holepuncture Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Love it Tick Tock, every day that the thread slows down means they are a day nearer to the Final Countdown & Reality check. Surely it must be time for "Buyers to emerge"? The calm before the storm gives us all a little respite, to catch our breath, mop up the urine from the floor and sew our sides back together... The next installment of extreme amusement is only round the corner and I 4-1 cannot wait. What I would really like is another court appearance with local and national media coverage - those are my favourites! For the time being the versatile Liam Lawerence has ditched his day job at the ticket booth and is now head of skate marketing and spin: I haven’t ever felt like leaving and that’s the truth. I don’t want to go anywhere and I don’t want the club to fold.’ ‘But there’s a strength of character among Portsmouth supporters. They are famous worldwide for it. If they stick with us, I think this is a good chance for us to bond. all 14,000 of em, famous around the planet honist! He really is working hard to get hold of his twenty grand this week. A couple of funny images to lighten the mood perhaps. I do recall one of these fan on the board style supporters groups wrote so enthusiastically about the installation of a toilet and the removal of fat from the water pipes with a view to achieving hot water... It was so enthusiastic some questioned if it was a spoof - but it turned out to be the real deal. So, do we have a toilet and fat-less pipes yet or just pictures of Milan in a digger? Everytime I wash my hands at SMS it really makes me chuckle... 'fat in the pipes' Shalala Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 I can't believe he agreed to defering just 25% of players wages. Surely they would be protected by the football creditors rule. Oh! Is that about to come out against them? Also if the remainder of the parachute payments are sent, do they cover the immediate payments due? CVA, Wages, tax? and what about gas electric travel & web hosting? Then if they suvive this season without religation (HaHa) What are they going to use to start next season? Or to pay off the overpaid players and buy new ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Jim Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 With the signing of another player who is known to police, Appy's dressing room is looking more like a remand centre than a place of sporting excellence. They must have been gutted to lose out on Marlon King - he would have been the sex pest gem in their little criminal crown. They just need to get Graham Rix back in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 (edited) If that is the case - how long is it until Birch starts looking at liquidation? From a purely legal and/or technical perspective, Birch can string out the administration until the end of the season at least. Birch was appointed on 17th February and, according to paragraph 51 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, has a maximum of 10 weeks in which to hold the initial creditors' meeting. So, the latest date he has to get creditors around the table is 27th April, which happens to be the day before the last day of the season. As well as giving a latest timeframe, the aforementioned Insolvency Act also stipulates that the administrator should set a date for the initial creditors' meeting "as soon as is reasonably practicable after the company enters administration" so I guess it will be interesting to see whether Birch is indeed looking to string this out as long as possible or nip it in the bud sooner rather than later. By comparison, CSI went into administration on 25th November 2011 and the notice for the initial creditors meeting was announced by Andronikou on 19th January 2012, nearly 8 weeks later. The CSI creditors' meeting itself took place on 2nd February 2012, which was only 1 day before the 10 week deadline....nothing like cutting it fine! Edited 28 February, 2012 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 .... the right honourable Miss Piggy MP..... She may be a right goer, she may be a right *******, I don't know her well enough to make a conclusion, ( in fact I don't know her at all ), but - PEDANTRY ALERT, unless she is a Privy Councillor, she is just plain 'Honourable'. Which puts me in mind of a little ditty : She offered her honour, He honoured her offer, and all night long, he was 'on her' and 'off her'. ( Caveat and legal exclusion - this rhyme has nothing whatsoever to do with any MP living or dead ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanimal Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 'web hosting..................' - cant work out why they would have a problem with that...?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintalan Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 They just need to get Graham Rix back in charge. Brian Rix would be more appropriate in that place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkeith Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Trevor Birch said that the club is losing £8M a year at the moment. 8/12 = 750K per month. 2 games per month at £25 a ticket ( being generous ) = > 750K / 25 = 30,000 divide by 2 matches equals 15,000 extra punters per home game needed to break even. If we accept the original break even figure of 14,000 for home games, this means that they need crowds of 29,000 in a 21K stadium just to make ends meet. Clearly this is all the fault of HRMC/FA/PL/FL ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey-deacons-left-nut Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 That would be correct if you averaged it out over a year yes, but the end of the season is fast approaching where the money coming in will be close to zero and the money going out will still be high, the money that would have helped see them through the summer has already been spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBS1980 Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 How long until the website gets cut off for not paying the bill... haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 That would be correct if you averaged it out over a year yes, but the end of the season is fast approaching where the money coming in will be close to zero and the money going out will still be high, the money that would have helped see them through the summer has already been spent. In theory, around the end of the season and the start of the summer is when the bulk of a club's income is received, through season ticket sales. However, with no (as yet) clear business plan to go on beyond the end of this season, the administrator isn't going to let the club take season ticket money for a "service" that may not ever be provided. With only two players out of contract at the end of the season (Ashdown and Rocha), the only way I can see them being remotely sustainable next season is if they offload the likes of Kitson, Lawrence, Norris, etc for knockdown fees. They might even have to subsidise the wages for the remainder of their existing contract by £2-3k a week - not ideal, but if it gets them somewhere near break-even, it's certainly an option. Unfortunately, I think a lot rests with the outcome of the Football Creditors Rule case with HMRC. If HMRC wins, that gets rid of the FCR, which in turn makes players much more wary about which club they sign for - as a result, someone like Lawrence will be much more prepared to take a significant wage cut if it means he joins a club where he knows he will get paid. 100% of £10k a week is better than 20% of £20k a week, after all. Even then, they've got to get a new CVA agreed, and the chances of that happening appear slim to say the least. Baker Tilly, having been appointed by HMRC, will surely oppose it, and that would probably be enough on its own to prevent a 75% acceptance. HMRC would simply add to that opposition with the £1.6m owed before admin and the money they would be due upon payment of the deferred wages. While we know what happens if they don't get a CVA agreed in terms of the Football League, what happens from a company perspective? If a CVA isn't agreed with creditors, does the administrator have to go back with another proposal and hope that gets agreed or does he then say "sorry lads, I've tried, but the creditors want you gone"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 If HMRC wins, that gets rid of the FCR, QUOTE] I'm not really sure it does Steve. If the golden share is dependent on all outstanding footballing debts (Including wages) then the league can effectively keep it in place.....Although that woudl almost certainly mean a few more clubs go completely bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Are they due on TV again this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Are they due on TV again this year? It would appear not, although our game against Reading on Friday 13th April is the last one they've scheduled for the Championship so far. With a full Championship programme on Tuesday 17th, Saturday 21st and Saturday 28th, they've still got a few to sort out. I'd expect them to only make a decision on the game they show on the 28th after all the games on the penultimate weekend have been played. All of the games will be kicking off at 12.30 anyway, so they don't have to move the kickoff time or date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 1/2: @pn_neil_allen: RT @officialpompey: The Official PFC website is back online! Please visit http://t.co/iwxKcDsv for all of the latest information about the club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 1/2: @pn_neil_allen: RT @officialpompey: The Official PFC website is back online! Please visit http://www.Saintsweb.co.uk/showthreadphp?14620-pompey-Takeover-Saga/page1128 for all of the latest information about the club Much more informative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 I'm not really sure it does Steve. If the golden share is dependent on all outstanding footballing debts (Including wages) then the league can effectively keep it in place.....Although that woudl almost certainly mean a few more clubs go completely bust. The whole point of HMRC's case is surely that the rule itself is illegal. If they win the case (and, given their record with football cases, that's unlikely anyway), the rule would have to disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Trevor Birch said that the club is losing £8M a year at the moment. 8/12 = 750K per month. 2 games per month at £25 a ticket ( being generous ) = > 750K / 25 = 30,000 divide by 2 matches equals 15,000 extra punters per home game needed to break even. If we accept the original break even figure of 14,000 for home games, this means that they need crowds of 29,000 in a 21K stadium just to make ends meet. Clearly this is all the fault of HRMC/FA/PL/FL ..... Thats the running theme with all this saga......the numbers simply don't add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 If the rule ceased to exist, and a number of clubs went bust Cameron would fear the damage. What could he do to soften the change/ political damage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooney Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 The whole point of HMRC's case is surely that the rule itself is illegal. If they win the case (and, given their record with football cases, that's unlikely anyway), the rule would have to disappear. An MP from the Sports and Media Select Committee told Sky Sports News lunchtime that he wishes the unfair Football Creditors Rule to be brought before Parliament so it can be struck out. He did not mention the HMRC Appeal but perhaps he has heard some whispers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 If HMRC win the case, could they be classed as a prefered creditor alongside the football creditors. I am sure this used to be the case a few years back. Are HMRC challanging the fact that they aren't a prefered creditor or the fact that football creditors are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 If HMRC win the case, could they be classed as a prefered creditor alongside the football creditors. I am sure this used to be the case a few years back. Are HMRC challanging the fact that they aren't a prefered creditor or the fact that football creditors are? Not sure why this happened, but HMRC ceased being a preferential creditor in 2003. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Not sure why this happened, but HMRC ceased being a preferential creditor in 2003. They lost another court case (edit: proved wrong, the law changed) It was seen as unfair on other creditors causing even more businesses to fail in a domino effect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 They lost another court case I can only assume they've relied on the services of this man for their legal business: It was seen as unfair on other creditors causing even more businesses to fail in a domino effect Rather ironic in this particular situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 If HMRC win the case, could they be classed as a prefered creditor alongside the football creditors. I am sure this used to be the case a few years back. Are HMRC challanging the fact that they aren't a prefered creditor or the fact that football creditors are? Answer B I believe. Problem is that many clubs have so large football debts that there is often very little for other creditors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy_D Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 The rule itself isn't illegal, the football league can put whatever restrictions they like in place. What probably is illegal is the clubs paying out to football creditors at the expense of other creditors like HMRC to try and stay within that rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Changing the subject slightly, have those small timers sold out for their visit to SMS yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint si Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Football creditors are not preferred creditors in the eyes of the law. FL has the right to impose whatever rules it wants. This presents incompatibility when CVAs are agreed with football creditors getting a bigger share (100%) than other unsecured creditors. In PFC's case, in 2010, the CVA was passed on this basis, as it was deemed to present a better return for all creditors going forward than the alternative. The reason cited was the parachute payments, which are dependent on the golden share, which is dependent upon football creditors getting 100%. So I would guess what HMRC are challenging is the idea that a rule (not a Law) imposed by the football league can be applied in a CVA in such a way that some creditors (football creditors) get more than others. i.e. they want a ruling that says forming a CVA in this manner would be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chin Strain Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 If the rule ceased to exist, and a number of clubs went bust Cameron would fear the damage. What could he do to soften the change/ political damage? It's nothing to do with the government though - HMRC aren't political. HMRC would be following this route if Labour, Conservative or the Monster Raving Loony party was in government. Scotland haven't got the FCR, and nor has any other country in Europe. If the FCR was abolished it would simply change the way clubs and players did business. Any player transfer would be cash up front, rather than on the never never like it is now. Transfer prices would become more realistic, players would have to make a call based on likelihood of getting paid rather than size of contract offered. Ultimately, without the FCR, Pompey would just fire all their top earners. To be honest, if the FCR gets booted out it's probably the best chance (only chance) POmpey have of being bought. The biggest issue for them is the size of their wages and, as Steve pointed out earlier, none of their big earners are out of contract this summer, so they're staring down the barrel of £1.5m a month until at least June 2013. If the wage bill was gone, and a new buyer could start operating at normal' levels, commensurate with income, they'd probably have a reasonable chance of getting an honest buyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chin Strain Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Football creditors are not preferred creditors in the eyes of the law. FL has the right to impose whatever rules it wants. This presents incompatibility when CVAs are agreed with football creditors getting a bigger share (100%) than other unsecured creditors. In PFC's case, in 2010, the CVA was passed on this basis, as it was deemed to present a better return for all creditors going forward than the alternative. The reason cited was the parachute payments, which are dependent on the golden share, which is dependent upon football creditors getting 100%. So I would guess what HMRC are challenging is the idea that a rule (not a Law) imposed by the football league can be applied in a CVA in such a way that some creditors (football creditors) get more than others. i.e. they want a ruling that says forming a CVA in this manner would be illegal. What I don't understand is how the FL / FA / PL can impose their rule over and above the law of the land. The law of the land says all creditors are treated equally but, as you've said, the FCR is incompatible with that...yet it still wins over. I understand that the FL insist that 100% of football debts are paid in order to get the golden share, but logically that should mean that all creditors get 100%...but it doesn't. How can the FCR possibly be legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Let me clear up one thing. HMRC did not lose a court case reducing their power from preferred Creditor to unsecure. The Government passed this legislation in the Enterprise Act 2003. The particular section 251 Abolition of Crown preference. (1)The following paragraphs of Schedule 6 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (categories of preferential debts) shall cease to have effect— . (a)paragraphs 1 and 2 (debts due to Inland Revenue), . (b)paragraphs 3 to 5C(debts due to Customs and Excise), and . ©paragraphs 6 and 7(social security contributions). . (2)The following paragraphs of Schedule 3 to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (c. 66) (list of preferred debts) shall cease to have effect— . (a)paragraph 1 (debts due to Inland Revenue), . (b)paragraph 2 (debts due to Customs and Excise), and . ©paragraph 3 (social security contributions). . (3)In section 386 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (categories of preferential debts) for the parenthetical words after “Schedule 6 to this Act” there shall be substituted “ (contributions to occupational pension schemes; remuneration, &c. of employees; levies on coal and steel production) ”. The HMRC have since challenged that the "Football Creditor" rule is unfair and against the principles of the Insolvency Act but have so far failed. The latest Appeal Hearing Judgement was reserved and we all await it's outcome. Nobody, including the Government, can know what the Judicial decide until it is made public. They can only speculate as we all do. It HMRC win then I suspect a number of clubs owing lots of money, including a high proportion to football creditors will go into Administration to cleanse their debt. Whilst the Football creditor rule is in force where is no point if the large proportion of their debt is to football as then liquidation and loss of the "Golden Share" was the consequence. West Ham were a good example. They owed so much to other clubs including their compensation to Sheffield United that Administration was not an option. If the HMRC do not receive a judgement in their favour the Government must act. Legislation must cleanse football and put them on the same footing as any other creditor including the crown. Returning HMRC to preferred creditor status is not the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chin Strain Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Let me clear up one thing. HMRC did not lose a court case reducing their power from preferred Creditor to unsecure. The Government passed this legislation in the Enterprise Act 2003. The particular section 251 Abolition of Crown preference. (1)The following paragraphs of Schedule 6 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (categories of preferential debts) shall cease to have effect— . (a)paragraphs 1 and 2 (debts due to Inland Revenue), . (b)paragraphs 3 to 5C(debts due to Customs and Excise), and . ©paragraphs 6 and 7(social security contributions). . (2)The following paragraphs of Schedule 3 to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (c. 66) (list of preferred debts) shall cease to have effect— . (a)paragraph 1 (debts due to Inland Revenue), . (b)paragraph 2 (debts due to Customs and Excise), and . ©paragraph 3 (social security contributions). . (3)In section 386 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (categories of preferential debts) for the parenthetical words after “Schedule 6 to this Act” there shall be substituted “ (contributions to occupational pension schemes; remuneration, &c. of employees; levies on coal and steel production) ”. The HMRC have since challenged that the "Football Creditor" rule is unfair and against the principles of the Insolvency Act but have so far failed. The latest Appeal Hearing Judgement was reserved and we all await it's outcome. Nobody, including the Government, can know what the Judicial decide until it is made public. They can only speculate as we all do. It HMRC win then I suspect a number of clubs owing lots of money, including a high proportion to football creditors will go into Administration to cleanse their debt. Whilst the Football creditor rule is in force where is no point if the large proportion of their debt is to football as then liquidation and loss of the "Golden Share" was the consequence. West Ham were a good example. They owed so much to other clubs including their compensation to Sheffield United that Administration was not an option. If the HMRC do not receive a judgement in their favour the Government must act. Legislation must cleanse football and put them on the same footing as any other creditor including the crown. Returning HMRC to preferred creditor status is not the answer. The West Ham case is an interesting one as they have massive football debts. If WHU went into admin, you could effectively guarantee Sheffield United would also go because of the £30m they're owed. Initially it would be an admin bloodbath, but there would be an opportunity for football to get a grip of itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 The West Ham case is an interesting one as they have massive football debts. If WHU went into admin, you could effectively guarantee Sheffield United would also go because of the £30m they're owed. Initially it would be an admin bloodbath, but there would be an opportunity for football to get a grip of itself. West Ham also owe the bulk of the stage payments for Tevez, which I find pretty amazing. They kick in this year apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudders Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Not pompey I know, but Farnborough docked points for financial irregularities. I don't beleive for one minute there won't also be some irregularities down the road! http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17196052 Farnborough docked five points for financial irregularities Blue Square Bet South side Farnborough FC have been deducted five points and given a £5,000 suspended fine by the Football Conference after being found guilty of financial irregularities. The club were found guilty of submitting misleading information on quarterly financial returns. The Hampshire club intend to appeal against the decision. "I am extremely disappointed to hear of the Conference's verdict and penalty on Monday," said manager Spencer Day. "However the opportunity to make our defence and mitigation is at an appeal to the FA which we will be lodging as soon as possible. "The club has been found guilty of an offence dating back to a document due in June last year and a dishonoured cheque way before I took charge, but I accept that it is a club responsibility." Day continued: "Due to a series of events the club has yet to file any sort of defence to the charge and we look forward to the appeal where we can give the Conference and Football Association our position and let procedure run its course. "Naturally, as the first-team manager, this is potentially a massive blow to our survival chances, however we are still in a vastly better position in the league table than when we started in late November and I am very confident." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truckasaurus Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 one thing i don't understand is ..........well.........all of it really. How can a debt of over £100 million "vanish". I'm gonna try it with santander,i'm going into admin tomorrrrow (after i've got my Millwall tickets) Wish me luck evryone i'm gonna reduce my £100,000 morgage to............ ??? 20p in the pound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 If 15 football clubs go into administration. Whilst I agree the HMRC are not political, that does not stop there being a back lash against the government of the day or the opposition MP's taking opportunistic snipes at the government. Also an Mp might take actions like Penny did to improve their local popularity. Most MP's feel it is important to support their local team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 one thing i don't understand is ..........well.........all of it really. How can a debt of over £100 million "vanish". I'm gonna try it with santander,i'm going into admin tomorrrrow (after i've got my Millwall tickets) Wish me luck evryone i'm gonna reduce my £100,000 morgage to............ ??? 20p in the pound. You could end up living in a sh*tty shed, not like ....oh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 8000 seats left for the boro game. Pack the Park working well then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Here is a good note on decision HMRC, then Inland Revenue v Wimbledon FC (2004) In the case involving Wimbledon Football Club. The articles of association of the Football League and the League’s insolvency policy provide that, if a member of the League goes into administration, the League can require the relevant club to transfer its share in the League to a person nominated by the League for a nominal consideration and the administrators can only sell the share and the business and assets of the club as a League member if, under the terms of any sale agreement, the purchaser agrees to pay the debts of "football creditors" in full. The Inland Revenue challenged the proposed creditors’ voluntary arrangement for Wimbledon on the ground that it unfairly prejudiced the interests of the Revenue as a preferential creditor as it provided for the debts due to the football creditors to be paid for by the purchaser of the club. As the football creditors were being paid by the purchaser on behalf of the company but were not paid by the company out of its assets, the court held that there was no unfairness in the CVA so far as it provided for payment in full of the football creditors. Such payment was for practical purposes a condition precedent to any sale of Wimbledon as a going concern together with its membership of the League. Such a requirement of the buyer was a matter of commercial necessity and as such did not make the CVA unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Not pompey I know, but Farnborough docked points for financial irregularities. I don't beleive for one minute there won't also be some irregularities down the road! http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17196052 Farnborough docked five points for financial irregularities Blue Square Bet South side Farnborough FC have been deducted five points and given a £5,000 suspended fine by the Football Conference after being found guilty of financial irregularities. The club were found guilty of submitting misleading information on quarterly financial returns. The Hampshire club intend to appeal against the decision. "I am extremely disappointed to hear of the Conference's verdict and penalty on Monday," said manager Spencer Day. "However the opportunity to make our defence and mitigation is at an appeal to the FA which we will be lodging as soon as possible. "The club has been found guilty of an offence dating back to a document due in June last year and a dishonoured cheque way before I took charge, but I accept that it is a club responsibility." Day continued: "Due to a series of events the club has yet to file any sort of defence to the charge and we look forward to the appeal where we can give the Conference and Football Association our position and let procedure run its course. "Naturally, as the first-team manager, this is potentially a massive blow to our survival chances, however we are still in a vastly better position in the league table than when we started in late November and I am very confident." Spencer Day, ****ing hell. Many people will be more familiar with that particular character under his previous name, Spencer Trethewy, the man largely responsible for Aldershot going bust in 1992. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Majestic Channon Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Spencer Day, ****ing hell. Many people will be more familiar with that particular character under his previous name, Spencer Trethewy, the man largely responsible for Aldershot going bust in 1992. Is that the young ' business man' who bought them back then? i seem to remember him being sent down . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Just received a tax rebate notification of £380 from the year 03-04... COYHRMC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 MatKendrick Mat Kendrick Villa's overall loss for 2010/11 increased to £53.9m, from £37.6m in 2009/10 3 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply Retweeted by @mattslaterbbc Just a question. If the PL is supposed to be the promised land and the place to make loadsa money. How can someone like Villa LOSE 91.5 million IN TWO YEARS? Like, what the feck is the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooney Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 I am grateful to Weston Saint for clearing up the abolition of Crown Preference under the 2003 Enterprise Act, as I was not aware of this. The preference for Tax, Vat, Nic's was after Fixed Charge security but before Floating Charge Security. I see that wages and Salaries still appear preferential as they were under the Isolvency Act 1986. In that case, if the Football Creditors Rule is abolished either by the Court or indeed Parliament, Players wages would still take preference ie after the Fixed Charge portion of Baloos Debenture, but before the Floating Charge portion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Just received a tax rebate notification of £380 from the year 03-04... COYHRMC! Snap - except I got 3 times that amount! However, with one daughter getting married and two more grandchildren on the way, I don't think I'll have any to spare for the paupers down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Snap - except I got 3 times that amount! However, with one daughter getting married and two more grandchildren on the way, I don't think I'll have any to spare for the paupers down the road. If I won £100M on the Euros I wouldn't give that lot the hole from a Polo Mint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooh it's a corner Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 If I won £100M on the Euros I wouldn't give that lot the hole from a Polo Mint. I would. Second hand mind you, slightly sucked, one careful sucker..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_John Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 The Torygraph say that the "Football Regularity Authority" under the control of the FA are going to control football ownership instead of the PL and FL. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/news/9109835/New-independent-body-to-regulate-ownership-of-football-clubs-in-proposal-to-be-handed-to-Government.html Football club owners and directors suspected of financial impropriety or of breaches of rules governing club ownership will face investigation from a new independent body under plans to reform football governance The investigations unit will be part of a new FA-controlled licensing system that will be introduced to help ease Government worries that football has failed to adequately react to concerns over its financial management. The vetting and clearance of club owners and directors is currently controlled by the leagues, who rely on individuals to be honest and declare any issues that may breach rulesPortsmouth, meanwhile, are in administration for a second time in two years after a succession of owners whose financing was unclear. (Not unclear to Saintsweb, we all knew they had NO money) Now who do we know who is currently out of a job who has been "training for the last couple of years" on all the dodgy deals in football who could head up that department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 With the express permission of the webmasters and the contributors of this thread (of whom I am yet to officially ask), I am going to attempt to a PTS bible and a snapshot (for those of us who just want the basic facts). I will begin next week, providing I have the authority to do so. Of course, this is something that continues to roll on relentlessly every day, so I would need to maintain it. I'll have to see how it goes but it's going to take some serious work. However, needs must and it'd be nice to have something that we can just revisit easily without having to trawl through hundreds of pages first. I could really use some extra fingers for this so any of the phew that want to help, please do let me know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 28 February, 2012 Share Posted 28 February, 2012 Sorry if this has already been posted, but http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17191799 Jutkewitz is saying he especially wants Boro to beat Portsmouth this weekend because he is a Saints fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts