by the PL.

I seam to remember PS's relitive being made redundant just before the admin.

 

I believe employees get paid before secured creditors?? and get 100%

Edited by tony13579
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
"Mr Andronikou did not return calls from The News" But he loves to talk to them normally,what is wrong :scared:

 

How will this affect the total of debts re the CVA and the appeal from HMRC ? Surely they will

side with HMRC and vote no if it comes to another vote?

He can't. He's too busy on the phone to Hong Kong at the moment. They've run out of cash again. The £4m opening cash balance in the CVA forward cash flow forecast is gone. That was what was left from the £6m Chainrai's put in so far to fund the administration. You can be very sure that he was told then that it would be the last time, and that from then on cash would come from the sale of players. Hasn't happened though, has it?

 

It's squeaky bum time. No CVA, and no prospect of getting one. No player sales worth talking about. Can't even give them away for free (Ben Haim). Wage bill still double the forecast. Transfer embargo in place for the foreseeable future. Relegation battle looming in the league.

 

Unless Chainrai's turned into a patient benefactor with very deep pockets, the outcome in the next few weeks is far from certain. Even if they keep the squad, and Chainrai agrees to provide more funds for the wages, that's still the same squad that finished bottom of the PL last season before the points were deducted, without the loan & out-of-contract players. Whichever way you look at it, without a CVA, the numbers just don't add up.

 

Even with a CVA, they weren't much better. The forecast has £18m income from player trading this year (including Jan. window). Every penny of that that they fail to achieve must come out of Chainrai's pocket.

benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
Fair point. Presumably that will be the gist of their legal argument.

 

>>"But the claimants now face a battle to recover that money from the club because it is in administration. They are now set to take on a lawyer to launch a legal process to get the money"

 

But also presumably they will have to decide whether to take the risk of their court case not being successful and thus losing even more money in legal costs. Can't see AA just rolling over and paying up, and he'll have far more money to pay for lawyers than out of work staff.

 

K.

 

This is true but I wouldn't be surprised if they can find someone willing to take it on on a Contingent Fee Arrangement (ie, no win, no fee) given the (relatively) high profile of the whole thing.

benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
He can't. He's too busy on the phone to Hong Kong at the moment. They've run out of cash again. The £4m opening cash balance in the CVA forward cash flow forecast is gone. That was what was left from the £6m Chainrai's put in so far to fund the administration. You can be very sure that he was told then that it would be the last time, and that from then on cash would come from the sale of players. Hasn't happened though, has it?.

 

This is key.

 

PFC are essentially beholden to Chanrai's whims right now.

 

Liquidation and some sort of land deal with Gaydamak must look increasingly attractive with each passing day.

 

Ben Haim hasn't left... that's an extra £38k for this week. Utaka hasn't left... double that £38k then. What's that.. employment tribunal award of £100k as well? Hmm....

Golden Balls

Golden Balls

Posted
Posted
I thought I would have a look and see if our optimism over HMRC's chances of winning the appeal are just wishful thinking. But they're really not. HMRC have played a blinder, and have shafted Andy royally, and it looks to me as if it was deliberate.

 

At the creditor's meeting on 6th May Andy was authorised to produce a CVA proposal and put it to the creditors for a vote.

 

Chapter 3 of the Insolvency Rules (1986) states:

 

 

 

Andy duly did his duty and sent out the notice on 28th May, with the required copy of his proposal with the statement of affairs and list of creditors with the amount of their debts attached, scheduling the meeting for 17th June. The important page of his proposal is page 52. Note the figure for VAT,PAYE & NIC, and also that he has NOT included the football creditors. He did include Agents, which I think are football creditors, but we can forgive him for that little slip up.

 

So far so good, and all in line with the rules. Remember, at that time, Andy was confident the HMRC would vote in favour, because he agreed to their demand to liquidate the Company after 9 months and then conduct a forensic inquisition. In his published proposal, HMRC have 42% of the unsecured creditor's voting rights.

 

Then, unfortunately for Andy, and after his proposal was published and in the public domain, HMRC had a change of heart. Now they're going to vote against. Oh shyte. Very angry phone calls between Portsmouth and Hong Kong ensue. What to do?

 

Plan A - reduce HMRC's debt to 24m. Good plan, but still gives them 29%. Oh shyte shyte. So why not include the "secured" unsecured football creditors as well? They'll all vote in favour anyway because they get 100%. Job done. Now HMRC only have 22%. Phew.

 

But did he send out a revised notice with the amended proposal to the creditors? It looks as though he forgot.

 

So HMRC turn up on the 17th expecting to vote 42%, and find that they're only voting 22%. I don't think they were chuffed.

 

The right to appeal is in the Insolvency Act (1986):

 

 

 

and that's what HMRC are doing. But they are also challenging him under the rules, which state:

 

 

 

Andy did have the right to reduce part of a creditor's debt, but only if he had no doubt that it was correct to do so. If he had any doubt, he was obliged to let them vote the full amount, and then himself challenge that part which he felt was wrong. In other words, the CVA should have failed at the meeting, and Andy appeal to the Court to have it passed by reducing HMRC's debt in Court!

 

And a couple of other points. Andy's report on the meeting filed at the Court states that the CVA was approved without modification. I don't think so. The proposal attached to the report, which he says was approved, is not the same as the one sent to the creditors before the meeting.

 

And finally, although not strictly relevant, I found this in the rules

 

 

 

Well it made me [/Quote]

 

Fantastic post Hutch. Lets hope HMRC are as bright as you.

hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
This is key.

 

PFC are essentially beholden to Chanrai's whims right now.

 

Liquidation and some sort of land deal with Gaydamak must look increasingly attractive with each passing day.

 

Ben Haim hasn't left... that's an extra £38k for this week. Utaka hasn't left... double that £38k then. What's that.. employment tribunal award of £100k as well? Hmm....

I think that the Administrators are bound by law (or maybe by their rules) to liquidate if they cannot be certain that they have the funds to continue. No doubt one of our IP's will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

So, unless Chainrai agrees to pump more cash in, Andy may not have many options left. The question for Chainrai is now when (or if) he will get it back.

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
Gunner baldrick,

22/07/2010 12:52:50

Whoever deleted my post 35, thank you as I made a mistake.

 

The mighty stains go from strenght to strenght after overcoming Champion League favourites Winchester (not Eastleigh) and now Farnborough 1-0.

 

These girls ambitions are almost limitless.

 

Whats that? They also lost to Havant and Waterlooville!

 

There are now three teams in Hampshire. Pompey, Basingstoke and Havant and Waterlooville

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Cotterill-fears-Pompey-are-at.6433364.jp?CommentPage=8&CommentPageLength=10#comments

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