Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
Definately true, he is a the boss of a bloke ( who I saw last night ) I know who also works for HMRC.

 

I don't think you should be plastering the HMRC's officers name on the internet. There are skates who come on here and he could be subject to a lot of abuse

Dave Benson Phillips

Dave Benson Phillips

Posted
Posted
I don't think you should be plastering the HMRC's officers name on the internet. There are skates who come on here and he could be subject to a lot of abuse

 

:D

 

I am sure he will cope with it. :lol:

 

To be fair, most decent skates know they have f*cked over the taxman, and in turn, the taxpayer... so they would be slightly unreasonable to vent their anger at HMRC

stevegrant

stevegrant

Posted
Posted
:D

 

I am sure he will cope with it. :lol:

 

To be fair, most decent skates know they have f*cked over the taxman, and in turn, the taxpayer... so they would be slightly unreasonable to vent their anger at HMRC

The people of Portsmouth are world renowned for being reasonable human beings :nod:

 

:lol:

Dave Benson Phillips

Dave Benson Phillips

Posted
Posted
The people of Portsmouth are world renowned for being reasonable human beings :nod:

 

:lol:

 

Steveo, would you like to be in the video for "Empire of the Skate" ? I need a double you see, due to my Fratton connections it's probably not the best idea to have my mug in the video. :smug:

 

Interested? It will be shot on location next weekend in and around P*rtsmouth.

EastleighSoulBoy

EastleighSoulBoy

Posted
Posted
Steveo, would you like to be in the video for "Empire of the Skate" ? I need a double you see, due to my Fratton connections it's probably not the best idea to have my mug in the video. :smug:

 

Interested? It will be shot on location next weekend in and around P*rtsmouth.

 

Are you AA in disguise?

waggy

waggy

Posted
Posted

A judge at an employment tribunal in Southampton yesterday upheld claims by former staff whose roles ranged from chief scout to retail manager.

 

Sweet!

Jimmy_D

Jimmy_D

Posted
Posted

Heh, people were predicting a series of training ground injuries for them... no doubt some of them have been exaggerated to try and allow them to bring more players in...

dubai_phil

dubai_phil

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 :)

 

 

Sweet

 

I knew somethin that AA said or didn't say at the meeting was it - need to find the question that was ignored.

 

Would love tor ead more but only so much pedalling I can do to power the windup internet here.

 

BUT big news coming soon - a MASSIVE shock

 

I now know why Alpine is so Grumpy all the time...

 

 

Fecking European radio - Non-stop Europop. It's driven me suicidal & I've only been over here 6 days - Alps - you are a hero for staying sane so long mate - more on that when I find a reall connection

View From The Top

View From The Top

Posted
Posted
Well there is a shock.

 

So now they can cry to the FL to attempt to get more players through the back door due to special dispensation.

 

The whole place f*cking stinks of back handers, lies, cheats and of course rotting fish.

 

What a horrible horrible club they are

 

That's only for keepers.

 

The FL won't budge, that's for sure, just ask the cherries.

Smirking_Saint

Smirking_Saint

Posted
Posted
Yeah, that chap getting into the ambulance clearly faked the whole thing.

 

Not really saying that he faked the leg break, i mean is it really incredibly bad luck ?? Or are the muscle tweaks etc being exaggerated a little bit ??

 

I wouldn't put it past them TBF

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
Not really saying that he faked the leg break, i mean is it really incredibly bad luck ?? Or are the muscle tweaks etc being exaggerated a little bit ??

 

I wouldn't put it past them TBF

 

Perhaps they are filming "Escape to Victory 2"?

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
Well there is a shock.

 

So now they can cry to the FL to attempt to get more players through the back door due to special dispensation.

 

The whole place f*cking stinks of back handers, lies, cheats and of course rotting fish.

 

What a horrible horrible club they are

 

Nah...the football league will insist on independent medical assessments....won't they...?

mack rill

mack rill

Posted
Posted
Nah...the football league will insist on independent medical assessments....won't they...?

 

No sweat Trousers, Our Mash unite just like (lovely Rita) have a book full of certificates, Its just ours have DOA stamped on em,

rockhill

rockhill

Posted
Posted

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Cotterill-fears-Pompey-are-at.6433364.jp

 

Post 44 (below) is an interesting view on how HMRC are (or might be) looking at the way forward.

 

The US/ Canadian tour Must be contributing to the £117k income as listed in AA CVA accounts. Given the otion of paying wages in the uK with no income or having an expenses paid trip generating revenue - there would be little choice.

RE HMRC -

The HMRC are not challenging the FC rule - they are challenging the voting rights which have been given to Football debtors who are effetcively "secured" aginast the FL share. HMRC will argue that a Creditor who is gauranteed 100% payment cannot be unsecured.

Re TAX irregularities - UHY lists average Image rights payments £16m pa av amounting to averages of 33% of PFC wage bill. They will question how this can be valid given PCFC have ( had) a Commercial retail activity turnover of £2.5m to £3m. The image rights issue will be pursued via PL case. HMRC have the VAT receipts of course! The PCFC issue is how Players were paid 30% images rights when the commercial revenue generated did not warrant the payment. A specific incident of Misprepresenting tax? (alledgedly). My belief is HMRC are setting out the stall for the next court case vs OLD PCFC and it officers.

I think AA has pushed the rules to his favour which is his job and the judge will see that While HMRC are valid the points raised should be dealt whith in seperate actions

benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted

I bet Steve Coterill would be delighted to get a spot in the UEFA competition; it would allow him to give a run out to some of the high quality fringe players they've got in their buxom squad.

Micky

Micky

Posted
Posted
I bet Steve Coterill would be delighted to get a spot in the UEFA competition; it would allow him to give a run out to some of the high quality fringe players they've got in their buxom squad.

 

I love your wit sir. They are currently struggling to put out a fukkin' 5 a side team and the only buxom thing around will be AA's pay packet once he has left them high and dry - geeze, wotamess...!!!

rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

Cotterill is the tinker man, he just can't decide which is his best line up - have they run out of squad numbers yet?

 

And just before they claim a glorious high court victory over the taxman and lift the tranfser embargo, they have filed accounts haven't they?....That is the next requirement from the FL if you want your embargo lifted.

Whoops.

 

In technical terms they have gotten themselves into a right pickle.

Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted

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.

Is that really true? I thought the CVA was contingent upon player sales, and if they get less than a certain amount (£15m?) the unsecured creditors get a proportional amount less?

I hope you're right and I'm wrong. Either way, they are

 

CHEATING BASTARDS.

hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
Is that really true? I thought the CVA was contingent upon player sales, and if they get less than a certain amount (£15m?) the unsecured creditors get a proportional amount less?

I hope you're right and I'm wrong. Either way, they are

 

CHEATING BASTARDS.

Remember we're only talking about Cash Flow, DM. But as I understand it, I don't think the proposal would reduce the unsecured creditor's entitlement to 20p at the end of the day, but they might not receive 4p this year.

 

In Andy's cash flow forecasts, he allows a total of £19.6m to pay off all the football creditors in full using parachute payments from the PL and Sky TV money from the nPC, and all this year. That leaves him a surplus this year of £2.2m, which he keeps as cash for the club.

 

The problem is that in the written text of the CVA proposal he declared that the footbal creditors, who would be paid directly by the PL/FL, amounted to £22.4m, not £19.6m :cry:. And to make matters even worse, in the list of unsecured creditors which he substituted at the last minute at the CVA vote meeting, the football creditors are over £30m.

 

So, if that £2.2m goes to football creditors, as I expect it would, that would leave a closing cash balance at the end of the year of £1.2m, but the CVA creditors would have been paid £3m :).

 

Now for the problem. That forecast only works with a massive cash injection from selling players during July and August, and a sizeable injection in January. Total £18.1m in the year. So, in theory, if they can bring in £16.9m (after deductions) from selling players over the year, they will end up at the end of May with £0.00 in the bank, but will have paid the creditors their 4p for this year. You decide whether you think that will happen.

 

If they don't, I think the CVA payments are at the bottom of the pecking order.

saintjay77

saintjay77

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....

 

Is it not the administrator that is responsable for these costs? Being a debt that was incured via the hand of the administrator after he had taken control of the club and all that....

View From The Top

View From The Top

Posted
Posted
Cotterill is the tinker man, he just can't decide which is his best line up - have they run out of squad numbers yet?

 

And just before they claim a glorious high court victory over the taxman and lift the tranfser embargo, they have filed accounts haven't they?....That is the next requirement from the FL if you want your embargo lifted.

Whoops.

 

In technical terms they have gotten themselves into a right pickle.

 

The thing that I like about it all is the simple fact that getting the CVA approved doesn't get the embargo lifted. That only happens once the FL is happy with the new owner.

CB Saint

CB Saint

Posted
Posted
Cotterill is the tinker man, he just can't decide which is his best line up - have they run out of squad numbers yet?

 

And just before they claim a glorious high court victory over the taxman and lift the tranfser embargo, they have filed accounts haven't they?....That is the next requirement from the FL if you want your embargo lifted.

Whoops.

 

In technical terms they have gotten themselves into a right pickle.

 

How hard can it be - it's not like he has a huge choice.

hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
Is it not the administrator that is responsable for these costs? Being a debt that was incured via the hand of the administrator after he had taken control of the club and all that....

The Administrators are responsible for all the costs incurred after their appointment. That's the point. Unless "The AA Team" are certain that they will have enough cash coming in in future to meet their liabilities as they fall due, they must liquidate. If for no other reason than their employers at UHY will insist.

 

Unless he can sell players for around £3m this weekend, and get the cash in before the wages are due at the end of the month, he needs more cash from Chainrai. Now. And Chainrai is playing hard ball.

Merovingian

Merovingian

Posted
Posted
That's only for keepers.

 

The FL won't budge, that's for sure, just ask the cherries.

 

we have apparently been granted dispensation to sign 3 players according to that lowlife local rag of ours.

Hatch

Hatch

Posted
Posted
we have apparently been granted dispensation to sign 3 players according to that lowlife local rag of ours.

 

 

Will all players wishing to join the sinking ship please form an orderly queue.

sperm_john

sperm_john

Posted
Posted

havent checked this thread properly for quite a while? can someone summise for me where pompey are? are the cheating bastards going to liquidate and die or sliver out of the situation as usual?

saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted
we have apparently been granted dispensation to sign 3 players according to that lowlife local rag of ours.

 

I can understand the FL letting your lot sign a keeper or 2 due to the situation you have in that area. The way your lot have carried on in the past it wouldnt suprise me if the FL say yes to a couple of players thinking you will go after keepers and you will go and sign outfield players thinking that oyou will get a 2nd chance to sign keepers later on.

 

Didnt the FL say they are waiting to find out how the appeal is going to play out before they make any decissions on letting your lot sign anyone?

Merovingian

Merovingian

Posted
Posted
I can understand the FL letting your lot sign a keeper or 2 due to the situation you have in that area. The way your lot have carried on in the past it wouldnt suprise me if the FL say yes to a couple of players thinking you will go after keepers and you will go and sign outfield players thinking that oyou will get a 2nd chance to sign keepers later on.

 

Didnt the FL say they are waiting to find out how the appeal is going to play out before they make any decissions on letting your lot sign anyone?

 

gawd knows, there's so much ****e flowing out of PFC/The News at the moment who knows what to believe

JackFrost

JackFrost

Posted
Posted
Interesting to read that the Owls have been handed a WUP by HMRC.

 

It looks like they're going after every football club that owes taxes.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/sheff_wed/8847626.stm

 

Apologies - just seen this is also on the Main Bored

 

Further evidence IMO that HMRC are waging war on football clubs not paying their taxes. IMO they would love it if a club like Portsmouth went bust, it would send a chilling message to any other football club attempting to live beyond their means.

saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted
gawd knows, there's so much ****e flowing out of PFC/The News at the moment who knows what to believe

 

Certainly hard to believe anything that AA says as time and time again his promises have come to nothing. This court case could be good news for pompy ultimatly. Short term it probably wont feel like it but if the truth comes out fully and who ever is in charge goes about things in the right way in future then the Cheat tag will start to fade and you might be able to look forward to seeing PFC moving in the right direction (for you).

OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
we have apparently been granted dispensation to sign 3 players according to that lowlife local rag of ours.

 

what is it that makes Pompey be able to get around the rules others do not. Salisbury, Bournemouth Luton have been left to the dogs, wheras Pompey seem to get special dispensation. No doubt it will be Buffon, Ronaldo, and Messi to fill the spots.

L1Minus10

L1Minus10

Posted
Posted
we have apparently been granted dispensation to sign 3 players according to that lowlife local rag of ours.

 

 

Surely it would have to be free transfers... can't imagine anyone being too chuffed if Pompey stump up any transfer fees. Either way, can you imagine the selling club not taking the full fee up front.

View From The Top

View From The Top

Posted
Posted
what is it that makes Pompey be able to get around the rules others do not. Salisbury, Bournemouth Luton have been left to the dogs, wheras Pompey seem to get special dispensation. No doubt it will be Buffon, Ronaldo, and Messi to fill the spots.

 

I sometimes wonder if you just act dumb.

 

There is no special dispensation unless it's for a keeper.

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