Pompey Takeover Saga

[ray kemish]

I am a bit stupid I know but it looks like at the moment The supporters Trust is assuming this -

1) The Old CVA is null and void (so £millions just wiped out)

2) They can buy the club for approx £5m (with no debts to pay as the CVA is null and void)

3) Buying the club also secures them a ground (of sorts) to play in - and previous owners are out of the picture

4) They get no more points penalties - as Newco have taken the punishment for going into admin, and there is no need for a new CVA as by buying the club they are paying off all previous debts

5) The FL will be kind enough to let them keep the Golden share, which actually belonged to the Oldco ,then the Newco (both of which will technically no longer exist)

6) The Prem will then kindly give them £14m in parachute payments (which actually the oldco were entitled to, but were then inherited by the newco, both of whom would no longer exist if bought by the supporters trust)

 

If I've got that right (or more importantly if they have) - then knock me down with a feather, what a great piece of business! Spend £5m - get £14m. But wouldn't that be a little immoral?

[holepuncture]

I am a bit stupid I know but it looks like at the moment The supporters Trust is assuming this -

1) The Old CVA is null and void (so £millions just wiped out)

2) They can buy the club for approx £5m (with no debts to pay as the CVA is null and void)

3) Buying the club also secures them a ground (of sorts) to play in - and previous owners are out of the picture

4) They get no more points penalties - as Newco have taken the punishment for going into admin, and there is no need for a new CVA as by buying the club they are paying off all previous debts

5) The FL will be kind enough to let them keep the Golden share, which actually belonged to the Oldco ,then the Newco (both of which will technically no longer exist)

6) The Prem will then kindly give them £14m in parachute payments (which actually the oldco were entitled to, but were then inherited by the newco, both of whom would no longer exist if bought by the supporters trust)

 

If I've got that right (or more importantly if they have) - then knock me down with a feather, what a great piece of business! Spend £5m - get £14m. But wouldn't that be a little immoral?

 

Indeed, utter nonsense of the highest order... Sickening attitude towards debt too.

 

Allowing a CVA to be put into another CVA, effectively a % of a % of debt... to go unpunished??? That would be a seriously dangerous precedent to set.

 

If they pulled it off they would have successfully taken £130m of debt and reduced it to zero - without paying a single penny (parachutes paid the football creditor direct).

 

If they managed it they would have destroyed the game for the forseeable future.

 

 

I cant see the trust raising more than a million or two, its too big a task in too little time.

[trousers]

Hmmmm.....things seem to be happening a little more expediently up in Scotland....

 

http://www.rangers.co.uk/club-news/article/2718884

 

Administrators' Statement

Tue, Apr 3, 2012

 

Duff & Phelps, administrators of Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement today.

 

Paul Clark, Joint Administrator, said: "As administrators we are obliged, as part of our statutory duties, to put forward our initial report and statement of proposals to creditors by April 5. The report will be uploaded to the Rangers Football Club website from that date.

 

All creditors will have the opportunity to vote on the proposals. In essence, the proposals consist of a set of legal and technical resolutions which relate to routine housekeeping matters, for which the Joint Administrators are required to seek creditors' approval. The proposals if approved, will allow the Joint Administrators to continue the administration process until an appropriate exit from administration can be found.

 

Advertisements will be placed in relevant newspapers tomorrow, giving notice of a meeting of creditors. This will not be a physical meeting of creditors. The meeting is to be held solely by correspondence in accordance with Rule 2.28 of the Insolvency (Scotland) Rules 1986. Voting forms and statutory notices along with the Joint Administrators' statutory proposals will be available from 5 April 2012 from the website.

 

Votes by correspondence must be submitted by 12pm on April 20 and the process is part of standard administration procedure. For clarification this is not a creditors' meeting at which a Company Voluntary Arrangement will be proposed, nor will any other form of exit from administration be determined at this juncture. Such matters will be formally considered once the sale process has reached a conclusion."

[trousers]

Not really "on topic" but potentially interesting to see what happens with Rangers now they seem to be approaching their "end game" at a faster pace than our friends down the road....

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/administrators-prepare-final-act-of-sorry-tale.17208582

Tuesday 3 April 2012

 

The endgame is now in sight for Duff & Phelps.

 

Date for creditors meeting is set as Rangers enter a crucial phase in their history

 

They are calling a creditors meeting for Friday, April 20 at Ibrox, when they will present their proposals for taking Rangers out of administration. This will involve two possible scenarios: exiting via a Company Voluntary Arrangement, or the assets being sold to a newco. The creditors will, effectively, be voting for which of the two outcomes suits them best, but by then the likely future of the club will have been determined.

 

As administrators, Duff & Phelps have three priorities, in order: first, to try to rescue the company as a going concern; second, to achieve a better result for the creditors than winding the company up; then lastly, selling assets to raise funds to be distributed to the secured or preferred creditors. In their proposal, Duff & Phelps must explain any reasons why they would consider either or both of the first two objectives to be impossible to meet.

 

The three remaining interested parties – the Blue Knights consortium, Club 9 Sports and a Singapore-based consortium – must submit their best and final offers by tomorrow, with proof of funding. Duff & Phelps will then decide upon their preferred bidder. They can offer a period of exclusivity, during which the administrators cannot enter in negotiations with any other potential buyers, in return for a non-refundable fee, thought to be in the region of £1m.

 

The deposit acts as further proof of intention, and provides an element of security for the winning offer. It also establishes how much money Duff & Phelps can utilise in a CVA, allowing them to then begin negotiations between the dominant creditors and their preferred bidder. The likelihood or otherwise of a CVA will have, in effect, been determined before the creditors meeting is held, since Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs already represent a large percentage of Rangers' debt.

 

For a CVA to be passed, creditors holding 75% or more of the debt must vote in favour, and if the first tier tax tribunal finds in HMRC's favour – landing Rangers with another tax bill of up to £50m – they alone could determine the outcome of the CVA. The votes of the other creditors would then essentially be irrelevant.

 

Yet it seems unlikely that any of the interested parties other than the Blue Knights could pull together a workable CVA. Paul Murray's move to bring Ticketus – the company that lent Craig Whyte £24.4m in return for future season ticket sales – into his consortium means that if the Knights are successful in their bid to buy the club, Ticketus will not be among the creditors.

 

Murray, the former Rangers director, is also thought to have negotiated better repayment terms and conditions from Ticketus, freeing up more revenue in the short-term and allowing the club to re-stabilise more quickly. Ticketus would also effectively act as the club's bank, providing a bridging loan for working capital until a share issue is held, with the proceeds being split between CVA payments – HMRC often agree to CVAs that involve a lump sum payment then further installments form future revenue – and investment.

 

Under the Knights' plans, the rest of the creditors would receive more money from the CVA, and their deal with Ticketus also avoids further legal battles. In a court judgment last week, Lord Hodge declared that Ticketus's claim on future season ticket sales cannot be enforced – because it is not recognised in Scots Law – but they do have a contractual entitlement.

 

"Although Lord Hodge's decision has, if you like, got rid of the Ticketus rights to future income, Ticketus will almost certainly have an unsecured claim against the football club," says Maureen Leslie of MLM Solutions, the insolvency practitioners. "Lord Hodge left it open just a tiny bit by not precluding Ticketus taking their case to a higher court. If you're going to have months of horrendous litigation, that's going to prevent you from taking a CVA forward within a realistic time frame. You need to get that litigation out of the way."

 

Club 9 Sports, the Chicago-based investment fund, are believed to have made the highest indicative offer for the club – around £25m – but this is thought to contain several clauses that could see it reduced to become closer to the other bids. Herald Sport has also received a firm denial from the owners of the New York Yankees that they are among the backers. Club 9 Sports are also not thought to have carried out due diligence on Rangers, even though Duff & Phelps set up a website with secured access to a data vault of all the relevant financial and legal information.

 

"One of the reasons you do diligence is to understand the obligations you're taking on," says Neil Patey, a partner with Ernst and Young. "That all disappears if you're just buying the assets. The other part is understanding the revenue generation of what you're buying, the wage structure, what the historical expenses are. But in a distressed scenario you're just buying the assets so there's less diligence done.

 

"Why go down the liquidation route? It is cleaner. A CVA is about preserving history. You could see why a Paul Murray consortium would be much more aligned to the history than an American investor."

 

Duff & Phelps are duty bound to accept the highest offer, but they must also be certain the bidders can deliver. Liquidation and starting the club under a newco is the simplest route out of administration – so still the most likely – while a CVA requires the new owners to submit business plans, cost and future revenue projections for creditors to scrutinise. Yet the Blue Knights' bid has been constructed in such a way as to make it favourable for both the club and the prospects of gaining a CVA.

 

With Duff & Phelps planning to name their preferred bidder on Thursday, the coming days will be critical to the shape of Rangers' future.

Edited 3 April, 2012 by trousers

[saint si]

Not really "on topic" but potentially interesting to see what happens with Rangers now they seem to be approaching their "end game" at a faster pace than our friends down the road....

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/administrators-prepare-final-act-of-sorry-tale.17208582

 

Really rams home the point that there simply isn't enough time left for those down the road.

 

- They need to find a bidder. Preferably more than one in order to actually create some competition.

- The bidder will need to do due diligence of some sort

- Working with the bidder, Birch will need to pull together a CVA

- The CVA will need to address the issue of the legacy CVA

- It will also need to address the issue of Chainrai's charge on FP

- Assuming they can construct a CVA they'll have to have to creditors' meeting (by or on 27th April) to vote on it

- Depending on who does or doesn't get to vote, the CVA may be approved or rejected

- And there are also bound to be legal objections (from HMRC / Baker Tilley) as to whether the old CVA can be diluted by a new CVA or not, as well as from Chainrai (which may then involve AA, who is still administrator of CSI, a major creditor).

 

Wouldn't surprise me if Birch is no longer working flat out on PFC anymore, as I can't see any realistic prospect of anyone paying his fees at the end of all this...

[Fowllyd]

Whilst I would also be happy with this outcome, it would set a very bad precedent. This is why te FL HAVE to do something, and the sooner the better!

 

If they do nothing and the Skates are liquidated (meaning there is nothing they can do) then the next time such an event happens they will be legally obliged not to take any action against the perpetrator.

 

Therefore, what is there to stop any club going into admin at a time they can take a 10 point hit with no real effect (i.e. not relegating them) then agreing a CVA (thus no further points penalty) building up more debt and repeating - whilst also blowing off a CVA (therefore all previous debts) without having paid a penny towards it. I fully acknowledge that (currently) all footballing debts have to be repaid, but don't forget that things such as transfer fees to foreign clubs are not considered footballing debts (bizarrely!)

 

So a club could effectively sign a very good squad of players without having to pay their transfer fees - and if the FL do not take action now they are all but condoning such action. This, of course, would reflect badly on all English teams - and THEIR precious league.

 

I can see what you mean, but I don't think there'd really be a precedent set if Pompey get liquidated without receiving additional points penalties. The FL are quite entitled to wait until the position is clear before imposing further sanctions, and there's no point imposing anything on a non-existent club. Were a club to do as Pompey have, but then come through the administration process with playing squad intact and a CVA blown away, then I'd cetrainly expect the FL to impose very severe sanctions, just as I'll expect them to do so if Pompey somehow survive.

[Liquidshokk]

"Decent #pompey story coming in the morning on @solentsport and @BBCSport website." - Nabil Hassan

[trousers]

"Decent #pompey story coming in the morning on @solentsport and @BBCSport website."

 

"Decent"? Que?

[Liquidshokk]

"Decent"? Que?

 

Who knows. Surely if it was significantly good then he would have said "Good news"

 

Maybe just an article on how good the worlds best supporters have been....................

[buctootim]

It'll be a no news news story imo.

[fanimal]

Let us and the 5 other teams they have to play in April do the job of the PL, FL, Courts and HMRC and bury the DFCSBS into League One!!!

[rallyboy]

I've seen two skates today - first one said he's missing his first local derby since the mid-80s as he doesn't want to see pompey 'destroyed'.

 

Knowing I was seeing the second one I prepared...

He was grateful when I presented him with a small piece of paper with a postcode on it - to help him get to Crawley Town next season for their new local derby, I even included the club telephone number in case he gets lost.

 

 

I say 'grateful', I think perhaps 'worried' is more accurate, because it was less of a joke and more of a prediction.

[swannymere]

Nothing will happen to them, nobody in power has the balls.

[Joensuu]

It's hard to read between the lines, but I think the league are well aware of the loophole the Pompey have opened up - why else would innocent emails enquiring about the loophole without mentioning the club have been answered by the standard copy and paste reply relating to not being able to discuss the club.

 

IMO the league will be getting legal advice about the situation. Their top priority is to avoid being sued (and losing), so they have to be careful that any descion (or non-decision) has its legal ramifications fully considered.

 

If they hit Pompey with a penalty that doesn't exist within the current rules then they will have to considering the following:

• Would cheatsfc be able to sue?
  
• Would the penalty set a pecedent - and if so, what is the appropriate level to set the penalty at.
  
• How would the penalty affect the public perception of the league ("We were forced to liguidate when the league hit us with a second penalty - straws, camels etc" - won't look good if the tabloids start taking the side of the cheats).
  

Of course, not hitting the cheats also comes at a risk - can the loophole be restrospectively closed? If the cheats survive (both relegation and liquidation), would the relegated Championship club be able to sue?

 

The league must be hoping that they don't have to make up the rules mid season, and can make a change at the end of the season. However, the cleanest scenario for the league would be if Pompey are relegated without requiring a further penalty. This way the league can't be sued, and can't be blamed, but can still get the loophole(s) closed to prevent further clubs from attempting the 'cheating' route.

 

Perhaps I'm too optimistic?

[Lord Duckhunter]

The League can impose whatever terms they want for the transfer of the Golden Share, ours was not to appeal the -10. I fully expect them to take into account the failed CVA, when the time comes to transfer the share to tne Newco.

[Pugwash]

It's hard to read between the lines, but I think the league are well aware of the loophole the Pompey have opened up - why else would innocent emails enquiring about the loophole without mentioning the club have been answered by the standard copy and paste reply relating to not being able to discuss the club.

 

IMO the league will be getting legal advice about the situation. Their top priority is to avoid being sued (and losing), so they have to be careful that any descion (or non-decision) has its legal ramifications fully considered.

 

If they hit Pompey with a penalty that doesn't exist within the current rules then they will have to considering the following:

• Would cheatsfc be able to sue?
  
• Would the penalty set a pecedent - and if so, what is the appropriate level to set the penalty at.
  
• How would the penalty affect the public perception of the league ("We were forced to liguidate when the league hit us with a second penalty - straws, camels etc" - won't look good if the tabloids start taking the side of the cheats).
  

Of course, not hitting the cheats also comes at a risk - can the loophole be restrospectively closed? If the cheats survive (both relegation and liquidation), would the relegated Championship club be able to sue?

 

The league must be hoping that they don't have to make up the rules mid season, and can make a change at the end of the season. However, the cleanest scenario for the league would be if Pompey are relegated without requiring a further penalty. This way the league can't be sued, and can't be blamed, but can still get the loophole(s) closed to prevent further clubs from attempting the 'cheating' route.

 

Perhaps I'm too optimistic?

 

They haven't answered my second email yet, in which I tried to pick apart their reasoning. I've asked for specific responses whether or not they will post a statement regarding the failure of the CVA. They took a rather long time to answer my first one as well...

[Weston Super Saint]

Calm down people

 

They haven't [officially] done anything wrong yet!

 

They were due to pay an installment of the CVA on the 1st April, my guess is they haven't paid it. However, the Android may look like a bit of a spacker, but he knows how to write a CVA, with his 2015 deadline being the only one in the whole CVA that needs to be adhered to. Until then, they don't have to pay a penny towards the CVA.

 

I guess the fun will only start the next time they want to exit admin, and what they will officially declare has happened to the original CVA. Only then can and will the FA act in any way shape or form. If they manage to get to a point that they can exit admin this time....

 

Until then, be content at laughing at their woeful form on the pitch and the clowns making statements off it!

[mack rill]

Training Courses are available at US1500 a day, fully tax deductable of course, here's one we made earlier

 

 

Lols Doooby Fill if only Lamb-Bone is fit and you could switch the Game to Frydee,

[Truckasaurus]

The football league are in no hurry,get all the games completed,see where the cheats have ended up,if relegated.....phew!!!!! if not relegated they will be hoping for liquidation.

 

Helps them out big time.

 

If the cheats stay up and avoid liquidation (don't know how though) then the grown ups at the FL have an awkward problem. Cheats FC would have got away with it.

 

£130,000,000 spunked on an FA cup win, all the debts gone,their competition is a farce. The FA cup will never be the same again in my eyes.

 

God bless HMRC.

[Saint_John]

Sky have seen some of HMRC doc re the Football Creditors case and the Cheats FC.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11688/7648507/Rule-could-destroy-Portsmouth

A High Court judge is expected to make a ruling before the end of the season

Portsmouth had to pay more than £1.1million in Premier League fines for rule breaches, and other costs, after they entered administration two years ago.

The Premier League withheld £1,163,000 from Portsmouth after a confidential agreement was made on 18 March, 2010 to enable the club to continue to fulfil its fixtures.

The HMRC document stated how the Premier League agreed to extraordinary measures to ensure the club's survival.

It says that the Premier League agreed to advance £6,886,117 of 'parachute payments', entitled to Portsmouth after relegation to the Championship, so the club could pay wages.

[derry]

If every team in the league went into administration every two years there would be no penalty, no debt.

[trousers]

Calm down people

 

They haven't [officially] done anything wrong yet!

 

They were due to pay an installment of the CVA on the 1st April, my guess is they haven't paid it. However, the Android may look like a bit of a spacker, but he knows how to write a CVA, with his 2015 deadline being the only one in the whole CVA that needs to be adhered to. Until then, they don't have to pay a penny towards the CVA.

 

I guess the fun will only start the next time they want to exit admin, and what they will officially declare has happened to the original CVA. Only then can and will the FA act in any way shape or form. If they manage to get to a point that they can exit admin this time....

 

Until then, be content at laughing at their woeful form on the pitch and the clowns making statements off it!

 

Fair dos....but, if they've got until 2015 to 'dishonour' the CVA, why on Earth did Birch jump the gun a few weeks ago by announcing that the original CVA would never be honoured....?

 

Doesn't his pre-emptive strike render the original CVA deadline (i.e. 2015) meaningless..????

[Glasgow_Saint]

If every team in the league went into administration every two years there would be no penalty, no debt.

 

Maybe all owners should agree and do this - i might broker a deal and then agree to 5p in the £1 for my fee

[Weston Super Saint]

Fair dos....but, if they've got until 2015 to 'dishonour' the CVA, why on Earth did Birch jump the gun a few weeks ago by announcing that the original CVA would never be honoured....?

 

Doesn't his pre-emptive strike render the original CVA deadline (i.e. 2015) meaningless..????

 

Well, from a legal point of view, and from a not being sued point of view, which is all the FA really care about, the CVA hasn't failed no matter what Birch says about it, until 2015 when the final payment is due....

 

Once they try to get a new CVA without paying back the old one, then the FA will be able to act without being sued.

[Jonnyboy]

The last 200 pages have flown by!

[Matthew Le God]

I guess the fun will only start the next time they want to exit admin, and what they will officially declare has happened to the original CVA. Only then can and will the FA act in any way shape or form.

 

Well, from a legal point of view, and from a not being sued point of view, which is all the FA really care about, the CVA hasn't failed no matter what Birch says about it, until 2015 when the final payment is due....

 

Once they try to get a new CVA without paying back the old one, then the FA will be able to act without being sued.

 

It has very little to do with the Football Association. It is the Football League.

[SaintBobby]

I for one am totally happy at the actions of the FL so far.

 

Once the actual CLUB went into Admin they applied the Points Penalty. It was only really some on here insisting the linkage to CSI meant they deserved the penalty sooner. So waht? Points are ONLY useful at the END of a season. They were only going to get deducted once for the Admin, The FL waited & DFCSB's duly went pop.

 

Now the CURRENT situation is simple, Wait.

 

Why? Because they may relegate themselves on the Field.

 

They try and exit without a CVA - Points Penalty

They have not honoured the old CVA - possible Points Penalty

 

I think the FL play this very well. At the END of the season poopey could have got themselves into L1 - FANTASTIC - the points penalty for next season

They have NOT relegated themselves - Fantastic - Points Penalty THIS season

 

Win Win as I see it. Then it becomes is it -10 or -27. In the worst case they could give another -10 this year and -17 NEXT. Perfect

 

They are screwed if they survive and are out of the League if they Liquidate

 

Not so sure about this.

 

I think we're now beyond the "points deadline". So, if a team now gets a points deduction, then unless its impact is meaningful this season (eg. The deduction gets them relegated), it will be carried over to next season anyway (as happened to us in our relegation from the Championship)

 

I think the league needs some certainty as well. If, for example, a team survives relegation by two or three points at the end of the season, it's bad for the integrity of the competition for further points to be deducted in May or June.

 

I don't want the norm to be that the league finishes in April/May, but who ends up where in the league is determined in committee meetings or court hearings in June and July.

[trousers]

@pn_neil_allen: Interesting. Mullins hasn't made Reading's last 2 squads, Henderson can't make West Ham's and Huseklepp sub again for Brum tonight! #Pompey

[trousers]

It has very little to do with the Football Association. It is the Football League.

 

And therein lies the problem (probably)...

[Ric]

@pn_neil_allen: Interesting. Mullins hasn't made Reading's last 2 squads, Henderson can't make West Ham's and Huseklepp sub again for Brum tonight! #Pompey

 

Maybe Reading, West Ham & Birmingham should cancel the loans and send them back to Portsmouth...

[hypochondriac]

Maybe Reading, West Ham & Birmingham should cancel the loans and send them back to Portsmouth...

 

Hopefully at the end of the season!

[Pugwash]

If every team in the league went into administration every two years there would be no penalty, no debt.

 

Well I think my plan to make lots of money has now gelled.

 

I'm planning to buy a football club. One that's, say, struggling near the bottom of the Championship, so it won't be too expensive. I might have a little trouble raising the cash from the usual financial institutions, as a leveraged buyout against the clubs assets forms my main strategy. I'll obviously need some cash to back it up with, so I guess I'll have to raise that through 'alternative' lenders who are a little off mainstream. I should get their buy-in if I can guarantee their money back in five years with a good return on investment.

 

Once I'm in, I'll pay myself a good wedge and splash out on a few half-decent players to make the break into the bigtime gravy train. Might need to get in a wheeler-dealer to persuade them to get aboard. Hey, if the wages and fees are a bit steep, I can just load a bit of debt on the club. Once we're in Dreamland, everybody wins, right?

 

So a few seasons in the Prem creaming off the TV money, I can cash in when the creditors start calling by going into Admin. Might have to sell all those star players to keep the lid on the football debts (not too much, mind - don't want those HMRC unsecured creditors having too much of the debt). If I get a canny Administrator in tow, I should be able to keep the club going, exit with a moderate CVA, keep a hold on the assets and keeping bleeding the club for interest payments (remember the leveraged buyout?). Couple of seasons on, I can renege on the CVA and walk off debt-free. After all, who gives a sh1t?

 

I think this could work and is a pretty unique idea that no one has tried before.

 

The only drawback is that I might have to be photographed wearing one of the club scarves when I arrive as the club's 'saviour'. Still, I can always stuff it up my ar$e to ease the piles that I'll probably develop from sitting in a draughty, cold, wreck of a stadium for five years.

[dubai_phil]

Nooooooooooo It can't be Friday. I have a date with a Bottle of Absolut & The Kaiser Chiefs

[dubai_phil]

Not so sure about this.

 

I think we're now beyond the "points deadline". So, if a team now gets a points deduction, then unless its impact is meaningful this season (eg. The deduction gets them relegated), it will be carried over to next season anyway (as happened to us in our relegation from the Championship)

 

I think the league needs some certainty as well. If, for example, a team survives relegation by two or three points at the end of the season, it's bad for the integrity of the competition for further points to be deducted in May or June.

 

I don't want the norm to be that the league finishes in April/May, but who ends up where in the league is determined in committee meetings or court hearings in June and July.

 

They have precedent.

 

At the end of the Season IF they are past the cut off point they can always do a Swindon & Relegate them anyway

[Gemmel]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11674/7648507/Rule-could-destroy-Portsmouth

 

 

Ladies and Gents, please be upstanding for HMRC

[View From The Top]

I've had a member of the PST tell me today that we Saints are jealous of them as they will soon own the club and we will be at the mercy of the money men.

 

And they are supposed to be the bright ones!

[SaintBobby]

They have precedent.

 

At the end of the Season IF they are past the cut off point they can always do a Swindon & Relegate them anyway

 

That's not really a precedent. If I recall, the relevant info about Swindon only came to light after the play-off final.

 

It wasn't as if - many weeks before the play-offs - the authorities were umming and erring about what to do.

 

The issue this time is whether a "double dip" administration without the first CVA being honoured counts as a more substantial penalty than simply drifting into admin for a second time.

 

The situation isn't directly covered by the League's rules (in the same way that the Southampton Leisure Holdings/Southampton FC situation was not directly covered).

 

But I'm struggling to see what might happen between now and the end of the season to shed more light on this anomaly.

 

The facts are basically in, but the League's judgment is not.

[St Jim]

Hopefully at the end of the season!

 

Which is what I questioned a few pages back. I don't think there's an obligation to buy on some, if not all the deals. They were only loaned out as a short term measure to ensure the club makes it to the end of the season. Come the end of May I can see some high earners back at Krap Nottarf crippling the club.

[SaintBobby]

Which is what I questioned a few pages back. I don't think there's an obligation to buy on some, if not all the deals. They were only loaned out as a short term measure to ensure the club makes it to the end of the season. Come the end of May I can see some high earners back at Krap Nottarf crippling the club.

 

I questioned this too.

 

If these are loans with a 100% obligation to buy then they are actually, to all intents and purposes, transfers. And they are outside of the transfer window - so that would be a breach of the rules.

 

I can just about see there could be an option to buy - but surely not a promise to?

[Ohio Saint]

ooohh!!!! 1200 pages!! I LOVE a nice round figure!! (Fat chicks excluded)

[Dark Munster]

"It might be I am looking at recruiting a player now who is probably playing in the Championship.‘But if we did go down – and that is a worst-case scenario – he would be prepared to play in League One for one season."

 

So not content with paying premiership wages in the championship, they are intending to pay championship wages in league 1. Business as usual then.

 

Actually, Voldemort, that is almost the best-case scenario. I think you'll find the (much more likely) liquidation of Cheats FC quite a bit worse.

[Gingeletiss]

More ticket reductions!!!

 

 

Pompey reveal ticket reductions

Pompey fans can benefit from further ticket reductions at Fratton Park

 

Pompey fans can benefit from further ticket reductions at Fratton Park

 

By Neil Allen

Published on Tuesday 3 April 2012 15:17

 

Pompey have announced further ticket reductions for their remaining Fratton Park midweek matches.

 

Adult seats in the north stand have been slashed to £15.

 

In addition, tickets are now priced at £10 for seniors and young persons (17-22) and £1 for juniors (under 16).

 

These reductions apply for the home fixtures with Millwall (April 10) and Crystal Palace (April 17).

 

Both matches kick-off at 7.45pm, and are two of three games left at Fratton Park this season.

 

Tickets in the south stand and Fratton end have already been reduced to £20 for adults, £15 for seniors/young persons and £8 for juniors.

 

There are also other offers still in place for supporters for the remainder of the season.

 

The ‘Four for £44’ (two adults, two juniors) and ‘Two for £25’ (one adult, one junior) offers are still running in all areas, except the family enclosure and Milton end.

 

Meanwhile, Pompey are holding a season-ticket amnesty for the same two midweek games.

 

Fans usually have to pay to upgrade their seat if they want to use a junior, senior or young person season ticket for a match.

 

But this cost has been waived for the Millwall and Palace matches.

[trousers]

Didn't someone post a few weeks ago that a club is only permitted to have 4 ticket promo matches per season? Pompey must have exceeded this by now..,?

[70's Mike]

Didn't someone post a few weeks ago that a club is only permitted to have 4 ticket promo matches per season? Pompey must have exceeded this by now..,?

 

cann't see them being punished for such a minor crime, when they are sticking 2 fingers up to the rest of the football world on much bigger offences

[trousers]

cann't see them being punished for such a minor crime' date=' when they are sticking 2 fingers up to the rest of the football world on much bigger offences[/quote']

 

That's a bit like saying its ok for a murderer to shoplift....

 

(ok, not one of my better analogies, but this "getting away with stuff" in any shape or form is starting to get on my tits a little...)

 

There again, it's only football...

[Son of Dave]

That's a bit like saying its ok for a murderer to shoplift....

 

(ok, not one of my better analogies, but this "getting away with stuff" in any shape or form is starting to get on my tits a little...)

 

There again, it's only football...

 

 

Here's another analogy for you - I liken them to a fish on the end of a hook, they've been thrashing around in the water for awhile now (it's been a plucky little fight by the bravest, pluckiest bunch of inbred cheating, tax dodging, rule bending / breaking deluded few souls), but now it seems the fight is almost over & come the summer you'll see their dried up corpse of a club out being pecked over for anything worthwhile by a bunch of scavengers. The only thing now is the timing - the league will want them to go in the close season as that makes less of an impact.

 

Anyone fancy organising a sweep-stake for the date their demise is confirmed ? Proceeds to the charities they've shafted, of course.

[Chez]

More ticket reductions!!!

 

 

Pompey reveal ticket reductions

Pompey fans can benefit from further ticket reductions at Fratton Park

 

Pompey fans can benefit from further ticket reductions at Fratton Park

 

By Neil Allen

Published on Tuesday 3 April 2012 15:17

 

Pompey have announced further ticket reductions for their remaining Fratton Park midweek matches.

 

Adult seats in the north stand have been slashed to £15.

 

In addition, tickets are now priced at £10 for seniors and young persons (17-22) and £1 for juniors (under 16).

 

These reductions apply for the home fixtures with Millwall (April 10) and Crystal Palace (April 17).

 

Both matches kick-off at 7.45pm, and are two of three games left at Fratton Park this season.

 

Tickets in the south stand and Fratton end have already been reduced to £20 for adults, £15 for seniors/young persons and £8 for juniors.

 

There are also other offers still in place for supporters for the remainder of the season.

 

The ‘Four for £44’ (two adults, two juniors) and ‘Two for £25’ (one adult, one junior) offers are still running in all areas, except the family enclosure and Milton end.

 

Meanwhile, Pompey are holding a season-ticket amnesty for the same two midweek games.

 

Fans usually have to pay to upgrade their seat if they want to use a junior, senior or young person season ticket for a match.

 

But this cost has been waived for the Millwall and Palace matches.

How many offers is that? I count at least 5 yet away fans still have to pay full price. One price for home another for away. Not on.

[Doctoroncall]

Which is what I questioned a few pages back. I don't think there's an obligation to buy on some, if not all the deals. They were only loaned out as a short term measure to ensure the club makes it to the end of the season. Come the end of May I can see some high earners back at Krap Nottarf crippling the club.

 

Only Henderson is a done deal (Green's contract is up in the summer), the others will have an option to buy, but I cannot see them taking the option up.

Didn't someone post a few weeks ago that a club is only permitted to have 4 ticket promo matches per season? Pompey must have exceeded this by now..,?

 

That is correct and they also need to offer the same deal to away supporters.

[Chez]

Their supporters trust were quoted on BBC Solent this morning as saying they needed about £8m rather than £5m to buy the club.

[Chez]

That is correct and they also need to offer the same deal to away supporters.

I believe you are allowed as many deals as you like, but only the first four can exclude away fans.