Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)

@pn_neil_allen: Birch: No quick solution to Ben Haim headache. http://t.co/zKvTejft #Pompey

 

Trevor Birch has stepped up attempts to thrash out Tal Ben Haim’s Pompey future.

 

But he fears there may be no quick resolution to remove the club’s highest earner ahead of any Fratton takeover.

 

The Israeli international’s reported £36,000-a-week salary is a massive sticking point for any prospective owner, with Balram Chainrai currently closing in on a return to the club.

 

Birch held telephone talks with Ben Haim on Wednesday as he attempts to solve the problem.

 

The administrator made his latest move in a bid to negotiate the former Bolton defender’s much-needed exit.

 

Ben Haim currently has 12 months of the four-year deal he signed in August 2009 remaining.

 

If he stayed next season, it would cost Pompey just under £2m.

 

The situation remains one of the biggest headaches for the Pompey administrator as he attempts to move the club forward and deliver a £5m League One wage bill.

 

Birch insists there have yet to be any approaches for Ben Haim, despite agent Pini Zahavi last month claiming clubs were pursuing his client.

 

Regardless, he is urgently seeking a swift resolution to Ben Haim’s future.

 

Birch said: ‘I spoke to Tal on Wednesday. I am currently talking to him about what is going to happen, whether he wants another club or a compromise agreement at some stage.

 

‘For anyone to buy the club it is obviously going to be an issue. I have to say it is a very big issue.

 

‘Tal is just waiting, though. For him it is a waiting game.

 

‘He is just not playing his hand at the moment and, unfortunately, we have not got the cash to offer him. We have not got a terribly strong hand in this case at all.

 

‘Tal is very much his own man in terms of he will do the negotiations himself. I have not spoken to Pini Zahavi.

 

‘There is nothing at the moment I can do, nothing I can give to him. At some stage, the players have to weigh up whether it is worth having something spread over time as opposed to liquidation and nothing.’

 

Zahavi last month told The News his client would not be prepared to play in League One and would quit Fratton Park.

 

He also claimed there was interest from other clubs, including some outside of England.

 

But Birch said: ‘I have not had any offers or interest put to me.

 

‘Whether it has gone directly to his agent I don’t know but that is how it stands at the moment.’

Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
holepuncture

holepuncture

Posted
Posted
it's very clear that whatever happens in the HMRC court case, the FL and FA will make sure that every football creditor gets every penny.

That could be done through hefty penalties for non-compliance, or pompey's debt returning to original levels.

 

If the authorities didn't tackle a law change, half the clubs in the league would go into admin by lunchtime and the market would collapse.

You could buy Messi for £100M, put down a tenner and ignore the payments.

 

If the court sensibly says that football creditors shouldn't have first shout, the football authorities will act, and if you have to pay everyone the same rate it might be small creditors that benefit rather than football clubs losing out.

 

A new ruling is not the answer to their many problems.

Nor is the Trust.

 

Surprised it's so quiet as they are heading for oblivion - only the naivety of the league approving a fantasy financial forecast is going to save them.

 

Its just another day in pompeys history being played out in the high courts... i think they have their own parking space now.

 

If pompey think they can simply tear up ben haims multi million pound contract and pay him 2% without any reprecussions from the football league, they are utterly bonkers.

 

Put it the other way round, if pompey were allowed to put a failed CVA into a CVA MKII and as such a % of a % without incurring any penalties - football as we know it would be dead,the game would have been officially corrupted by pfc and layed the path for all other member clubs to blow off all debts for a nothing punishment = Cant happen.

 

Two very dangerous precedents that if pompey try to absue them, could pave the way for the destruction of the game...

 

I sometimes read "the FCR could destroy pompey and force the club to go under"... b*ll*cks, absolute rubbish... spending beyond their means put them in this situation, cheating the game, putting two fingers up at the spirit and integrity of football, laughing in the face of childrens cancer charities... that is what is putting the club under, and quite rightly so.

 

All overseen by the former FA Head of Integrity :facepalm:

 

Just put them down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)

At the Royal Courts of Justice, judge justice David Richards dismissed HMRC's latest attempt to overturn the football creditor rule.

 

The decision will be appealed against by HMRC.

 

The taxman had filed a legal claim against the Football League in May 2010 claiming its Football Creditor Rule (FCR), which priorities some creditors over others, was unlawful.

 

The taxman was battling to have the football creditor rule overturned because it believes the rule - which prioritises payments to creditors such as players, managers and clubs in the event of an administration - is "unlawful". If a club enters administration then all football creditors are paid in full with remaining funds then divided among creditors.

 

HMRC and the Football League began their legal battle on 30 November 2011 with residing judge Mr Justice Newey allowing the Premier League permission to "intervene" and fight its corner in the proceedings because both leagues enforce the same rule.

Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)

http://www.football-league.co.uk/footballleaguenews/20120525/high-court-dismisses-hmrc-challenge-to-leagues-insolvency-policy_2293334_2788255

 

At a hearing in the High Court today, Mr. Justice David Richards dismissed the latest attempt by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to have the so-called 'Football Creditors' rule declared unlawful.

 

This decision follows a five-day trial in November and December 2011. HMRC have been ordered to pay the costs incurred by The Football League in defending these proceedings.

 

HMRC have been granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

 

A Football League spokesman said: "The judgment confirms that The Football League's rules and insolvency policy do not breach the principles of existing insolvency law.

 

"We recognise that some regard the application of these rules as being imperfect. However, they remain an essential part of football's approach to handling insolvent clubs within the wider context of competitive league football.

 

"The judgment recognises that a league has the right to insist upon insolvent clubs meeting their financial obligations to the rest of the game as a condition of continued membership.

 

"Had this principle been ruled unlawful, the most likely consequence would be insolvent clubs being expelled from The Football League altogether, as clubs would be unwilling to compete against teams that have defaulted on debts to their fellow clubs.

 

This would have devastating consequences for the clubs concerned, their supporters and people living in their local community.

 

"Although it is regrettable that HMRC sought to test this matter before the Courts, we remain committed to a constructive dialogue with the tax authorities, as we share the common aim of ensuring that clubs meet their liabilities as and when they fall due, including sums owed to HMRC. To this end, The Football League and HMRC have co-operated over the implementation of a monthly PAYE reporting mechanism that has significantly reduced the amount of tax owed by clubs.

 

"In an ideal world The Football League would never have to apply its insolvency policy at all. Therefore, our focus will remain on creating a sustainable business environment for all our member clubs. Most recently, this has seen all three divisions of The Football League agreeing to implement cost control measures as part of The League's Financial Fair Play framework."

 

:facepalm:

Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
Paraphrasing that statement: "Yay, we get to continue to allow our clubs to rip off local businesses and charities so millionaire footballers get paid in full".

 

HMRC are ****ing useless. :facepalm:

 

Agree on both of those points Steve!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Mikey

Saint Mikey

Posted
Posted
Think that has definitely reduced pompeys chance of survival. Ben Haim and others can now continue to collect knowing that there is nothing can be done to get rid of them.

 

As highlighted before, if PFC were relying on this to turn their fortunes - then they are f'ing stupid. The PL/FL would have just adjusted their own rules to compensate. Otherwise loads of clubs would have gone into Admin, and taken a 10pt deduction for a clean slate...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted

As an aside, why do the Football League describe it as the "so-called" Football Creditors Rule? If they don't like that description what alternative do they suggest I wonder....? Seems like a pretty accurate description to me....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saint si

saint si

Posted
Posted

It might not be illegal (and i'm honestly not at all surprised by the ruling), but the FL (and the PL, and football in general) needs to take a long hard look at itself if it thinks it has any kind of moral responsibility.

 

Football tries to position itself as the people's game, the national sport, all inclusive etc etc, but then condones - or rather actively encourages - clubs to p*ss money up the wall and in to the pockets of mercenary twunts (e.g. Tevez, Joey Barton, most of the PFC squad from 2008 to 2012) rather than, for example, charities or local businesses.

 

It's utterly shameful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
As an aside, why do the Football League describe it as the "so-called" Football Creditors Rule? If they don't like that description what alternative do they suggest I wonder....? Seems like a pretty accurate description to me....

 

They appear to prefer to call it the "The Football League's rules and insolvency policy"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
@pn_neil_allen: Birch: No quick solution to Ben Haim headache. http://t.co/zKvTejft #Pompey

 

So Pompey want to avoid paying their former Premier League players so they can use the Premier League parachute payments to gain an advantage over other League 1 sides.

 

The simple solution is to liquidate the club and the Premier League pay the players the money they are entitled to. Use the parachute money for what it was meant for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted (edited)
It might not be illegal (and i'm honestly not at all surprised by the ruling), but the FL (and the PL, and football in general) needs to take a long hard look at itself if it thinks it has any kind of moral responsibility. It's utterly shameful.

 

Agree totally. If, as it appears to be, not illegal, then the government need to act and make it illegal.

Edited by buctootim
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
Paraphrasing that statement: "Yay, we get to continue to allow our clubs to rip off local businesses and charities so millionaire footballers get paid in full".

 

HMRC are ****ing useless. :facepalm:

 

Quite. If the Courts continuously return the judgement that the Football Leagues have acted within the principles of existing insolvency law, then it is long overdue that the law was changed. Pressure must be growing for Parliament to pass such a change to the current legislation, as the current position is that the law is an ass.

 

"Had this principle been ruled unlawful, the most likely consequence would be insolvent clubs being expelled from The Football League altogether, as clubs would be unwilling to compete against teams that have defaulted on debts to their fellow clubs".

 

And what exactly do they mean by this? Continued trading whilst insolvent is a criminal offence, so clubs in those circumstances could potentially find themselves being liquidated anyway. So what is their point? And what of those clubs like Pompey who found themselves having a massive advantage through their reckless spending on players they could not afford? What about clubs' unwillingness to play against those clubs who had gained this advantage when the FL was toothless in disallowing it to happen?

 

"This would have devastating consequences for the clubs concerned, their supporters and people living in their local community."

 

As you say, Steve, what he means is that it would have devastating circumstances for the stinking rich footballers, agents and managers. Most sensible supporters would wish their team to live within their means rather than go under. As for the "local community" I presume that they do not understand that that includes businesses and charities too and that if the debt from a football club forced a local business to go under, then there are wider implications for local employment. But on the simple matter that wealthy footballers should get their money in full whereas local charities get practically nothing as result, I do hope that the people who run the footballing authorities and the lawyers can sleep at night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Saint

CB Saint

Posted
Posted
http://www.football-league.co.uk/footballleaguenews/20120525/high-court-dismisses-hmrc-challenge-to-leagues-insolvency-policy_2293334_2788255

 

At a hearing in the High Court today, Mr. Justice David Richards dismissed the latest attempt by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to have the so-called 'Football Creditors' rule declared unlawful.

 

This decision follows a five-day trial in November and December 2011. HMRC have been ordered to pay the costs incurred by The Football League in defending these proceedings.

 

HMRC have been granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

 

A Football League spokesman said: "The judgment confirms that The Football League's rules and insolvency policy do not breach the principles of existing insolvency law.

 

"We recognise that some regard the application of these rules as being imperfect. However, they remain an essential part of football's approach to handling insolvent clubs within the wider context of competitive league football.

 

"The judgment recognises that a league has the right to insist upon insolvent clubs meeting their financial obligations to the rest of the game as a condition of continued membership.

 

"Had this principle been ruled unlawful, the most likely consequence would be insolvent clubs being expelled from The Football League altogether, as clubs would be unwilling to compete against teams that have defaulted on debts to their fellow clubs.

 

This would have devastating consequences for the clubs concerned, their supporters and people living in their local community.

 

"Although it is regrettable that HMRC sought to test this matter before the Courts, we remain committed to a constructive dialogue with the tax authorities, as we share the common aim of ensuring that clubs meet their liabilities as and when they fall due, including sums owed to HMRC. To this end, The Football League and HMRC have co-operated over the implementation of a monthly PAYE reporting mechanism that has significantly reduced the amount of tax owed by clubs.

 

"In an ideal world The Football League would never have to apply its insolvency policy at all. Therefore, our focus will remain on creating a sustainable business environment for all our member clubs. Most recently, this has seen all three divisions of The Football League agreeing to implement cost control measures as part of The League's Financial Fair Play framework."

 

:facepalm:

 

What a load of self justifying bull - what is the FL message of reassurance to the charities and schools that have been shafted by PFC then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted (edited)

Probably because he didn't think anyone would ask that question whilst being serious if they had read any of this thread.

 

HMRC, local charities, local businesses and all other non secured creditors had their debt divided by five by the 2010 CVA, as that failed it will now be further diluted by 2012 CVA.

 

Where as all football creditors are guaranteed to get 100%.

 

Not exactly fair is it Sour Mash?

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites
saint si

saint si

Posted
Posted
So you can't answer a simple question. Fair enough.

 

Because it is all about protecting the closed shop of football, at the clear detriment to other businesses, charities and the taxman (so that's actually every man, woman and child in the country).

 

Sure, the football authorities are within their rights to look after themselves, but they seem entirely ambivalent to the consequences. And as I wrote above, football is endlessly positioned as being at the cornerstone of the community, integral to our society, the sport for the common man etc. They can't have their cake and eat it.

 

It's a blunt instrument that results in clubs and players not having to worry about who they deal with, resulting in inflated wages and transfer fees, and perpetuating the mess of endless clubs going in to administration. Perhaps without the guarantees that the rule provides, clubs and players would look seriously at what they are being offered, and by whom...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sour Mash

Sour Mash

Posted
Posted
Because it is all about protecting the closed shop of football, at the clear detriment to other businesses, charities and the taxman (so that's actually every man, woman and child in the country).

 

Sure, the football authorities are within their rights to look after themselves, but they seem entirely ambivalent to the consequences. And as I wrote above, football is endlessly positioned as being at the cornerstone of the community, integral to our society, the sport for the common man etc. They can't have their cake and eat it.

 

It's a blunt instrument that results in clubs and players not having to worry about who they deal with, resulting in inflated wages and transfer fees, and perpetuating the mess of endless clubs going in to administration. Perhaps without the guarantees that the rule provides, clubs and players would look seriously at what they are being offered, and by whom...

If an industry regulator chooses to put in place rules to ensure payment of their skilled employees and other companies within their industry, then that is perfectly understandable.

 

My problem is with this country’s Insolvency laws which are the one’s that let companies write off tons of debt to local firms, charities etc and then crack on and do it all over again.

 

Not sure how much influence the Football Creditors rule has really had on wages and transfer fee levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted

I don't think the football authorities require anybody to pay anything to anybody. They simply say if you don't pay all your football debts, you can't come back and play in our league. I don't see anything wrong with that as a principle. Golf clubs, gyms, etc. do the same I'm sure.

 

What makes it abhorrent in Pompey's case is the parachute payments. It's unique to Pompey. Clubs in receipt of £48m in subsidies don't go bust as a rule. Twice.

 

HMRC ought to focus on dodgy administrators bending the rules past breaking point, to let bankrupt companies rise again to repeat the scam in less than 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sour Mash

Sour Mash

Posted
Posted
I don't think the football authorities require anybody to pay anything to anybody. They simply say if you don't pay all your football debts, you can't come back and play in our league. I don't see anything wrong with that as a principle. Golf clubs, gyms, etc. do the same I'm sure.

 

What makes it abhorrent in Pompey's case is the parachute payments. It's unique to Pompey. Clubs in receipt of £48m in subsidies don't go bust as a rule. Twice.

 

HMRC ought to focus on dodgy administrators bending the rules past breaking point, to let bankrupt companies rise again to repeat the scam in less than 2 years.

Exactly. Although I'm sure you'll now be accused of "trolling" but the regular sheep on here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted
I wonder how much tax has not been paid by football clubs as the result of administrations over the pasy 10 years or so. I wonder, for example, how many extra nurses or policemen that might have funded?

 

Well pompey alone had total tax debts of 29 million in the first CVA which would have seen 5.8 million repaid, but now they will only get 2p in the pound of that amount so they will get 116,000. The second 3.8 million tax bill will generate 76k.

 

32.8 million debt, 192,000 to be paid back, which means 32.6 million wiped off. Throw in interest over that period of time and you've around 40 million of lost taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
How? Not saying you're wrong, just don't follow the logic on that one.

 

My opinion is that it has had a larger effect on transfer fee's that wages. As clubs are sure to get the money in the end they are happier to sell players for higher values in installments than for a single up front fee.

 

As for wages I feel that is more down to competition between the big clubs who will probably never experience an insolvency event but that those wages then set the standard for the wage expectation for players in lesser clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted

Not sure how much influence the Football Creditors rule has really had on wages and transfer fee levels.

 

If the FCR didn't exist, clubs would be less likely to spread the payments of transfers over many years as happens with a very high % of transfers. They would want the money upfront in order to reduce their risk if the other club went into admin. That would probably drive down transfer fees and reduce the debts of most football clubs over a long time as clubs adjust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted

 

They will struggle to get an academy status above level 4 under the EPPP if they can't find a decent training ground and fund the academy. Level 4 would restrict them to only signing 16 to 18 years olds for the academy. Age groups below that would have to be disbanded, now where could decent kids from their academy and Portsmouth's catchment area go...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
If the Courts continuously return the judgement that the Football Leagues have acted within the principles of existing insolvency law, then it is long overdue that the law was changed. Pressure must be growing for Parliament to pass such a change to the current legislation, as the current position is that the law is an ass.

 

Damian Collins MP is aiming to do just that....

 

DamianCollins ‏@DamianCollins Here's my solution to get rid of the football creditors rule in clause 4 of my Bill http://bit.ly/KKSQXc @david_conn @mattslaterbbc

 

Football Creditors Rule

 

(1) The football first creditors rule as applied in England is abolished so that there

shall be no preference amongst creditors except as set out in statute.

 

(2) In Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, after paragraph 43 (6A) insert—

 

“(6B) Where the company owns a share in the Football Association

Premier League Ltd or the Football League Ltd—

 

(a) no step or action may be taken by any person to withdraw or

suspend such share,

 

(b) any contractual provision under which such share or any

rights exercisable in respect of such share is or may be

withdrawn or suspended or no longer exercisable shall be

void and of no effect,

 

© any contractual provision under which any sum either—

 

(i) is no longer due or payable by the Football

Association Premier League or the Football League to

the company which but for insolvency would

otherwise have been payable to the company, or

 

(ii) may be paid direct to a particular class of creditors

instead of to the company, shall be void and of no effect.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sour Mash

Sour Mash

Posted
Posted
My opinion is that it has had a larger effect on transfer fee's that wages. As clubs are sure to get the money in the end they are happier to sell players for higher values in installments than for a single up front fee.

 

As for wages I feel that is more down to competition between the big clubs who will probably never experience an insolvency event but that those wages then set the standard for the wage expectation for players in lesser clubs.

 

If the FCR didn't exist, clubs would be less likely to spread the payments of transfers over many years as happens with a very high % of transfers. They would want the money upfront in order to reduce their risk if the other club went into admin. That would probably drive down transfer fees and reduce the debts of most football clubs over a long time as clubs adjust.
Right, get the logic behind transfer fees now, can see how it may have made a bit of difference with a few transfers, put the big deals, between the big clubs, that really drive the market, not sure how much they'd be affected. Who knows, bit off the subject though.

 

For all those that are so anti the Football Creditors role, what do you suggest the football authorities do instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FloridaMarlin

FloridaMarlin

Posted
Posted

 

They haven't been kicked out yet, but reading between the lines, I think Birch is indulging in the classic football face-saving device of getting your retaliation in first.

 

In other words, we're looking for somewhere else as KES are getting shirty at being shafted twice, and if we can find somewhere we can say we moved there of our own choice, and deny we were kicked off.

 

It would be interesting to get a sight of the lease agreement and see what clauses cover non-payment.

 

The sweetest timing woud be for KES to kick them off the day before pre-season training starts.

 

Love some of the comments on The Snooze website. I'm not sure pampered former PL £50,000 a week earning TBH would be too happy training on a public park, where they have to clear the dog muck off first.

 

But perhaps that's part of a cunning plan. Make the conditions and training facilities so bad that he'll want to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted (edited)
For all those that are so anti the Football Creditors role, what do you suggest the football authorities do instead?

 

Insist that all debt is paid back 100% to football creditors and non football creditors. Rather than a CVA being 20% over 5 years like at Pompey, make it 100% over 20 years.

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sour Mash

Sour Mash

Posted
Posted
Why couldn't this work in principle...?

 

Insist that all debt is paid back 100% to football creditors and non football creditors. Rather than a CVA being 20% over 5 years like at Pompey, make it 100% over 20 years.

I'd probably agree with that. Would you still have a points deduction in place? Or only for a failure in that CVA? I guess the football authorities' fear would be they'd be likely to end up losing too many clubs by doing that, even taking into consideration a few getting kicked out would make the others take notice, there is still too much temptation to over stretch and gamble.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
So you can't answer a simple question. Fair enough.

 

It isn't a case of can't answer. It is just that I choose not to answer. Do you see the difference?

 

Why don't you ask HMRC why they bothered to take the FL to court to challenge the FCR? I'm sure that they will provide you with good reason for making the challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...