sussexsaint Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussexsaint Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Forest only one "r" HMRC are gunning for poopey. Toast next week,trust what i say. They won't go into admin, I have a feeling the lovey's that hold the PP's are fowarding it to some other football lovey's(players etc) and B******ks to everybody else that's owed money......ergo Toast able to expand on this for those of us a little hard of thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Situation seems to be that they are applying for a pre admin validation order to release some of the funds! On Friday their application to enter Administration will be heard. There is the risk it will be opposed but Portsmouth FC think they can convince the court it would in the Creditors best interest as the alternative is they would get nothing. I suppose it will all come down to whether they can convince the court that they will have the funds during the Administration period for the club to be "a going concern" after ring fencing the debt. The club will suffer a 10 point deduction as that is the FL rules. Any additional deduction will only be considered if and when they exit Aministration and dependent on a satisfactory CVA. The club will survive in the short term. Aren't there extra deductions for entering administration for a second time within a short time period? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Aren't there extra deductions for entering administration for a second time within a short time period? No. However, the Football League do reserve the right to bend/make up the rules as they see fit, so it's not entirely cut and dried that they'll only receive the statutory 10-point deduction on Friday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wadge Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 If going into admin is "in the best interests" of the creditors, surely having not yet paid anything towards the 'oldco' CVA, and apparently having no intention of EVER doing so, shows how little the creditors can expect this time around. This +100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 They are only going into Administration to protect themselves from a winding up order. They are insolvent if you include the debt. However, to consider Administration the debt is ring fenced. They only need to show they have the funds from Friday's potential Admin moving forward. So it is income (including anyone funding them) less expenditure. It is unlikely their income exceeds expenditure without selling players or being funded by a benefactor. They cannot sell outdide of the window so benifactor seems the only way. Enter, Chanrai? There does not appear anyone else. One factor mentioned previously is that Lampitt took the decision as they were not a going concern and he has a fiduciary duty. Just like Lowe did for Saints. Our benefactors were Drew Surman and Leon Crouch. Without Crouch in particular I am told we would not have survived Administration. That information came direct to me from the Lowe camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 (edited) BBC Solent Sport @solentsport For those that missed it here's Pompey Chief Exec. David Lampitt live on Solent earlier (Pt 1 of 6) boo.fm/b667329 (pt 2 of 6) http://boo.fm/b667342 (Pt 3) http://boo.fm/b667344 (pt 4) http://boo.fm/b667346 (pt 5) http://boo.fm/b667350 (pt 6 of 6) http://boo.fm/b667353 Edited 14 February, 2012 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Surely, the question of whether they are allowed to enter administration must depend on this: Will they be worth more by continuing than by folding? This seems to me unlikely as their expenditure exceeds income (even when debt is ringfenced). Pompey are worth very little liquidated, but surely worth even less if they continue to trade for another few weeks/months. Current unsecured creditors might only get 0.1p in the £ if they liquidate - but this would surely fall to even less if they continue to rack up more wage bills/police bills/leccy bills etc. Is it also right that HMRC are trying to "send a message" rather than merely recoup as much as possible? i.e. they judge that sending a club to the wall (and getting zilch) will help them secure revenues from other clubs more promptly in the future, rather than accepting a bit more than zilch in a second CVA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brizzie Saints Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 It seems the phew can finally see some light at the end of the tunnel now they've applied for admin, so............... Now they wanna buy or loan another couple of players.......Priceless 4 [h=3]blueshirt[/h] Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 10:31 AM Michael Appleton has made a major blunder here....he is expecting the football league to use its initiative and ring us up and tell us what the situation is regarding our squad........does anyone really think the league will do this? they have made it difficult for us by saying that we have to apply on a month-by-month basis to retain Kelvin Etuhu (great help there, FL, thanks a bunch...) we were told we can only bring in players on a one in, one out basis, but with the departure of Hermann and Ryan Williams, we are now down to 18 players, two fewer than the FL says we need to remain viable and competitive.....by their own rules we should have two more players, so why wont they get off their overpaid rear ends and say whether or not they will allow us to comply with their ruling, and if not, give us a good reason why not?? This is not us asking for special favours, preferential treatment or trying to gain an advantage, we just want a fair shake............come on Football League, give us a break here....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruffalo Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 As I understand it they may struggle to get a second CVA - think about for a second.... in theory' date=' (as I understand it) Pompey do NOT owe chinney anything - CSI owe chinney 17 mil for their purchase of the club - and as a secure creditor of CSI with a charge over the pompey 'asset' he is due the first 17 mil that CSI raise from any sales etc.[/quote'] With fixed and floating charges bouncing back and forth, not to mention CSI welching on their purchase deal with Chinny, the ubiquitous £17m is the one aspect I have having trouble keeping up with. I agree with Frank's Cousin that CSI should owe that money to Chinny, but I am left slightly confused (& concerned) that they might have forfeited a claim to ownership of any part of PFC 2010 Ltd when they skipped their first instalment (ie like buying a dodgy used car on HP).. If it was the case that the skates were in fact deemed to owe £17m to Chinny / Portpin, then that would make HMRC's job of blocking a CVA nigh on impossible.. COYHMRC.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 It seems the phew can finally see some light at the end of the tunnel now they've applied for admin, so............... Now they wanna buy or loan another couple of players.......Priceless 4 blueshirt Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 10:31 AM Michael Appleton has made a major blunder here....he is expecting the football league to use its initiative and ring us up and tell us what the situation is regarding our squad........does anyone really think the league will do this? they have made it difficult for us by saying that we have to apply on a month-by-month basis to retain Kelvin Etuhu (great help there, FL, thanks a bunch...) we were told we can only bring in players on a one in, one out basis, but with the departure of Hermann and Ryan Williams, we are now down to 18 players, two fewer than the FL says we need to remain viable and competitive.....by their own rules we should have two more players, so why wont they get off their overpaid rear ends and say whether or not they will allow us to comply with their ruling, and if not, give us a good reason why not?? This is not us asking for special favours, preferential treatment or trying to gain an advantage, we just want a fair shake............come on Football League, give us a break here....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 BBC Solent Sport @solentsport For those that missed it here's Pompey Chief Exec. David Lampitt live on Solent earlier (Pt 1 of 6) boo.fm/b667329 (pt 2 of 6) http://boo.fm/b667342 (Pt 3) http://boo.fm/b667344 (pt 4) http://boo.fm/b667346 (pt 5) http://boo.fm/b667350 (pt 6 of 6) http://boo.fm/b667353 Is he crying on any of them? He should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsland Red Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 With regards to points deductions, I believe we lost 10 points in the championship after going into admin, and started the next season in div 1 on -10 coming out of admin. It is the second -10 that will probably be increased for the Skates, a la Bournemouth, Luton etc. That is if they were ever able to find someone to take them out of admin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 They are only going into Administration to protect themselves from a winding up order. They are insolvent if you include the debt. However, to consider Administration the debt is ring fenced. They only need to show they have the funds from Friday's potential Admin moving forward. So it is income (including anyone funding them) less expenditure. It is unlikely their income exceeds expenditure without selling players or being funded by a benefactor. They cannot sell outdide of the window so benifactor seems the only way. Enter, Chanrai? There does not appear anyone else. One factor mentioned previously is that Lampitt took the decision as they were not a going concern and he has a fiduciary duty. Just like Lowe did for Saints. Our benefactors were Drew Surman and Leon Crouch. Without Crouch in particular I am told we would not have survived Administration. That information came direct to me from the Lowe camp. Arguably without Crouch's various interventions, we might not even have had to go into administration in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 If it was the case that the skates were in fact deemed to owe £17m to Chinny / Portpin, then that would make HMRC's job of blocking a CVA nigh on impossible.. The creditors report for CSI shows a £17m loan to 'Portsmouth Football Club 2010' in the list of CSI assets and that CSI sourced that money (to loan to Pompey) from Portpin. Well, I think that's what its saying.... So, what does that all mean? Does that squeeze HMRC out of the picture as far as PFC2010 administration is concerned? Or have I misread the CSI creditor's report? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyinthesky Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 I suppose it may be some consolation to those PFC directly employed staff and also those working for suppliers who may go down the pan due to another financial crisis at the Park, that the club's sponsors will be able to sort them out with a new job!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 With fixed and floating charges bouncing back and forth, not to mention CSI welching on their purchase deal with Chinny, the ubiquitous £17m is the one aspect I have having trouble keeping up with. I agree with Frank's Cousin that CSI should owe that money to Chinny, but I am left slightly confused (& concerned) that they might have forfeited a claim to ownership of any part of PFC 2010 Ltd when they skipped their first instalment (ie like buying a dodgy used car on HP).. If it was the case that the skates were in fact deemed to owe £17m to Chinny / Portpin, then that would make HMRC's job of blocking a CVA nigh on impossible.. COYHMRC.. Not if that £17m was secured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 With regards to points deductions, I believe we lost 10 points in the championship after going into admin, and started the next season in div 1 on -10 coming out of admin. It is the second -10 that will probably be increased for the Skates, a la Bournemouth, Luton etc. That is if they were ever able to find someone to take them out of admin No. We didn't receive -10 in the Champ but took them the next season in L1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Arguably without Crouch's various interventions, we might not even have had to go into administration in the first place.Another reason to give him a pat on the back then. We are stronger for it. It was all rumour he used his influence with Barclays. The Lowe camp have no knowledge of such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 With fixed and floating charges bouncing back and forth, not to mention CSI welching on their purchase deal with Chinny, the ubiquitous £17m is the one aspect I have having trouble keeping up with. I agree with Frank's Cousin that CSI should owe that money to Chinny, but I am left slightly confused (& concerned) that they might have forfeited a claim to ownership of any part of PFC 2010 Ltd when they skipped their first instalment (ie like buying a dodgy used car on HP).. If it was the case that the skates were in fact deemed to owe £17m to Chinny / Portpin, then that would make HMRC's job of blocking a CVA nigh on impossible.. COYHMRC.. AFAIK chinny sold PFC to CSI for £17m. Chinny also lent CSI the £17m to buy PFC. If the ownership of PFC reverted back to Chinny on the failure of CSi to make the first payment, then all chinny got back was his shares in PFC, which now they have gone into admin are worth jack. Whether Chinny has some mechanism to shift the debt backwards and forward between CSI and PFC remains to be seen, although I am damned if I can see a legal way of doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 I may have called you a bed wetting conspiracy theorist but certainly not over that point as that’s been my stance all along. FROFLMFAO FPMSFL I posted here : http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?14620-Pompey-Takeover-Saga&p=1076207#post1076207 on the 29th June 2011 that Chinny didn't put a penny of his own money into the club. You responded here : http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?14620-Pompey-Takeover-Saga&p=1077775#post1077775 stating that it was 'so wrong it's laughable' and that 'That's the most ridiculously convoluted unnecessary conspiracy plot I've ever had the misfortune to hear. LOL'. Now you're trying to convince us that it's been your stance 'all along' that Chinny never put a penny into the club! Feel free to post a link confirming that this has been your opinion 'all along' - preferably one of your posts from before 29th June 2011 - although I believe that was around the time you came back from your self imposed exile, where you only posted on the main board under a different user name...... Pretty sure you won't be able to post a link to any of your ramblings proving it's been your opinion all along..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K,Billy's supersound Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 I just seen this. Going viral on Face book & Twitter from Jay Ricketts:- Dear Football League, I am writing to you regarding the application by Portsmouth Football Club (2010) Ltd to be placed into administration under the supervision of UHY. You are aware of the history surrounding the football club between Aug 2009 until today so I won't go into past history. What I want to raise is the worrying scenarios of either a pre-pack administration (similar to that experienced by Leeds Utd when they entered/exited administration) deal where PFC exit administration without a CVA or a gerrymandered CVA agreement which sees the CVA agreement agreed for the oldco Portsmouth City Football Club Ltd dramatically reduced to the benefit of the one secured creditor of PFC 2010 Ltd. There are only three assets of value with regards to Portsmouth Football Club - some of the younger players; the footprint that the stadium sits upon; and the parachute payments. Of these, the major asset is the remaining parachute payments with a scheduled payment in March followed by two payments of £8m for seasons 2012/13 and 2013/14. The two scenarios described above would in effect see the secured creditor of PFC 2010 Ltd claw a significant proportion of the parachute payments to himself in lieu of his charge whether directly or through a sale to a.n.other. Such an outcome would be repugnant to myself and many other supporters of Pompey. There is considerable shame and anger about the current plight of smaller creditors from the previous administration. As you are aware, there was a promise to pay all creditors under £2,500 in full. This has not happened and buck-passing has occurred with the club and its last two owners. The subject is repeatedly raised in questioning to officials of the club in forums and phone-in shows - the fans have not forgotten. The thought of that commitment being abandoned through another administration and exit would create considerable angst amongst the supporter base. Portsmouth supporters have a very low opinion of the Fit and Proper Person's Test so I want to propose actions that the Football League can take in co-ordination with the Premier League and Football Association to ensure that "fit and proper" action occurs during the next period of administration should it be approved on the 17th. You have a commitment to financial fair play and you have rules to prevent clubs benefiting from administration. In Portsmouth Football Club case, the benefit being sought is financial rather than league position. It is to reduce liabilities while retaining parachute payments. Therefore I request that Football League take the following actions: 1. On entering administration, PFC 2010 Ltd golden share is suspended and the club will no longer have full member rights 2. On entering administration, PFC 2010 Ltd has the parachute payment schedule suspended 3. To ensure financial fair play, any new ownership of PFC will have to honour in full the CVA agreed for PCFC Ltd in order to access parachute payments These actions would be consistent with your financial fair play policies as the club would not benefit from a secondary administration. It would also set a good example for the Football League in tackling speculative owners only interested in stripping out value from the club. I must emphasise that it is not enough to punish the club through points deductions, its only through preventing financial benefits that will benefit both the club and the league. An adoption of this stance ahead of Friday's hearing would be most welcome. I as a Portsmouth fan request that the Football League do everything in their power to protect the club and the league against predatory owners and creditors. Yours sincerely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 AFAIK chinny sold PFC to CSI for £17m. Chinny also lent CSI the £17m to buy PFC. If the ownership of PFC reverted back to Chinny on the failure of CSi to make the first payment, then all chinny got back was his shares in PFC, which now they have gone into admin are worth jack. Whether Chinny has some mechanism to shift the debt backwards and forward between CSI and PFC remains to be seen, although I am damned if I can see a legal way of doing it. Therein lies the reason 'probably' why AA is continually involved - Lampitt has nailed his colours firmly to that particular mast - and was not even apologetic about it to the Pompey fans on Express FM last night. However, whether AA is the ONLY admin option is another question altogether (would another Admin firm actually take it on???) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 AA always is one step ahead of the game. how many months years have we been told they are toast???? What the media need to be told is that the Pompey fans are not hard done by, if they hadn't cheated as a club for the past 6-7 years and racked up massive debt that they hid (even under MM, as the papers at the time were saying that they were in massive debt pre Gaydamek)their fans have had a marvelous time. I suspect most clubs fans would take the memories for the crap and walk away and support other teams , much like the 250k from Southsea common did. I have a little sympathy for those that followed them in Div 4 but the majority who come on here and crowed about how great they were but didnt have the balls to accept they had done it by cheating the taxpayer. Also now that Rangers are doing us as taxpayers out of 75m as well as Pomeys 30m is it about time football got its comeuppence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17025729 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 With regards to points deductions, I believe we lost 10 points in the championship after going into admin, and started the next season in div 1 on -10 coming out of admin. It is the second -10 that will probably be increased for the Skates, a la Bournemouth, Luton etc. That is if they were ever able to find someone to take them out of admin No we just had the one -10, applied the next season due to the timing of admin. Am I right in thinking that technically we never came out of admin as the football club was never in it in the first place?. SLH (which WAS in admin) was wound up after debts were paid, SFC simply carried on with new owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Lindford Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 I just seen this. Going viral on Face book & Twitter from Jay Ricketts:- Dear Football League, I am writing to you regarding the application by Portsmouth Football Club (2010) Ltd to be placed into administration under the supervision of UHY. You are aware of the history surrounding the football club between Aug 2009 until today so I won't go into past history. What I want to raise is the worrying scenarios of either a pre-pack administration (similar to that experienced by Leeds Utd when they entered/exited administration) deal where PFC exit administration without a CVA or a gerrymandered CVA agreement which sees the CVA agreement agreed for the oldco Portsmouth City Football Club Ltd dramatically reduced to the benefit of the one secured creditor of PFC 2010 Ltd. There are only three assets of value with regards to Portsmouth Football Club - some of the younger players; the footprint that the stadium sits upon; and the parachute payments. Of these, the major asset is the remaining parachute payments with a scheduled payment in March followed by two payments of £8m for seasons 2012/13 and 2013/14. The two scenarios described above would in effect see the secured creditor of PFC 2010 Ltd claw a significant proportion of the parachute payments to himself in lieu of his charge whether directly or through a sale to a.n.other. Such an outcome would be repugnant to myself and many other supporters of Pompey. There is considerable shame and anger about the current plight of smaller creditors from the previous administration. As you are aware, there was a promise to pay all creditors under £2,500 in full. This has not happened and buck-passing has occurred with the club and its last two owners. The subject is repeatedly raised in questioning to officials of the club in forums and phone-in shows - the fans have not forgotten. The thought of that commitment being abandoned through another administration and exit would create considerable angst amongst the supporter base. Portsmouth supporters have a very low opinion of the Fit and Proper Person's Test so I want to propose actions that the Football League can take in co-ordination with the Premier League and Football Association to ensure that "fit and proper" action occurs during the next period of administration should it be approved on the 17th. You have a commitment to financial fair play and you have rules to prevent clubs benefiting from administration. In Portsmouth Football Club case, the benefit being sought is financial rather than league position. It is to reduce liabilities while retaining parachute payments. Therefore I request that Football League take the following actions: 1. On entering administration, PFC 2010 Ltd golden share is suspended and the club will no longer have full member rights 2. On entering administration, PFC 2010 Ltd has the parachute payment schedule suspended 3. To ensure financial fair play, any new ownership of PFC will have to honour in full the CVA agreed for PCFC Ltd in order to access parachute payments These actions would be consistent with your financial fair play policies as the club would not benefit from a secondary administration. It would also set a good example for the Football League in tackling speculative owners only interested in stripping out value from the club. I must emphasise that it is not enough to punish the club through points deductions, its only through preventing financial benefits that will benefit both the club and the league. An adoption of this stance ahead of Friday's hearing would be most welcome. I as a Portsmouth fan request that the Football League do everything in their power to protect the club and the league against predatory owners and creditors. Yours sincerely Originally posted on the Pompey Chimes forum this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint si Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 I just seen this... Blah blah confused pompey rant, lashing out at everyone else, thinly veiled as a formal and official-looking letter ... Presumably this was actually written by the halfwits down the road, as opposed to one of our many expert ghostwriters? They do understand that what they have asked for us for PFC2010 to be thrown out the football league and to have its only assets wiped out in the process, thereby making liquidation a nailed-on certainty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toofarnorth Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 HMRC are trying to take over the administration of Rangers. Could they do the same with Pompey if they dont want UHY? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17026172 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Another reason to give him a pat on the back then. We are stronger for it. More by luck than judgement. I'm certainly not going to give him praise for selfishly jeopardising the future of the club in the misguided belief that nobody else was going to be willing or able to buy the club when it went into admin. It was all rumour he used his influence with Barclays. The Lowe camp have no knowledge of such things. Clearly it's one of those things which nobody will ever be able to prove, neither Crouch or Richard Fry would ever admit to such a conspiracy. Forced administration because of a £6k cheque, when the overdraft was at £4.1m, having been reduced from £6.5m? Cracking business sense there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 More by luck than judgement. I'm certainly not going to give him praise for selfishly jeopardising the future of the club in the misguided belief that nobody else was going to be willing or able to buy the club when it went into admin. Clearly it's one of those things which nobody will ever be able to prove, neither Crouch or Richard Fry would ever admit to such a conspiracy. Forced administration because of a £6k cheque, when the overdraft was at £4.1m, having been reduced from £6.5m? Cracking business sense there... Nevertheless Steve (and I grant that we'll never know) Without Crouch's stumping up for the month's expenses we never have got to the point at which ML and NC could enter the arena - if he did do as you say then to my mind he went a long way to putting things right...at his own expense. Not the right place for this discussion though, my apologies Are they dead yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Nevertheless Steve (and I grant that we'll never know) Without Crouch's stumping up for the month's expenses we never have got to the point at which ML and NC could enter the arena - if he did do as you say then to my mind he went a long way to putting things right...at his own expense. Not the right place for this discussion though, my apologies Are they dead yet? I see what you did there, it's very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporate Ho Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 As I understand it they may struggle to get a second CVA - think about for a second.... in theory, (as I understand it) Pompey do NOT owe chinney anything - CSI owe chinney 17 mil for their purchase of the club - and as a secure creditor of CSI with a charge over the pompey 'asset' he is due the first 17 mil that CSI raise from any sales etc. But pompey owe CSI 10.8, The current CVA 16mil, HMRC say 2mil, footballing creditors 2 mil (wages and Aussies), other footballing creditors we dont know about + Gaydmark... am I wrong with this... have I missed something? Why is everuone insisting pompey owe chinney 17mil am I being dense? Without that 17 mil owed to chinney, it would be easy to see HMRC and Baker tilley refusing to accept 20p in the £ - thus even if teh golden share was transfered ..again.. to 'pompey newCheating ****s 2012' they would still in effect exist admin without a CVA - huge points deduction to follow.... Thats if someone would by them... Problem is chinney's control of CSI and charge on pompey.... they might be worth a punt to some stupid fecker for a £1 the usual price for a club in admin and with around 25mil of debt - but chinney wants stupid millions... or if a CVA is agreed so debt reduced to around 10 mil with 16 mil PP guarranteed, can see CHinney selling again for a £17m...deferred , but retaining a charge on the club until its paid out over the next 2 years... see there is a logical and cheating bastard way out of this ... and its quite possible that tehy would only get 10 points if CVA is agreed, even with say 15, they could still survive the drop.... FC, I wrote on here yesterday that Chinri's charge was originally against "Oldco". The charge was transferred to "Newco" a month or so after the new company was formed and hasn't invested any money into the business since. The question, therefore, must be is Chainrai's charge over the club valid. I asked if anyone could comment on that and was hoping Clapham might be around to do so. haven't seen a reply yet. FROFLMFAO FPMSFL I posted here : http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?14620-Pompey-Takeover-Saga&p=1076207#post1076207 on the 29th June 2011 that Chinny didn't put a penny of his own money into the club. You responded here : http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?14620-Pompey-Takeover-Saga&p=1077775#post1077775 stating that it was 'so wrong it's laughable' and that 'That's the most ridiculously convoluted unnecessary conspiracy plot I've ever had the misfortune to hear. LOL'. Now you're trying to convince us that it's been your stance 'all along' that Chinny never put a penny into the club! Feel free to post a link confirming that this has been your opinion 'all along' - preferably one of your posts from before 29th June 2011 - although I believe that was around the time you came back from your self imposed exile, where you only posted on the main board under a different user name...... Pretty sure you won't be able to post a link to any of your ramblings proving it's been your opinion all along..... I don't need to provide a link, you just posted one. If you'd actually read my post in it I say at the bottom that he hasn't put a penny into the club. have another look. Not quit sure what you're were trying to do here, unless you were actually trying to look like an idiot Presumably this was actually written by the halfwits down the road, as opposed to one of our many expert ghostwriters? They do understand that what they have asked for us for PFC2010 to be thrown out the football league and to have its only assets wiped out in the process, thereby making liquidation a nailed-on certainty? "Expert Ghostwriters"? PMSL The issue here is that if Chainrai gets control of the club again not only will the creditors receive little or nothing of their actual debt as UHY will look to renegotiate the CVA but that means the club will die anyway as he slowly but surely bleeds anything of value out of it. Without the CVA to service (certainly at i's curren levels) the parachute payments will be available to Chainrai to do what he wants with. That's why there's the opposition towards UHY being appointed as administrators. If independnt administrators can be appointed then there's a decent chance we'll find a buyer as a reasonable purchase price could probably be negotiated. That's no going to happen under Chainrai. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvaughanwilliams Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 (edited) I'm not sure that's strictly true, because otherwise they wouldn't need to go into administration in the first place. Insolvency is defined in 2 ways. Not being able to pay debts when due (cash flow insolvency) or when assets exceed liability (balance sheet insolvency). Imagine a business that has £10m of stock and £5m of loans, but no cash in the bank. It has balance sheet solvency, but has a cash flow issue. This business would go into admin to allow it enough time to sell sufficient stock to pay the creditors. That's the point of admin, to buy time for a solvent business, not to protect an insolvent business. Edited 14 February, 2012 by dvaughanwilliams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Indeedy Mr Ho... However, although an independent administrator was the preferred choice of many - who's to say another Administrator would take the task on? That's the only question that Lampitt should have been pressed on last night... His answer could have been very telling.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Insolvency is defined in 2 ways. Not being able to pay debts when due (cash flow insolvency) or when assets exceed liability (balance sheet insolvency). Fook me, I'm bust then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvaughanwilliams Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 (edited) FC, I wrote on here yesterday that Chinri's charge was originally against "Oldco". The charge was transferred to "Newco" a month or so after the new company was formed and hasn't invested any money into the business since. The question, therefore, must be is Chainrai's charge over the club valid. I asked if anyone could comment on that and was hoping Clapham might be around to do so. haven't seen a reply yet. It's as legal as the transfer of the ownership of the player registrations and ownership of Fratton. If you can transfer assets to the new co., you can also transfer liabilities. Also, the charge applies to the assets, not the business.With Chinny's consent, anyone could be the owner of the assets, with responsibilities for debt repayments, as long as his charge remains intact. His charge could extend beyond the ground to season ticket sales, value of player registrations, parachute payments, anything. Also, the value of the security is not limited to the amount lent, it could be much more . It could also be written into the terms of the loan that it is joint and severally an obligation of the parent company and all of its subordinate companies. Since we haven't seen a copy of the terms, I don't which, if any of these terms actually applies in this case, but the range of legal options is pretty wide. Edited 14 February, 2012 by dvaughanwilliams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 It's as legal as the transfer of the ownership of the player registrations and ownership of Fratton. If you can transfer assets to the new co., you can also transfer liabilities. Also, the charge applies to the assets, not the business.With Chinny's consent, anyone could be the owner of the assets, as long as his charge remains intact. His charge could extend beyond the ground to season ticket sales, value of player registrations, parachute payments, anything. Also, the value of the security is not limited to the amount lent, it could be much more . It could also be written into the terms of the loan that it is joint and severally an obligation of the parent company and all of its subordinate companies. Since we haven't seen a copy of the terms, I don't which, if any of these terms actually applies in this case, but the range of legal options is pretty wide. All of which adds weight to the argument that AFC Pompey doesn't seem such a bad idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 http://www.courtoffside.com/forum/showthread.php?p=161472#post161472 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Nevertheless Steve (and I grant that we'll never know) Without Crouch's stumping up for the month's expenses we never have got to the point at which ML and NC could enter the arena - if he did do as you say then to my mind he went a long way to putting things right...at his own expense. Not the right place for this discussion though, my apologies Are they dead yet? Just an input while I wait for my toast to pop up. Leon put in the cash to keep us running, however it wasn't totally a "grand gesture" think back to The Legends match (which sort of fizzled out). That was suppoed to be the admin money earner. Now, wonder why the 12th man hasn't thought of that idea? Legends vs cheats at nottarf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 Clearly it's one of those things which nobody will ever be able to prove, neither Crouch or Richard Fry would ever admit to such a conspiracy. Forced administration because of a £6k cheque, when the overdraft was at £4.1m, having been reduced from £6.5m? Cracking business sense there... The conspiracy theory being that Crouch 'negotaited' with Barclays to 'engineer' us into administration for the longer term good of the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 SO how many will pack the park tonight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 SO how many will pack the park tonight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 HMRC are trying to take over the administration of Rangers. Could they do the same with Pompey if they dont want UHY? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17026172 Isn't the difference there that HMRC are the biggest creditor whereas with Pompey they're not? Therefore, HMRC are in pole position to call the shots. Rangers should have learnt from Pompey in that before you get into financial trouble you load a significant debt on the company so that when the fateful day comes you've always got a larger creditor than HMRC. Allegedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 The conspiracy theory being that Crouch 'negotaited' with Barclays to 'engineer' us into administration for the longer term good of the club? Is rubbish. It was not Crouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Diamond Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 SO how many will pack the park tonight? They're selling tickets in shopping centres, they've got so many to shift... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 The conspiracy theory being that Crouch 'negotaited' with Barclays to 'engineer' us into administration for the longer term good of the club? Sort of, except the latter was achieved by very good fortune rather than by design. Crouch had tried for months, maybe even years (as did Lowe, as did Wilde), to find proper investors to buy the club but absolutely nobody was interested. Therefore, he assumed that nobody would be interested once the club slipped into administration, leaving just one person with the capability of rescuing the club and being pronounced the Saviour (with the side-effect of 1. buying the club for **** all, and 2. getting one over Lowe and Wilde) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonsays Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 FC, I wrote on here yesterday that Chinri's charge was originally against "Oldco". The charge was transferred to "Newco" a month or so after the new company was formed and hasn't invested any money into the business since. The question, therefore, must be is Chainrai's charge over the club valid. I asked if anyone could comment on that and was hoping Clapham might be around to do so. haven't seen a reply yet. I don't need to provide a link, you just posted one. If you'd actually read my post in it I say at the bottom that he hasn't put a penny into the club. have another look. Not quit sure what you're were trying to do here, unless you were actually trying to look like an idiot "Expert Ghostwriters"? PMSL The issue here is that if Chainrai gets control of the club again not only will the creditors receive little or nothing of their actual debt as UHY will look to renegotiate the CVA but that means the club will die anyway as he slowly but surely bleeds anything of value out of it. Without the CVA to service (certainly at i's curren levels) the parachute payments will be available to Chainrai to do what he wants with. That's why there's the opposition towards UHY being appointed as administrators. If independnt administrators can be appointed then there's a decent chance we'll find a buyer as a reasonable purchase price could probably be negotiated. That's no going to happen under Chainrai. Corpy remember this: We’re thinking of starting our own e petition to improve the evident poor standards of literacy in Southampton schools and suggesting that a foundation be set up – “The Derek Zoolander & Tony Seaton Center For Children Who Can't Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too” It may have been a good idea to have the above crap spell checked before you posted it. You really are a nasty piece of work. Corpy, the gift that keeps giving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 funny looking back at this thread seven months ago - there has been little change - other than Ho's attitude and behaviour which has improved dramatically. I'm not sure whether I prefer deluded and often wrong but politely trolling AFC Ho 2012, or seriously deluded, very wrong, AWOL for months, abusive, trolling, anonymous, unlikable Ho FC......like the Plan B club, I guess time will tell. We'll be nice and patronisingly supportive to Plan B in the first years, wishing them well, post-criminality, then before you know it they'll be in the lower reaches of the football league, dreaming of glory, shafting creditors, ripping off charities, and giving it large like nothing has happened. I see an honesty in some of the few but not many - Humble pie - they need to have a slice each. Less of the arrogant claims about riches, and shafting local businesses to finance millionaire journeymen, a bit more of an admission about the shame associated with the badge would generate more sympathy. And that's another thing I don't get. If you want to drive the criminal out of your club, stop giving him money. Partially-packing the park just gives him more. Turning your back on the game is another odd thing - staying outside for 15mins shows the owner of your buying power, its a threat - but copying something Man City copied from someone else, for a different reason, is nonsense. As for those plucky brave battling players, they are raping the club of every last penny - why should they get support? Did any of the millionaires pay the office staff? Imagine if you earned £100,000 a month and a colleague earned £600. Wouldn't it be nice to help him out when wages were delayed, as I believe happened last time? That great pompey spirit doesn't extend to the dressing room, yet tonight they will be heroes. Before driving back to their London homes with cash swilling about in the boot of the Lexus. It's all looks way too late and a bit misguided down east at the mo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 14 February, 2012 Share Posted 14 February, 2012 They're selling tickets in shopping centres, they've got so many to shift... Maybe there's no heating or lighting in the box office and it's a lot more comfortable in the shopping centre? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts