Goalie66 Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 "Michael Appleton has admitted he is prepared for Pompey to go into administration. The News understands that debenture holder Balram Chainrai is close to carrying out the action. The move would put off the HMRC winding-up petition hearing scheduled for Monday, February 20 but would see Pompey hit with a points deduction. It would also be the second time Chainrai has put Pompey into administration. And Appleton today said Pompey must get ready for the scenario." I am not so sure. Who will fund admin? Chanrai? That still assumes someone will buy them and repay his loans. I cannot see him letting the club be sold for half of his loans when funding admin might be over a £1.5 million a month . Not very good business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 (edited) I don't know what the points deduction is for a second administration Looking at the examples on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football) , clubs only seem to get 'extra' penalty points if they eithr fail to exit administration by the start of the next season or if their owner are found guilty of financial irregularities. So, perhaps there isn't actually any 'extra' penalty for entering administration more than once as long as you exit administration (each time) in a timely fashion (i.e. have an agreed, rather than fulfilled, CVA)? Edited 9 February, 2012 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 So, perhaps there isn't actually any 'extra' penalty for entering administration more than once as long as you exit administration in a timely fashion (i.e. have an agreed, rather than fulfilled, CVA)? Much like us with our parent company back in 2009, this can be filed under "circumstances the Football League didn't plan for". You see, most clubs when they go into administration and come out the other side tend to embark on a new wave of austerity and self-sustainability. Most clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 "The appalling fit and proper person test has let Pompey supporters down" "Pleased to announce that HMRC will be back around the table with Portsmouth Football club tomorrow" "Portsmouth Football Club WILL survive" FFS, shouldnt she be working flat out to protect the dockyard and all the jobs, industry and heritage at risk? She needs to stop begging for the skates, it is undignified and cheap... not utterly convinced about the vote winning either, pompey has around 250,000 in the peoples republic of portsea and they are mustering about 12,000 odd home supporters, so only about 5% give a sh*te about poopey. She has no credible arguments to make and clings onto this completely intangible "social value" nonsense as justification for the club to evade tax responsibilities. I understand she wants to continue being a skate but she should be looking for a credible, viable solution, not begging and bleating woe is me, please let the tax payer fund bestestest poopey. MoneyPenny, I have a viable solution for you: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Absolute rubbish. When the player under contract is sold to another club, his existing contract is terminated and he negoatiates a new one with the new club.... Not so. Only if the player officially asks for a transfer. If the club decide to sell without the player requesting a transfer they must pay up the contract - these payments are usually incorporated into the price the selling club demand for said player Presactly! Oh dear Don't blame PFC123, he just doesn't get it. Although that's no massive revelation is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Presactly! Not true, actually. Facepalming when you're wrong yourself is a bit silly really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Sorry but pfc123 is right. The player is entitled to more (Usually a % of the transfer fee) but he doesn't get his whole contract paid up. For example, have you ever heard "I took a pay cut to come and play here" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 They've got a ******* meeting with HMRC tomorrow. Cheats. Probably easier to agree to the meeting, send the tea boy and pay lip service, than to put up with money penny carping on in the background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 This MP asking HMRC to get round the table is a bit of a red herring. HMRC's action triggered this latest panic, but even if they can sort out these problems, it isn't actually doing anything but delaying the seemingly inevitable. And that is probably only for one or two months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsland Red Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Who has a meeting with HMRC though - BC, AA , the MP, DL, Westwood ? Who is PFC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Not true, actually. Facepalming when you're wrong yourself is a bit silly really. Sorry but pfc123 is right. The player is entitled to more (Usually a % of the transfer fee) but he doesn't get his whole contract paid up. For example, have you ever heard "I took a pay cut to come and play here" So if a player doesn't request a transfer but moves then he can actually lose money? I have always, wrongly it seems, thought that the player had their contract paid up. My apologies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Who has a meeting with HMRC though - BC, AA , the MP, DL, Westwood ? Who is PFC? http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/club/ownership.aspx Portsmouth Football Club (2010) Limited is the company that holds the share in The Football League. It is also a member of the Hampshire County Football Association and an Associate Member of the Football Association. Portsmouth Football Club (2010) Limited is 100 per cent owned by Convers Sports Initiatives PLC (CSI), a company incorporated in the United Kingdom. CSI is currently in administration and is controlled by its joint administrators Andrew Andronikou and Peter Kubik of UHY Hacker Young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 So if a player doesn't request a transfer but moves then he can actually lose money? I have always, wrongly it seems, thought that the player had their contract paid up. My apologies! I had always believed that the player was entitled to any outstanding signing on bonuses which are paid over the length of the contract, but not the wages on the remainder of his contract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 What I cannot understand is why would PCC do a CPO for the land and give it to PFC to sell to Tescos for £20M, would not the fair minder council tax payers want PCC to sell direct to Tescos and cut out PFC and make further £17M approximately into the bargain. Think of all those services for the elderly diasbled youth projects that are currently under threat that could be saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Probably easier to agree to the meeting, send the tea boy and pay lip service, than to put up with money penny carping on in the background. Quite. Besides which if/when it gets as far as the court hearing the WU petition, and PFC start bleatin on as susla about how they are some sort of special cae, it would make HMRC's position look worse if PFC could say "and they wouldn't even talk to us" But what I thikn is happening now is that Lampitt inb hsown sweet way is tryng to save the club, and for once Chainrai isn't just gettingwhat he wants via AA. That for me is theonly explnation for the lack of a firesale on transfer deadline day. Lampitt will now put the club nto admoinostraion,or try to (points about how this might be funded noted). He hung on to players in the hope of riding out a 10 poiont deduction without relegation ,in the hope that someone --anyone --will come and buy them out of admin yet again, yet again shafting their creditors in the process. BC will also miss out if so. He'd have been better off selling players , then going for liquidation to get what he could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Probably easier to agree to the meeting, send the tea boy and pay lip service, than to put up with money penny carping on in the background. Quite. They will have the meeting so that Dave can say he got the parties together. Meeting will go along the lines of "you owe us £1.6m". "We know we havent got it, but hopefully it will turn up soon"; "okay, see you in court on the 20th then" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsland Red Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/club/ownership.aspx Portsmouth Football Club (2010) Limited is the company that holds the share in The Football League. It is also a member of the Hampshire County Football Association and an Associate Member of the Football Association. Portsmouth Football Club (2010) Limited is 100 per cent owned by Convers Sports Initiatives PLC (CSI), a company incorporated in the United Kingdom. CSI is currently in administration and is controlled by its joint administrators Andrew Andronikou and Peter Kubik of UHY Hacker Young. So Penny has brokered a meeting between AA/BC and HMRC, that is hardly going to save the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 So if a player doesn't request a transfer but moves then he can actually lose money? In theory, yes, although it would rarely happen. If a player doesn't (formally) request a transfer, he will be entitled to some sort of "loyalty" bonus because he didn't ask for the move. The amount payable will depend on that player's contract, I don't think it's necessarily an arbitrary value relative to the transfer fee or anything like that, it'll depend on whatever the agent had negotiated at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Probably easier to agree to the meeting, send the tea boy and pay lip service, than to put up with money penny carping on in the background. Yeah, you're right. HMRC have been running rings around the skates for the last few years haven't they Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 I had always believed that the player was entitled to any outstanding signing on bonuses which are paid over the length of the contract, but not the wages on the remainder of his contract If the player doesn't ask for a move , he doesn't have to go. He has a conrtact. No player has to move to another club for less (or more) money. Some may choose to. If the club want him to go, and he's not keen, he can negotiate as much pay-out as he can get away with to agree to move. It makes no difference which bits of his contract those payments may or may not refer to If the club just want to get rid of him, as the default position they are liable to pay up his contract; they can't just say go. If a player's contract is cancelled one-sidely he gets everything, which is why it rarely happens. More often it is cancelled by mutual agreement, eg player may take 50% of the remaining contract money , gambling on finding a new club when he is a free agent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Also if they go into admin again what happens to the money owed to the first CVA is this part of the debts owed by the club and will the 20p in the £ be reduced even further? Do any of our CVA experts know if the CVA debt is secured or unsecured debt or a preferential creditor this time round? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint si Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 This is all a bit academic. Presumably it depends on the terms of the specific contract that the club+player have signed. It is likely however that, in some (maybe many) cases, a player is entitled to a payment of part of his outstanding contract in the event the club chooses to sell him (thus terminating his contract). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chin Strain Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 To be fair, if a player doesn't ask for a transfer and is sold there IS a payment due but usually it's around 10% of the fee he's beeing sold for, not the value of the contract that's being terminated by the selling club. The tricky part from Pompeys perspective though is that the wages you're paying the likes of Kitson, Halford, Lawrence, Norris etc are far in excess of what any other club will pay them. So: Pompey: New club want to buy you Liam for £1m Liam: Thank feck for that, what are they paying? Pompey £15k a week Liam: No ta, I'm on £21k plus bonuses and image rights for another 2.5 years Pompey: Look, do one will you, we're going under Liam: OK, but you need to make up the difference of £6k a week plus bonuses for 2.5 years Pompey: Oh, FFS...OK...we make that c. £750k. Liam: OK..I also haven't asked for a transfer Pompey: Oh...'kin hell...10% you say? That's another £100k Liam: Cheers, that'll be £850k Pompey: Do you take a cheque? Liam: Er, no. Cash please. Used notes. Pompey walk with £150k less agents fees, a slice for 'Arry (he's probably still collecting). That'll bring it down to nothing then. So, Pompey get £0 from a £1m deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16970312 It's now made it to the BBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRM Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Those of you criticising MP Penny are a bit naive, there is a long history of the skates and politics mixing, just search in google for Docker Hughes who stood for election in 1987 for the 657!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Portsmouth boss Michael Appleton says the club are braced for administration and has urged any potential buyer to "put their money where their mouth is". LOL. There are no potential buyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 'money syphoned off' - cops/PFC you both mention this... but given that this would be likely classified as fraud, could you explain how you come to tehse conclusions - I suspect that this cash is the wages - 20 players on a basic average of 30k is 20 x 1.5 mil a year = 30mil - add that some were on more and indeed some will have been on 'net' contracts with the club paying NI and Income tax (when they did), woin bonues, goal bonuses and its easy to see what can happen in just 1 year... but if you are sure that 'money was siphoned off' please let the police know as I am sure they would be interested - otherwise the accounts would show legal, director bonuses etc... Given that when Harry was at West Ham, it is on record that West ham paid close to 3 mil for a scandinavian player and that the selling club got exactly 800,000k... with 2 mil ending up in an account in Switzerland never to be seen again, its not beyond the realms of possibilty that the agent fees etc are much much higher than the 10% or so you imagine. I suspect and you know it that those transfer figures showing a 75mil of sales = diddly sqyuat when all the other deals are factored in... yet some of you still feel Storries and Redknapp are harshly criticised.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 The tricky part from Pompeys perspective though is that the wages you're paying the likes of Kitson, Halford, Lawrence, Norris etc are far in excess of what any other club will pay them. So: Pompey: New club want to buy you Liam for £1m Liam: Thank feck for that, what are they paying? Pompey £15k a week Liam: No ta, I'm on £21k plus bonuses and image rights for another 2.5 years Pompey: Look, do one will you, we're going under Liam: OK, but you need to make up the difference of £6k a week plus bonuses for 2.5 years Pompey: Oh, FFS...OK...we make that c. £750k. Liam: OK..I also haven't asked for a transfer Pompey: Oh...'kin hell...10% you say? That's another £100k Liam: Cheers, that'll be £850k Pompey: Do you take a cheque? Liam: Er, no. Cash please. Used notes. Pompey walk with £150k less agents fees, a slice for 'Arry (he's probably still collecting). That'll bring it down to nothing then. So, Pompey get £0 from a £1m deal. Dont forget bagpuss's cut, he still gets 10%??? surely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chin Strain Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Dont forget bagpuss's cut, he still gets 10%??? surely I didn't miss it - penultimate line! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 I didn't miss it - penultimate line! So you did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stev2001 Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16970312 It's now made it to the BBC. I don't get it when they talk about a 10 point detuction Look at this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/nov/01/dundee-25-point-penalty-administration I know its a differnet league but when they say they "acted to protect the "integrity" of the league" it makes alot of sense and gives a very clear message to other teams who think they can take the ****. I really hope the football league act the same way but i doubt it!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stev2001 Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 I also like the bit "We are of the opinion that lessons are not being learned," the statement said. "For example, clubs have to realise that, going forward, they cannot treat their [tax] obligations as something akin to a credit card." http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/nov/01/dundee-25-point-penalty-administration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stev2001 Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Maybe we should send this link to the FL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Balls Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Also if they go into admin again what happens to the money owed to the first CVA is this part of the debts owed by the club and will the 20p in the £ be reduced even further? Do any of our CVA experts know if the CVA debt is secured or unsecured debt or a preferential creditor this time round? I would also like to know this. Surely they cant reduce the 20p in the £1, to 4p in the 20p? That would take their robery to a new level!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andysstuff Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 I would also like to know this. Surely they cant reduce the 20p in the £1, to 4p in the 20p? That would take their robery to a new level!! Think you'll find that the 20p owed in the £ from the last admin is an unsecured debt in the same way as the £1.6M owed to the HMRC is an unsecured debt. As to whether they'll get another deal at 20p in the pound over 4 years delayed for 18 months is anyone's guess. I suspect that creditors won't vote for such a low figure again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Also if they go into admin again what happens to the money owed to the first CVA is this part of the debts owed by the club and will the 20p in the £ be reduced even further? Do any of our CVA experts know if the CVA debt is secured or unsecured debt or a preferential creditor this time round? I remember reading somewhere that if they fail to pay the CVA it is cancelled and debts revert to what they originally were (£100mill+). Dunno if that is true or not though. I can see them getting away with it again. They will get -10 and stay up because they kept their best players instead of bothering to try and pay their debts off. Cheating ****s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chin Strain Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 I wonder if the few are up to date with their police bills....oh, wait, they cant be if the accounts are frozen. Oh well, behind closed doors is coming....Pack the Park'? Maybe not. http://www.northants.police.uk/default.aspx?id=9205&datewant=yes&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chin Strain Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 I remember reading somewhere that if they fail to pay the CVA it is cancelled and debts revert to what they originally were (£100mill+). Dunno if that is true or not though. I can see them getting away with it again. They will get -10 and stay up because they kept their best players instead of bothering to try and pay their debts off. Cheating ****s. I'm not sure. I reckon everything hinges on whether they get the Parachute Payment advanced. If not, they can't fund administration. If they do, the CVA won't be able to be serviced, which opens a whole new can of worms... If the PP is advanced they'll end up needing to find more money later to fund the CVA, making it much harder to sell the club. If the PPs aren't advanced, will they even be allowed to go into admin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Yes, but many of the players he signed departed at various points AFTER he left. They were still signed by him! That's what we were talking about- the fees paid and received for players signed by HR.... I understand that, but you'd need to remove Gary O'Neil for example. Sold for £5m 18 months after Bagpuss tried to offload him to Cardiff for £500,000. Oh and you give arry 5% of all sales, doubt he got 5% of sales after he left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 I remember reading somewhere that if they fail to pay the CVA it is cancelled and debts revert to what they originally were (£100mill+). Dunno if that is true or not though. I think that is true, but this situation is different from most because of the OldCo/NewCo scenario. Most companies that exit administration with a CVA don't create a new company and have the old company liquidated, as far as I'm aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 I wonder if the few are up to date with their police bills....oh, wait, they cant be if the accounts are frozen. Oh well, behind closed doors is coming....Pack the Park'? Maybe not. http://www.northants.police.uk/default.aspx?id=9205&datewant=yes&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeedDo Kettering actaully require police inside the stadium fir their games? I recall one of our games at SMS (possibly against Walsall???) going ahead without a single officer being on duty at the stadium. Only coppers in the ground need to be paid for by the club. Outside the ground and its the taxpayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 I think that is true, but this situation is different from most because of the OldCo/NewCo scenario. Most companies that exit administration with a CVA don't create a new company and have the old company liquidated, as far as I'm aware. An insolvency bod has said that they will become libel for the whole lot again and that any of the original creditors can apply for a WUO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Do Kettering actaully require police inside the stadium fir their games? I recall one of our games at SMS (possibly against Walsall???) going ahead without a single officer being on duty at the stadium. Only coppers in the ground need to be paid for by the club. Outside the ground and its the taxpayer. I was thinking the same thing, I can't imagine Kettering v Telford is a particularly high-profile game that would actually need policing. Saints have had loads of police-free games at SMS over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigShadow Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 I remember reading somewhere that if they fail to pay the CVA it is cancelled and debts revert to what they originally were (£100mill+). Dunno if that is true or not though. Believe it was £80m or so, but that included football creditors who should have been paid by now from PP so won't still be a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Not true. I;ve seen St Chalet say this before, but it is wrong It's not like me to be wrong Can't recall claiming this although I am sure it is one of many options open to clubs looking to move players on against their will in return for a hefty transfer fee. I thought as a standard principle it only applied to managers when they got the tic-tac, again I may be wrong so don't quote me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Believe it was £80m or so, but that included football creditors who should have been paid by now from PP so won't still be a factor. So if the football creditors are out of the equations does that mean that the HMRC have more than 25% outstanding debt. So CVA will not approved dammed if they gointo admin and dammed if they dont go into admin. Result :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint si Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 So if the football creditors are out of the equations does that mean that the HMRC have more than 25% outstanding debt. So CVA will not approved dammed if they gointo admin and dammed if they dont go into admin. Result :D Interesting point. Were the 100% payments to football creditors part of the CVA (i think yes)? If so, have they been paid already (and if so, with what) or are they dependent on the parachute payments too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K,Billy's supersound Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 sorry if been posted already http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/etuhu_s_future_out_of_pompey_s_hands_1_3500728 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 @pn_neil_allen: RT @Darrentunni: Missing chief exec last seen at express fm. If found please return to #pompey so he can let worried fans know what's going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chin Strain Posted 9 February, 2012 Share Posted 9 February, 2012 Believe it was £80m or so, but that included football creditors who should have been paid by now from PP so won't still be a factor. In the last CVA, AA knocked down HMRCs claim from £37m to £24m for the purpose of the CVA vote. £24m was a little over 18% of the CVA. Football creditors would have been paid, and creditors now should just be the £1.5m (1 months wages). I'm not sure if AA can use the value of their contracts, or just what's currently owed (the latter I think)....not that AA seems to be particularly interested in saving the clubs bacon this time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts