Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga


Fitzhugh Fella

Recommended Posts

Sky have just had a specialist from Ernst & Young on commenting on the Hearts WUP. He says that if it isn't paid there will be a WUO and a liquidator will be appointed and the only way to avoid that is either pay the bill or the main creditor put them into administration. I know the issue is different at Hearts as the owner will probably pay but unless PFC find a buyer or somebody to cover the costs of administration it may now be the end for PFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, could imagine those 12 lucky jury members receiving a nice padded brown envelope shaped surprise through their letterbox tonight ;)

 

Like others have said it'd be just that twitchy ****ers luck to be found not guilty, Capello to quit over the Terry saga, and twitchy to take the England job part time alongside the Spurs job for the Euros, then take it on full time.

 

Has the Monaco bank got accounts Rosie 1 - 12?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky have just had a specialist from Ernst & Young on commenting on the Hearts WUP. He says that if it isn't paid there will be a WUO and a liquidator will be appointed and the only way to avoid that is either pay the bill or the main creditor put them into administration. I know the issue is different at Hearts as the owner will probably pay but unless PFC find a buyer or somebody to cover the costs of administration it may now be the end for PFC.

 

Hearts are sponsored by Wonga.com, can they not ask them for help at 4214% APR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When will the penny (pun intended) drop that AA is working for, and in the interests of, the creditor(s) of CSI?

 

As the judge in Redknapp's case said to the jury today: "You may have sympathy with the defendant but it is your job to act upon the facts not upon sympathy"

 

AA is in exactly the same boat....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice of Corp to spend some of his time on the way to Birmingham posting on here.

 

I'm presuming he is on his way up there for tonight's game along with 4000 of the other best fans in the world.

 

A draw for me tonight please. Much as I want Brum to lose my religion forbids contemplating a Skates win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice of Corp to spend some of his time on the way to Birmingham posting on here.

 

I'm presuming he is on his way up there for tonight's game along with 4000 of the other best fans in the world.

 

Well he's not important enough to be at the NEC working the toy fair which would have been ideal...I genuinely think he's a telesales caller so he probably gets timed on his toilet breaks!:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry won't get the England job even if he's found not guilty (Brian clough!!)

I couldn't care less anyway,international football is massively corrupt. I stopped supporting England years ago (man utd players don't talk to Liverpool players) big babies.Pick the England team from the Championship and we would do much better er um...Greece,Denmark,Turkey have all done better than England in recent years.Long live cryoman 1965

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry won't get the England job even if he's found not guilty (Brian clough!!)

I couldn't care less anyway,international football is massively corrupt. I stopped supporting England years ago (man utd players don't talk to Liverpool players) big babies.Pick the England team from the Championship and we would do much better er um...Greece,Denmark,Turkey have all done better than England in recent years.Long live cryoman 1965

 

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not tak the trouble to actually read what I wrote. i didn't say there was any similarity between our owners, nor did I draw any parallels between the levels of debt. What I said was that we're in trouble because our latest owner cannot fund us to the level he agreed with the FL (see that "agreed with the FL) and that if your owners could no longer fund you then you would be in financial trouble too. Nothing about levels of debt, not comparing the owners but comparing hypothetical situation. Sorry if that's too mntally taxing for you

 

 

 

FC, I know the figures I quoted are from 2010 because those are the latest actual accounts available so anyone posting anything (you included) is hypothesising. I agree with you that your revenues for 2011 will have increased, including the money for Oxlade – Chamberlain but I still think you’re being wildly optimistic with some of your claims. The last published accounts (from your first year in L1) showed that you made losses of £7.7m on the football side of things (so whoever posted that you’ve been trading within your means since Liebherr took over was patently wrong) and overall, including everything under the holding company umbrella you made losses of £9.0m. Your turnover for that year was £14.2m. Your average gate has increased since that year (according to Granty, I haven’t checked) from 21K to 26K – so +25%. So let’s say your turnover this year will have increased by 50% from the last accounts – a generous assumption? That would give you a turnover of £21.3m.

 

Now, in the last accounts your operating costs for the year were £22m. Wages alone accounted for £12.3m and given the signings you’ve made since them plus the increases that would have been in players’ contracts for achieving promotion that figure must have increased fairly substantially. What about other operating costs? Must have increased from two years ago, wouldn’t you say? So what are they now - £25M? Pushing £30m? Not only that but the accounts showed that you needed to repay £7m to creditors last year so that’s got to be added in too. Not to mention loans from Liebherr that are eventually due totalling over £20m. Of course, you got the £12m transfer money but £3.5 - £4m of that has been spent on Fox and Sharp and Oxlade – Chamberlain would have been on low wages as a youth player, unlike the two who have come in who wouldn’t have come cheap (are those rumours about Sharpe being on £30K a week true?) so that’ yet more money onto the wage bill. What about the rest of the transfer money. You’ve no idea if it went back into the club or if the Liebherr.

 

As for your valuation of the club, do you really believe that the Liebherr’s would sell for £20 -25m when a loan that needs repaying alone is for £20.4m? I’m sure they’re lovely people but they’re not a charity. I’m pretty sure they’d be looking to make a tidy profit on their investment. So I think your valuation is woefully short of what they’d be looking for. Of course you have the stadium, academy etc. (but I must point out that you only own half your training ground), I understand all that but your price seems low.

So, do we still think you’re living within your means with no need for input from the Liebherr’s or not?

 

So, let me get this straight, you come up with total guesswork, based on nothing but rumours (from a Skate site no doubt) and pass it off as a vain attempt to back up your weak argument. You come up with a guess about Sharp, and lob it in there as a smoke screen - it has no substance. You have no idea whether we're living within our means or not. Absolutely no clue whatsoever.

 

In any case, WTF has that got to do with your club? The point is that we are infinitely more attractive to anybody looking to buy a football club. We have assets for a start - training ground, big stadium, big fanbase, land, players that we can sell (novel, isn't it). You have a run down poxy little stadium, a massive wage bill, a poor squad with little resale value and small gates. Stick in all the debt, and a string of dodgy owners and you end up in a situation where nobody in their right mid (for honest reasons) would want to buy you.

 

You get 3 posts a day - try sticking to responding to posters who are asking sensible questions about Pompey, that you conveniently ignore as they're obviously in the 'too difficult' pile, rather than coming up with total tripe like this.

 

Unless of course you have a contact at St Marys who you see socially every week or so (and I'm not talking about hookers)?

Edited by Chin Strain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still thinking about the demand for proof of £100m from the supporters group? If the only aim was to get the creditors, i.e. chinny, their money back and they somehow got together the same £32m as AA had been demanding of other possible purchasers then why not let them try as chinny would get his money?

 

My guess is that any private party that did come up with the £32m would probably also have to agree to something along the lines of a 'hidden' condition to not go digging in the books to find the money trails. AA and chinny, probably rightly, decided that that would not work with the supporters group who are probably quite keen to see the money trails etc so instead decided on the extra large value instead. What would be interesting would be to hear AA's reasoning for the different figures but I doubt we will ever get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice of Corp to spend some of his time on the way to Birmingham posting on here.

 

I'm presuming he is on his way up there for tonight's game along with 4000 of the other best fans in the world.

 

 

Just read your team out on bbc radio and it sounded very echoey, almost like st fairies was only 10% full. Of course it can't be you wouldn't stay at home, for a home game, must of borrowed our distorted PA system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hearts are sponsored by Wonga.com, can they not ask them for help at 4214% APR?

 

That would work:lol:

 

Ha, surely Wonga should help Pompey, what with a large portion of their client base being Pompey fans.

 

:lol: Now remind me what happened to the Wonga-like CSI initiative which disappeared, along with their administration?

 

How can they go into admin?

 

I thought only the wup server (hmrc) could put them into admin?

 

There was earlier mention of pfc needing to prove they can fund the administration period? What with AA stating they "don't have millions of debt, just a short term cashflow situation" might preclude 'funding administration'.

 

The primary purpose of administration is to postpone the WUP indefinately. That's the last thing HMRC want.

 

HMRC definitely don't want another administration. They, like Shylock (Wonga), want more than their pound of flesh.

 

Unless BC stumps up then it's the start of the end game.

 

It's Mexican standoff time. Shylock (BC) V Shylock (HMRC)

 

Excellent!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read your team out on bbc radio and it sounded very echoey, almost like st fairies was only 10% full. Of course it can't be you wouldn't stay at home, for a home game, must of borrowed our distorted PA system.

 

I guess you lot are the experts on what empty stadiums sound like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there isn't going to be "a next season":scared:

 

Oh Truckie, Truckie, Truckie why can't I be as optimistic as you. I have been following this thread for the last few years trying to take in all the info...and there is some great stuff on here, but when I read through peoples summaries there always appears to be a little chink of light that will keep them going.

 

Its like they are being Toasted but they are going to pop up just before they are toasted to a cinder. Oh well here's to hoping to The bird watcher and Mandic getting some bird.

 

On a serious note have you managed to tear yourself away from the Laptop do the pile of washing and walk the dogs since the weekend.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not tak the trouble to actually read what I wrote. i didn't say there was any similarity between our owners, nor did I draw any parallels between the levels of debt. What I said was that we're in trouble because our latest owner cannot fund us to the level he agreed with the FL (see that "agreed with the FL) and that if your owners could no longer fund you then you would be in financial trouble too. Nothing about levels of debt, not comparing the owners but comparing hypothetical situation. Sorry if that's too mntally taxing for you

 

 

 

FC, I know the figures I quoted are from 2010 because those are the latest actual accounts available so anyone posting anything (you included) is hypothesising. I agree with you that your revenues for 2011 will have increased, including the money for Oxlade – Chamberlain but I still think you’re being wildly optimistic with some of your claims. The last published accounts (from your first year in L1) showed that you made losses of £7.7m on the football side of things (so whoever posted that you’ve been trading within your means since Liebherr took over was patently wrong) and overall, including everything under the holding company umbrella you made losses of £9.0m. Your turnover for that year was £14.2m. Your average gate has increased since that year (according to Granty, I haven’t checked) from 21K to 26K – so +25%. So let’s say your turnover this year will have increased by 50% from the last accounts – a generous assumption? That would give you a turnover of £21.3m.

Now, in the last accounts your operating costs for the year were £22m. Wages alone accounted for £12.3m and given the signings you’ve made since them plus the increases that would have been in players’ contracts for achieving promotion that figure must have increased fairly substantially. What about other operating costs? Must have increased from two years ago, wouldn’t you say? So what are they now - £25M? Pushing £30m? Not only that but the accounts showed that you needed to repay £7m to creditors last year so that’s got to be added in too. Not to mention loans from Liebherr that are eventually due totalling over £20m. Of course, you got the £12m transfer money but £3.5 - £4m of that has been spent on Fox and Sharp and Oxlade – Chamberlain would have been on low wages as a youth player, unlike the two who have come in who wouldn’t have come cheap (are those rumours about Sharpe being on £30K a week true?) so that’ yet more money onto the wage bill. What about the rest of the transfer money. You’ve no idea if it went back into the club or if the Liebherr.

As for your valuation of the club, do you really believe that the Liebherr’s would sell for £20 -25m when a loan that needs repaying alone is for £20.4m? I’m sure they’re lovely people but they’re not a charity. I’m pretty sure they’d be looking to make a tidy profit on their investment. So I think your valuation is woefully short of what they’d be looking for. Of course you have the stadium, academy etc. (but I must point out that you only own half your training ground), I understand all that but your price seems low.

So, do we still think you’re living within your means with no need for input from the Liebherr’s or not?

 

You havn't got a faintest clue what Saints' finances are like. Your figures are based on our first year in league 1 when Leibherr basically had to invest in completely new team. We've been promoted, had high attendances and £12mill shoved in the bank since then.

 

The one consistent thing about this whole thread is that you are talking sh!te.

 

You said Gaydamak was as businessman in his own right - we said he was just laundering daddies blood money - we were right.

 

You said the fat arab was loaded and going to install Maradonna as DOF and sign Riquelme - Dubai Phil clocked him as a fraud after 5mins.

 

You said Al Mirage would "take you to a new level" - we thought it was odd there was nothing online about his business - he didn't exist.

 

You said CSI were a reputable company - we said they were criminals - guess what, we were right again.

 

How many times do you need to be proved wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The primary purpose of administration is to postpone the WUP indefinately. That's the last thing HMRC want.

 

Don't the club have to go to court to prove funds are available as the wup has been presented. Can HMRC oppose this in court to stop them trying to get away with it again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read your team out on bbc radio and it sounded very echoey, almost like st fairies was only 10% full. Of course it can't be you wouldn't stay at home, for a home game, must of borrowed our distorted PA system.

 

I'm surprised you were listening to BBC radio.

 

Surely you were busy getting yourself settled in at St Andrews at that time, and getting ready to cheer Pompey on weren't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised you were listening to BBC radio.

 

Surely you were busy getting yourself settled in at St Andrews at that time, and getting ready to cheer Pompey on weren't you?

 

or even listening to Pompey on the BBC = not Saints.

 

Perhaps he is not a skate after all but is really a closet Saint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You havn't got a faintest clue what Saints' finances are like. Your figures are based on our first year in league 1 when Leibherr basically had to invest in completely new team. We've been promoted, had high attendances and £12mill shoved in the bank since then.

 

 

Don't worry - this is classic Ho. He does it all the time . If he finds it too difficult to argue on behalf of the blue few he tries to divert attention by mouthing off about us.

 

It just shows that he is rattled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't the club have to go to court to prove funds are available as the wup has been presented. Can HMRC oppose this in court to stop them trying to get away with it again

 

Not sure but I understand that when they apply for admin they have to go to court to demonstrate that they have a funding source to fund the administartion period and assume this maybe when HMRC could challenge it. COYHMRC!!

 

12 days left .........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry - this is classic Ho. He does it all the time . If he finds it too difficult to argue on behalf of the blue few he tries to divert attention by mouthing off about us.

 

It just shows that he is rattled.

 

It'll be interesting to obtain a list of questions we have posed to him that he has refused to answer (by, as you say, his normal method of diverting attention by mouthing off about us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not tak the trouble to actually read what I wrote. i didn't say there was any similarity between our owners, nor did I draw any parallels between the levels of debt. What I said was that we're in trouble because our latest owner cannot fund us to the level he agreed with the FL (see that "agreed with the FL) and that if your owners could no longer fund you then you would be in financial trouble too. Nothing about levels of debt, not comparing the owners but comparing hypothetical situation. Sorry if that's too mntally taxing for you

 

 

FC, I know the figures I quoted are from 2010 because those are the latest actual accounts available so anyone posting anything (you included) is hypothesising. I agree with you that your revenues for 2011 will have increased, including the money for Oxlade – Chamberlain but I still think you’re being wildly optimistic with some of your claims. The last published accounts (from your first year in L1) showed that you made losses of £7.7m on the football side of things (so whoever posted that you’ve been trading within your means since Liebherr took over was patently wrong) and overall, including everything under the holding company umbrella you made losses of £9.0m. Your turnover for that year was £14.2m. Your average gate has increased since that year (according to Granty, I haven’t checked) from 21K to 26K – so +25%. So let’s say your turnover this year will have increased by 50% from the last accounts – a generous assumption? That would give you a turnover of £21.3m.

 

Now, in the last accounts your operating costs for the year were £22m. Wages alone accounted for £12.3m and given the signings you’ve made since them plus the increases that would have been in players’ contracts for achieving promotion that figure must have increased fairly substantially. What about other operating costs? Must have increased from two years ago, wouldn’t you say? So what are they now - £25M? Pushing £30m? Not only that but the accounts showed that you needed to repay £7m to creditors last year so that’s got to be added in too. Not to mention loans from Liebherr that are eventually due totalling over £20m. Of course, you got the £12m transfer money but £3.5 - £4m of that has been spent on Fox and Sharp and Oxlade – Chamberlain would have been on low wages as a youth player, unlike the two who have come in who wouldn’t have come cheap (are those rumours about Sharpe being on £30K a week true?) so that’ yet more money onto the wage bill. What about the rest of the transfer money. You’ve no idea if it went back into the club or if the Liebherr.

 

As for your valuation of the club, do you really believe that the Liebherr’s would sell for £20 -25m when a loan that needs repaying alone is for £20.4m? I’m sure they’re lovely people but they’re not a charity. I’m pretty sure they’d be looking to make a tidy profit on their investment. So I think your valuation is woefully short of what they’d be looking for. Of course you have the stadium, academy etc. (but I must point out that you only own half your training ground), I understand all that but your price seems low.

So, do we still think you’re living within your means with no need for input from the Liebherr’s or not?

 

This is funny as f*ck!

 

" No No honestly, everything at poopey is gonna be ok, but you saints fans should be very worried!" ROFPMSL :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was making sense until about 1/3 the way down when it suggested UHY were acting in a way that was contrary to Chainrai's best interests.

 

Seems to me that if UHY are doing their best to make the club go pop (and i'm not convinced they are), then perhaps that is also what Chainrai is aiming for. As the preferred creditor, he's first in line to get anything out of the assets, which presumably includes the 400k raised in the transfer window.

 

Everyone assumes he needs to get £17m out of the club and so has to stick around. But there are two reasons this is unlikely:

 

1 - as a shrewd businessman (clearly very wealthy, and not by accident), he'll always be looking to maximise his return, irrespective of sunk costs. With old CVA looming and new debts mounting up, he may at this point be prepared to cut his losses.

 

2 - if he's been charging interest for the last 2 years (what loan shark wouldn't have?) then perhaps he's not actually 17m in a hole anyway.

 

If the club is liquidated, then he has a more than reasonable chance of selling FP for development. Is it worth £20m? Not a chance. But £3-5m might be enough incentive for him to go down that route. Especially as it is arguably the lowest risk option of all at this point...

 

Not to mention that he most likely hasn't lent nearly as much (real) money to Cheats FC as he claims.

 

Good God, I'm beginning to sound like Corpse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust spokesman, Scott Mclachlan, said: "I don't think the majority of the city could imagine not having the club."

 

I don't get this rhetoric that the club is the soul of the city. If the club was so important to the whole city why don't more pleople watch them week in week out.

 

 

 

"Pompey brings in millions of pounds a year in revenue."

 

How much revenue do they bring in to the city? Probably zero once you extract the amount of taxes they withhold from the public purse!

 

On a serious note though the club doesn't actually 'bring' in any extra significant revenue. If there wasn't the club the fan(s) would have extra cash in their pocket and would spend it some other way, more than likely with local businesses.

 

 

"The club is bankrupt, it can't pay its tax bill, or the wages of its players and staff.

 

"It has no way of supporting itself so it will have to go into administration which immediately brings a 10 point penalty which puts us into a relegation battle.

 

That's right Mr Mclachlan, keep on this path. The more you spout on about them being bankrupt the more the FL have ammunition to deduct you points.

 

Also if the club is bankrupt as Scott Mclachlan mentions, yet still opperates its normal business as they have been doing, I would suggest that indicates trading while insolvent, but then we all know that's been going on for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a smirk at the "we'll have to go into Admin jokes from the poopey trust.

 

Peeps.

 

You have a CASH FLOW problem

 

1) You have to pay WAGES of what appears to be 1.8/2mil a month

2) You have to pay taxes of what appears to be 800k a month

 

That = around 2.6mil.

 

You do NOT have debts (source AA) other than one month of wages & HMRC's (by now around 2.4mil)

 

You owe staged payments on the players that you purchased.

 

Admin is entered into in order to gain protection from your creditors

 

Guys - even IF you go into Admin you

 

1) Have to pay the Wages INCLUDING the back pay - FOOTBALL CREDITORS RULE

2) Have to pay the Transfer Installments - FOOTBALL CREDITORS RULE

3) Have to pay around 100k a month in fees to the Administrator

 

Admin will actually make the situation WORSE by loading even MORE monthly expenses onto the club.

 

You know what guys, we've been looking at this all wrong these past years. These days there is huge money to be made globally writing books on how to run Businesses or how to perform better at work. (Let's face it every rubbish boss hides behind "have you Read The Art Of War?"

 

This thread ain't no historical document.

 

It's a new money spinner for us - How NOT to run a Football Business.

 

We'll get an Editor in, add some motivational one liners that can be turned into Posters and bingo, we'll make enough wonga inside a couple of months to be able to buy Saints and all be Fan Owners just like poopeys new dream.

 

Ironic that they will have given us the means to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the chances of an adjournment on the 20th?

 

The only scenario we could come up with is that AA as usual finds a buyer introduced by BC that will save the club in 48 hours

 

Do winding up petitions ever get adjourned without the bill being paid?

 

I suppose HMRC could withdraw the petition? But Hmrc don't do that.

 

Surely a winding up petition is not the beginning of the end. It is the end. A guillotine on a bad debt junkie business.

 

COYHMRC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still thinking about the demand for proof of £100m from the supporters group? If the only aim was to get the creditors, i.e. chinny, their money back and they somehow got together the same £32m as AA had been demanding of other possible purchasers then why not let them try as chinny would get his money?

 

My guess is that any private party that did come up with the £32m would probably also have to agree to something along the lines of a 'hidden' condition to not go digging in the books to find the money trails. AA and chinny, probably rightly, decided that that would not work with the supporters group who are probably quite keen to see the money trails etc so instead decided on the extra large value instead. What would be interesting would be to hear AA's reasoning for the different figures but I doubt we will ever get it.

 

IF he gave a reason would you even be able to believe it going on with all previous information given out by AA??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...