Pompey Takeover Saga

[Lord Duckhunter]

This is what a bloke posted on another forum. I haven't a clue whether it is correct or whether he is a bit of a billy, but it interested me, and may be of some interest on here.

 

 

 

 

 

"If there's one thing I understand about Insolvency generally it is the huge amount of grey areas that exist. Whilst there are rules and laws in place, the fact is that all Insolvency matters are dealt with by a licensed Insolvency Practitioner. Within reason, what they see as fit becomes acceptable, provided the creditors agree during negotiations. I once had five Insolvency Practitioners working for me and I asked each of them the same question. I received five different answers!

 

My point is that I cannot provide a definitive answer to the questions on here but I can explain the process. You can then draw your own conclusions.

 

First of all, put aside the fact that PFC are already within a CVA. That is almost irrelevant. A winding up petition is simply there as a method for a disgruntled creditor to petition the court to intervene in the recovery of a debt. A fee is paid (to discourage minor creditors) to lodge the petition and a hearing date for the petition is published in the relevant gazette. At the hearing, the court needs to establish if the debtor, having been awarded due leniency and notice by the creditor, has been unreasonable in repaying their liability. If that is deemed to be the case, a winding up order could be granted. Depending on the state of the business concerned (it may for example have significant assets but be suffering from short term cashflow issues) a number of outcomes could arise. In no particular order they are:

 

No action taken

Administrator appointed to reach a mutually satisfactory outcome

Administrator appointed to liquidate the business

 

 

I should also point out that there exists a legal concept called reversible transactions. In the event of bankruptcy or liquidation, any transaction undertaken within the previous five years can legally be reversed. This prevents both Joe Bloggs from signing his house over to his wife and then going bankrupt and also businesses from stripping assets. All matters prior to the CVA are tied up within it but should the club start to sell players now in order to pay debts, they (as they clearly know) would be complete fools. Buying clubs are aware of this too so you can be certain that offers being made are derisory anyway.

 

So, a few things to consider here. PFC have missed just two tax and NI payments to HMRC as a direct result of their new backers going into administration. Is the issue of a winding up petition so quickly therefore reasonable? Remember, the CVA is irrelevant. The petition relates entirely to the current missed payments and I can assure you that there are thousands of businesses further behind than two months.

 

The CVA only becomes relevant in discussions relating to PFC's ability to pay going forward, at which stage the entire concern is looked at. The calculations are straightforward; X coming in Y going out means that this business needs to find Z in order to survive as a going concern. Conversation will then turn to how Z can best be found.

 

If Z exists in assets and the court agrees that the debtor has been wholly unreasonable in failing to repay their debts, then those assets can be ordered to be sold for the benefit of the creditors. Of course, it isn't just a matter of Y being £1.6M in unpaid tax to date, it will also take into consideration future liabilities.

 

All things considered, if the sale of PFC's squad (their only assets not already tied up in the CVA) could safeguard the operation of the business as a going concern (including payments to the CVA), then the company won't be wound up. As dispensation for sales outside of the window would need to be gained, my money is on an administrator being appointed by the court (not Andronikou) with an explicit mandate to find a buyer within a certain timeframe or to start selling off the players. Inevitable points deduction to follow."

[Winchester Red]

Interesting point 1 - Makes it seems like there's a whole lot of wiggle room (just for a change)

 

Interesting point 2 - Why is the previous CVA irrelevant? They have form for screwing people, especially HMRC. Why ignore it?

 

Interesting point 3 - If into administration it says 'not Andronikou' - Good news, but why? and if Chinney gets a say then what's to stop the next administrator being a puppet too?

[landford.saint]

It's not just them, sadly. For some reason - possibly because it is a politically insighful city full of deep-thinkers, or more likely a swamp full of web-fingered inbreds only capable of putting randomly placed X's on a polling card - both Skateville's constituencies are among the most marginal in England, with all three main parties having a vested interest in keeping the mutants onside.

 

If you have a sick animal, you have 3 options.

1. Do what you can to revive it.

2. Put it down.

3. Leave it alone and let nature take it's course.

 

Agree totally that many ill-advised people with their own agendas are making noises about this particular dead animal. Politicians do however tend to say one thing to get votes, and in effect do nothing in practice. The Judge however you are right could be under all sorts of pressure to not put the animal down. The FL must at sometime issue a points reduction. Especially if they give an extra points deduction for multiple administrations, that will make the skates an even less attractive to a purchaser. They can then just do nothing and wait for nature and the courts to do their stuff. Problem is the skates seem to have more lives than a family of cats, and are slipprier than an eel in grease.

[dubai_phil]

Jesus H.

 

I go off for a few days to stalk my mate Tiger & come back to find that the big moment is "agreed"

 

Who the hell was in charge while I was away?

 

Oh, are they dead yet?

[JackFrost]

I know some people are saying Pompey will probably go into administration again, but technically have they even come out of admin from the last time?

[saintjay77]

I know some people are saying Pompey will probably go into administration again, but technically have they even come out of admin from the last time?

 

I think due to having the previous CVA agreed that means they exited correctly. I suppose any new administrations CVA would have to include the previous CVA's creditors to get the share that was intended. Football creditors and secured creditors would still come before anyone that are stuck in the Un-secured creditors pot from this time or the last. So HMRC who are still waiting for the 20p in the pound from last time would have to sit back and watch a new admin pay off rich players and clubs ahead of any payments to either of their claims.

 

Something tells me they would really want PFC to go bust.

[suewhistle]

So, a few things to consider here. PFC have missed just two tax and NI payments to HMRC as a direct result of their new backers going into administration. Is the issue of a winding up petition so quickly therefore reasonable? Remember, the CVA is irrelevant. The petition relates entirely to the current missed payments and I can assure you that there are thousands of businesses further behind than two months.

 

The guy you quoted may have a point but I would argue that the WUP would be reasonable, "only two months" or not because there has been a prioritisation by the club of paying other bills and even increasing liabilities instead of paying tax. Yes, the debtor has "been wholly unreasonable". But as he says the CVA becomes relevant as it reflects the ability of the company to pay going forward, and that ability seems, at the moment, to be entirely absent...

[mcjwills]

Did not the new company take pver the liabilities of the old companies CVA so on the grounds, would not a CVA not be granted as you can not have 2 CVA's at the same time or are they really pulling a fast one and going to get the money owed in the CVA as part of the new CVA thus reducing the 20% of the original debt owed by an additional 80p in the pound and therefore end up paying 4p in the pound on the original debt. If this scenario is possible THEY WILL HAVE GOT AWAY WITH IT.

[tony13579]

Technically the administration happened to a different company PFC old co.

Now a completely different company PFC2010 with different directors is in trouble.

 

Will the courts be allowed to take the poor record of the old company into consideration? I don't think so.

[The Cat]

From the Posh web site: Attendance: 7,555 (1,276 Portsmouth fans). Lets see what they've got next Saturday, being bestest and all that.

 

So we took more there last season for a game in League 1 that was on tv.

[Kingsland Red]

How long can they continue to cheat their way to 3 points?

Until pressure is put on the FL by enough clubs like Peterborough, the latest victims to be cheated 3 points by a club that is fielding a team way above its means.

[dingbattigger]

Technically the administration happened to a different company PFC old co.

Now a completely different company PFC2010 with different directors is in trouble.

 

Will the courts be allowed to take the poor record of the old company into consideration? I don't think so.

 

Should be allowed to as the newco have to provide the funds to service the cva

[mack rill]

From the Posh web site: Attendance: 7,555 (1,276 Portsmouth fans). Lets see what they've got next Saturday, being bestest and all that.

 

1500 left Portsea island for posh, word is muver****intrain broke down on the way, 200 an odd never witness the away win.

[Saint in Paradise]

1500 left Portsea island for posh, word is muver****intrain broke down on the way, 200 an odd never witness the away win.

 

Perhaps someone in Peterborough "had a few words" with that driver so not too many

were able to go and polute Peterborough ?

[Gingeletiss]

1500 left Portsea island for posh, word is muver****intrain broke down on the way, 200 an odd never witness the away win.

 

Did they have any ticket tax to pay?

[Pedro]

Has the ticket software been updated or is it still cash only. They seem to be the only club affected.

[Weston Super Saint]

1500 left Portsea island for posh, word is muver****intrain broke down on the way, 200 an odd never witness the away win.

 

Problem with the points?

[latter day saint]

Problem with the points?

[mack rill]

Problem with the points?

[trousers]

This is what a bloke posted on another forum. I haven't a clue whether it is correct or whether he is a bit of a billy, but it interested me, and may be of some interest on here.

 

 

 

 

 

"If there's one thing I understand about Insolvency generally it is the huge amount of grey areas that exist. Whilst there are rules and laws in place, the fact is that all Insolvency matters are dealt with by a licensed Insolvency Practitioner. Within reason, what they see as fit becomes acceptable, provided the creditors agree during negotiations. I once had five Insolvency Practitioners working for me and I asked each of them the same question. I received five different answers!

 

My point is that I cannot provide a definitive answer to the questions on here but I can explain the process. You can then draw your own conclusions.

 

First of all, put aside the fact that PFC are already within a CVA. That is almost irrelevant. A winding up petition is simply there as a method for a disgruntled creditor to petition the court to intervene in the recovery of a debt. A fee is paid (to discourage minor creditors) to lodge the petition and a hearing date for the petition is published in the relevant gazette. At the hearing, the court needs to establish if the debtor, having been awarded due leniency and notice by the creditor, has been unreasonable in repaying their liability. If that is deemed to be the case, a winding up order could be granted. Depending on the state of the business concerned (it may for example have significant assets but be suffering from short term cashflow issues) a number of outcomes could arise. In no particular order they are:

 

No action taken

Administrator appointed to reach a mutually satisfactory outcome

Administrator appointed to liquidate the business

 

 

I should also point out that there exists a legal concept called reversible transactions. In the event of bankruptcy or liquidation, any transaction undertaken within the previous five years can legally be reversed. This prevents both Joe Bloggs from signing his house over to his wife and then going bankrupt and also businesses from stripping assets. All matters prior to the CVA are tied up within it but should the club start to sell players now in order to pay debts, they (as they clearly know) would be complete fools. Buying clubs are aware of this too so you can be certain that offers being made are derisory anyway.

 

So, a few things to consider here. PFC have missed just two tax and NI payments to HMRC as a direct result of their new backers going into administration. Is the issue of a winding up petition so quickly therefore reasonable? Remember, the CVA is irrelevant. The petition relates entirely to the current missed payments and I can assure you that there are thousands of businesses further behind than two months.

 

The CVA only becomes relevant in discussions relating to PFC's ability to pay going forward, at which stage the entire concern is looked at. The calculations are straightforward; X coming in Y going out means that this business needs to find Z in order to survive as a going concern. Conversation will then turn to how Z can best be found.

 

If Z exists in assets and the court agrees that the debtor has been wholly unreasonable in failing to repay their debts, then those assets can be ordered to be sold for the benefit of the creditors. Of course, it isn't just a matter of Y being £1.6M in unpaid tax to date, it will also take into consideration future liabilities.

 

All things considered, if the sale of PFC's squad (their only assets not already tied up in the CVA) could safeguard the operation of the business as a going concern (including payments to the CVA), then the company won't be wound up. As dispensation for sales outside of the window would need to be gained, my money is on an administrator being appointed by the court (not Andronikou) with an explicit mandate to find a buyer within a certain timeframe or to start selling off the players. Inevitable points deduction to follow."

 

Very interesting. Cheers for posting

[dubai_phil]

Originally Posted by Lord Duckhunter

my money is on an administrator being appointed by the court (not Andronikou) with an explicit mandate to find a buyer within a certain timeframe or to start selling off the players. Inevitable points deduction to follow."

 

This is what I have a problem with.

 

There is a clearly defined window for clubs to buy & sell players and rules on loans.

 

Allowing a club in distress to sell outside the window is unfair on other clubs struggling financially but still operating. It is ALSO possible that a buying club then gains an unfair advantage in acquiring a player outside the window and strengthening their squad.

 

So surely the ruling would have to be that any player sold this way is ineligible to play again THIS season? Which with the wages that would need paying until next August rendering any transfer fee negligible???

 

What does "Precedent" say? Have clubs been allowed to trade outside the window in the FL before?

 

They have (less than) the magical 48 hours now.

 

They will not get enough cash in outside the window even IF they are allowed to break more rules

 

They go down the insh'allah route yet again and hope that something comes up, fans pay off the HMRC bill on 21st Feb

 

Once again for those emailers to the FL, you should NOT forget that 10.8 mil - that money is still an unfair advantage if it is never paid back or placed into a CVA. My bet is that it was borrowed cash anyway - CSI probably pulled it out of Snoras, so they will still have to return something in a CSI CVA....

[positivepete]

Does Portpin have a lien on the players for the cash they are owed on the interest and principal from the previous loans? Perhaps that is why they are not selling any players, the money may not go to cashflow or HMRC anyway.

[St Jim]

This is what I have a problem with.

 

There is a clearly defined window for clubs to buy & sell players and rules on loans.

 

Allowing a club in distress to sell outside the window is unfair on other clubs struggling financially but still operating. It is ALSO possible that a buying club then gains an unfair advantage in acquiring a player outside the window and strengthening their squad.

 

So surely the ruling would have to be that any player sold this way is ineligible to play again THIS season? Which with the wages that would need paying until next August rendering any transfer fee negligible???

 

What does "Precedent" say? Have clubs been allowed to trade outside the window in the FL before?

 

They have (less than) the magical 48 hours now.

 

They will not get enough cash in outside the window even IF they are allowed to break more rules

 

They go down the insh'allah route yet again and hope that something comes up, fans pay off the HMRC bill on 21st Feb

 

Once again for those emailers to the FL, you should NOT forget that 10.8 mil - that money is still an unfair advantage if it is never paid back or placed into a CVA. My bet is that it was borrowed cash anyway - CSI probably pulled it out of Snoras, so they will still have to return something in a CSI CVA....

 

Gonna be interesting. English football laws v laws of the land. Maybe HMRC had this in mind, to bring it all to a head prior to their football creditors ruling challenge and to set a precedent that the laws of the land take priority over the laws of the FA.

[Channon's Sideburns]

Appy about to be on Solent...

 

'Doesn't know if he'll have to sell players'

 

Haha...if he doesn't know now, he never will.

 

Happy Appy - Mr Mushroom of Nottarf Krap.

[saint si]

There is precedent for how the football authorities react to this sort of request... not too far away, funnily enough...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8522283.stm

 

To paraphrase: "you had your chance in January you DFSCBs"

[tony13579]

Portsmouth, who have failed to pay the players on time four times already this season, have had four owners this campaign and are understood to be in negotiations with two buyers who are interested in taking them over.

This might explain the hush hush transfer embargos...

[Winchester Red]

Where was that quote from?

[saint si]

Where was that quote from?

 

My link (Feb 2010!)

[Winchester Red]

Shame. I was hoping that it was referring to them not paying their players 4 times this season!

 

Never mind, I'm sure that'll be the next scenario. Have January's wages been paid?

[Chez]

This is what I have a problem with.

 

There is a clearly defined window for clubs to buy & sell players and rules on loans.

 

Allowing a club in distress to sell outside the window is unfair on other clubs struggling financially but still operating. It is ALSO possible that a buying club then gains an unfair advantage in acquiring a player outside the window and strengthening their squad.

 

So surely the ruling would have to be that any player sold this way is ineligible to play again THIS season?

That is exactly what will happen. PFC can sell a player outside the window but buying club won't be able to play them, hence they won't bother buying - unless of course they get the deal of the century.

[Kingsland Red]

Right folks, the entertainment really starts this morning ... the defence.

 

Where can they take us from beyond the damage so far - the character of a two year old, computer illiterate, giving sharing sort of a geezer, who doesn't understand bank accounts, and relies on Malcolm the Accountant and Sandra to hang out his laundry.

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/east-hampshire/redknapp_and_mandaric_s_defence_due_to_open_at_tax_evasion_trial_1_3467727

[dingbattigger]

Isn't Antonov in court today as well?

[Ken Tone]

That is exactly what will happen. PFC can sell a player outside the window but buying club won't be able to play them, hence they won't bother buying - unless of course they get the deal of the century.

 

I also thjink this is likely, after they go into administration. The adminstrator (if it is a real one this time) will sell on the cheap or even just release players, to reduce the wage bill. 'Buying' clubs will take them if they are a real bargain, but not be able to play them till next season.

 

Lampitt and the directors (and surely it is their decison, not AA's since the club is not in admin) ought to be holding a fire sale now. But in typical cheats FC fashion they seem to hanging on grimly in some sort of brinkmanship bluff, hoping someone will rescue them rather than "allow such a great club to go bust".

 

Or maybe they reckon admin is inevitable even if they do sell a couple of players so are just getting as many games out of the squad as possible before the points deduction, and the dismantling of the squad, in the hope they can scrape together enough to avoid relegation. They don't care if their debt racks up a bit higher in the meantime ..they don't worry about moral obligations. In fact the more I think about it, the more that seems to be their tactic. And if the deduction is only 10 points, they may even succeed.

[Winchester Red]

Can anyone confirm whether AA can be the administrator of PFC as well as CSI beyond doubt?

 

I've seen it said he will be and can't be over recent pages

[rallyboy]

I think they're in a bit of a corner now over the wages -

1. Pay them, instead of paying a long overdue tax bill, yet another offence.

2. Don't pay them, and the wrath of the league comes down on them.

 

The league rules specifically mention insolvent trading, that's covered by law and the football regulations - how long can this farce be allowed to continue?

And that's glossing over the fact that they're been funded by money stolen from pensioners this season.

 

Meanwhile the begging bowls are out for the millionaires - pack the park and buy Ben Haim some shiny bit of tat for one of his mansions.

 

The dirty club is beyond help - form a new one.

[Ken Tone]

Can anyone confirm whether AA can be the administrator of PFC as well as CSI beyond doubt?

 

I've seen it said he will be and can't be over recent pages

 

I don't think there is anything in law to forbid this. However, the likelihood of his being appointed will depend on who puts them into admin .. and in any event HMRC may well object to his appointment.

[Foxstone]

Isn't Antonov in court today as well?

 

He certainly is - Extradition request from Lithuania...

 

Cue a referral to the European Court for Human Rights !!!

[tony13579]

Right folks, the entertainment really starts this morning ... the defence.

 

Where can they take us from beyond the damage so far - the character of a two year old, computer illiterate, giving sharing sort of a geezer, who doesn't understand bank accounts, and relies on Malcolm the Accountant and Sandra to hang out his laundry.

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/east-hampshire/redknapp_and_mandaric_s_defence_due_to_open_at_tax_evasion_trial_1_3467727

 

I believe there is legal argumet between lawers this morning in private and then the fun will resume at 2pm in the court room and on twitter

[Ken Tone]

I believe there is legal argumet between lawers this morning in private and then the fun will resume at 2pm in the court room and on twitter

 

I think the idea is that the defence gives the prosecutors a preview, so that they can practise not laughing out loud when they hear it in court.

[Wurzel]

This is getting like the end game in The Godfather when all the rivals are hit at the same time during the christening.

'Arry & Mandy in court

WUP issued

Antonov in court

Storrie already "done" but outcome being kept under wraps until... ?

Football League "keeping an eye on things" but not making any announcement for now, until....?

 

Is there anyway they can drag it all out until they make all judgements and/or announcements at the same time ?

[Guided Missile]

Had to laugh at this old story regarding Geoff Hoon, in the House of Commons:

 

Thursday, March 27, 2003

 

Umm Q

asr is a tow

n similar to Southampton", UK Defence Minister Geoff Hoon told the House of Commons yesterday. "He's either never been to Southampton, or he's never been to Umm Qasr", said one British soldier, informed of this while on patrol in Umm Qasr. Another added: "There's no beer, no prostitutes, and people are shooting at us. It's more like Portsmouth."

[dubai_phil]

This is getting like the end game in The Godfather when all the rivals are hit at the same time during the christening.

'Arry & Mandy in court

WUP issued

Antonov in court

Storrie already "done" but outcome being kept under wraps until... ?

Football League "keeping an eye on things" but not making any announcement for now, until....?

 

Is there anyway they can drag it all out until they make all judgements and/or announcements at the same time ?

 

Interestingly, when you Google that court case.

 

Google comes up with a link to this thread in the first page of the search

[saintjay77]

This is getting like the end game in The Godfather when all the rivals are hit at the same time during the christening.

'Arry & Mandy in court

WUP issued

Antonov in court

Storrie already "done" but outcome being kept under wraps until... ?

Football League "keeping an eye on things" but not making any announcement for now, until....?

 

Is there anyway they can drag it all out until they make all judgements and/or announcements at the same time ?

 

I wonder why there has been no mention of Storries case during Arry's and Milan's? If that was to be kept quite until this case I would of thought it was due to something in that one having something to so with this one. So why no mention of it? Unless thats discussed in all the legal discussions that have gone on? What is the kind of thing discussed in those discussions anyway? Figuring out what they can or cant say? Bargaining with each other? Would be interesting to know what its all about IMO.

[Hockey_saint]

Seriously, WTF!!!.....How can they STILL be so deluded!!!??? "we're NOT in administration" http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/great-matches/pompey_defender_desperate_to_stay_1_3467616

[trousers]

I wonder why there has been no mention of Storries case during Arry's and Milan's? If that was to be kept quite until this case I would of thought it was due to something in that one having something to so with this one. So why no mention of it? Unless thats discussed in all the legal discussions that have gone on? What is the kind of thing discussed in those discussions anyway? Figuring out what they can or cant say? Bargaining with each other? Would be interesting to know what its all about IMO.

 

A quick google with the relevant words should lead you to a document on an Irish website that has some background info on this...

[Channon's Sideburns]

Apparently according to the Pompey Trust it's 'Pack the Park' this weekend.

 

Insert your own jokes....

[Ohio Saint]

Interestingly, when you Google that court case.

 

Google comes up with a link to this thread in the first page of the search

 

Freshness factors in Google rankings. HTH

[saintjay77]

A quick google with the relevant words should lead you to a document on an Irish website that has some background info on this...

 

Having a thick moment I guess but I am still none the wiser. lol. Too criptic for me on a Monday.

[Trader]

Seriously, WTF!!!.....How can they STILL be so deluded!!!??? "we're NOT in administration" http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/great-matches/pompey_defender_desperate_to_stay_1_3467616

 

Err - unless i've missed something - they're not in administration.

 

Not that deluded then.

[St Jim]

Technically the administration happened to a different company PFC old co.

Now a completely different company PFC2010 with different directors is in trouble.

 

Will the courts be allowed to take the poor record of the old company into consideration? I don't think so.

 

Don't know - same owner though (OK it's CSI but that's now effectively Chinny/AA). Will the courts take that into account?