Pompey Takeover Saga

[Gemmel]

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/birch-chainrai-s-cva-set-to-be-sent-to-creditors-1-3921078

 

Looks like we get to see whats on the table this week.

 

Its a pretty downbeat launch from Birch - Maybe as it is all irrelevant, unless he can get rid of the high earners.

 

Birch; Come on Tal, do the right thing and wave your salary to help save the club

TBH: Are you going to wave your administration fees........................

[trousers]

@pn_neil_allen: Portpin CVA proposals to be sent out to creditors tomorrow. The next step towards taking control of #Pompey again. http://t.co/MCH7wwVC

[Ken Tone]

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/birch-chainrai-s-cva-set-to-be-sent-to-creditors-1-3921078

 

Looks like we get to see whats on the table this week.

 

Its a pretty downbeat launch from Birch - Maybe as it is all irrelevant, unless he can get rid of the high earners.

 

Birch; Come on Tal, do the right thing and wave your salary to help save the club

TBH: Are you going to wave your administration fees........................

 

I now have lovely image of the 2 of them waving their cheques at the Fratton end !

[EastleighSoulBoy]

From the News:

 

Warburton

 

10:08 AM on 06/06/2012

 

Can't say too much at this stage because it would breach a long-standing trust, but following on from the Football League's AGM in Portugal, expect a very important announcement regarding the future of PFC to be made within the next few days - and if my source is correct (and he's been bang on the money previously), it will not be good news for the club..

 

-------------------------

 

Let's hope Warburton is right.

 

And what do Warburtons make? That just has to be one of us on a wind up.

 

Well.... finally got the standrad reply to my FL email asking for clarification on the CVA 1 V CVA2 rules... once again they state that ''until the cirecumstances of Portsmouth's exit from administration are known' date=' no comment can be made'[/i']' ... blah blah... but it suggests that things are still very much far from 'resolved'.... the saga continues... Fitzhugh Fella...look at waht you have done! LOL

 

Mine also arrived today and contained the same old, same old.

[pedg]

once the CVA proposal is sent out does that imply any degree of legal commitment on chinny part? i.e. could it be sent out, discussed and agreed but still allow him to walk away or is he bound to pay if it is agreed? I assume the former?

[saintjay77]

once the CVA proposal is sent out does that imply any degree of legal commitment on chinny part? i.e. could it be sent out, discussed and agreed but still allow him to walk away or is he bound to pay if it is agreed? I assume the former?

 

Didnt a rival admin firm send out a rival CVA proposal for Pompey's last admin? I doubt it confirms anything but it with give Portpin and idea of wether or not the CVA will get voted in or not.

 

I just dont see how anyone can trust the proposed CVA from the same company who pretty much shafted the creditors on the last one.

[Gemmel]

Didnt a rival admin firm send out a rival CVA proposal for Pompey's last admin? I doubt it confirms anything but it with give Portpin and idea of wether or not the CVA will get voted in or not.

 

I just dont see how anyone can trust the proposed CVA from the same company who pretty much shafted the creditors on the last one.

 

I'm not a 100% sure, but I think Chinny has enough % of the debt to get it through regardless of the other creditors

[pedg]

I'm not a 100% sure, but I think Chinny has enough % of the debt to get it through regardless of the other creditors

 

My understanding/belief is that he has enough of the debt to veto a CVA (e.g. from the trust) but not enough to pass a CVA.

[Torres]

I'm not a 100% sure, but I think Chinny has enough % of the debt to get it through regardless of the other creditors

 

Not unsecured debt he doesn't.

 

I wonder if there will be any pressure from Trust members to reject Portpin's CVA proposals in favour of some they may be fantasising about producing themselves? OR if any of the creditors have signed up to the Trust? Or how many of the massed numbers of Pompey fans are creditors? Or whether there'll be pressure from fans on creditors to not let Chinny back in?

 

Given that the amount likely to be offered will make the last CVA look generous, I wouldn't be surprised to see some creditors stick their fingers up at Chinny and tell him to do one, "for the good of the club", whilst hammering the final nail into it's coffin at the same time.

[saintjay77]

Does anyone know how much of a vote the previous CVA creditors would get? Of anyone I would guess they would be the ones most likly to be voting against? HMRC will surley not be voting for any CVA after being shafted so often?

[Waterside.saint]

Given that the amount likely to be offered will make the last CVA look generous, I wouldn't be surprised to see some creditors stick their fingers up at Chinny and tell him to do one, "for the good of the club", whilst hammering the final nail into it's coffin at the same time.

 

That would be genuinely funny and an excellent example of karma in action at the same time

[Torres]

Does anyone know how much of a vote the previous CVA creditors would get? Of anyone I would guess they would be the ones most likly to be voting against? HMRC will surley not be voting for any CVA after being shafted so often?

 

I've cobbled together a few posts of mine on this from a while back:-

 

For those asking over the last few pages about the voting rights of creditors of CVA1 in CVA2, it's pretty clear - they don't have any.

 

They are due to be paid from the proceeds of the liquidation of OldCo (soon to be known as OldOldCo probably) which includes a payment from NewCo to the sum of £16.5m. This liquidation is being overseen by Baker Tilley. BT, representing OldCo, will have voting rights equal to £16.5m in any NewCo CVA proposal.

 

BT should act in the best interests of the creditors of OldCo that they represent. HMRC are probably the biggest sole creditor in that bunch and almost certainly have the largest influence. Certainly BT would rather keep HMRC on side and risk the wrath of Terry the builder rather than the other way around...

 

And don't forget that HMRC are also owed a few million quid by NewCo and will have the equivalent voting rights on the new CVA proposal that affords them.

 

In summary, in theory there's no way that a NewCo CVA should get approved unless it offers creditors a whopping amount, which it surely won't. Having said that, nothing surprises me in this hilarious saga anymore.

 

Edit - or, the amount of unsecured debt is wildly over-inflated to dilute the voting rights of those less favourable to any proposal. Not that something like that could ever happen, of course...

Edited 6 June, 2012 by Torres

[holepuncture]

Does anyone know how much of a vote the previous CVA creditors would get? Of anyone I would guess they would be the ones most likly to be voting against? HMRC will surley not be voting for any CVA after being shafted so often?

 

That would be genuinely funny and an excellent example of karma in action at the same time

 

 

Its so beautifully poised, two outcomes of karma for me:

 

 

or

 

 

Exciting, isnt it?

[Waterside.saint]

Its so beautifully poised, two outcomes of karma for me:

 

 

or

 

 

Exciting, isnt it?

 

Its like offering a criminal convicted of a capital offense the choice between (a) Old Sparkey - 30 minutes of good old fashioned, cruel & unusual, hell on earth, or (b) a lifetime tariff in one of HM's Category A prisons where all the other inmates have been told you're a serial murdering paedophile. Know which I'd choose

[Verbal]

 

Exciting, isnt it?

 

It is, especially if that train stops and doubles their attendance.

[pedg]

It is, especially if that train stops and doubles their attendance.

 

Assuming nothing more interesting on the other side of the track.

[trousers]

@pn_neil_allen: Interesting interview with Richard Hughes by @Adr1anL33 - A Cherries blogger. No love lost for David Lampitt! http://t.co/YbIFCZ2j #Pompey

 

 

How did you feel about being released from Portsmouth after 9 years at Fratton Park?

It didn't feel at all like being released. The last year was a fiasco which was shambolically dealt with by the chief executive at the time. Michael Brown and I had a clause in our contracts, which seemed harder to deal with for the people in charge, than rocket science would have been! So I knew from December that I would be leaving. I’m pleased that the incompetent people who were in charge have since left, Portsmouth is a great club and it’s devastating to see them in turmoil.

Edited 6 June, 2012 by trousers

[Wes Tender]

And what do Warburtons make? That just has to be one of us on a wind up.

 

Mine also arrived today and contained the same old, same old.

 

I got the identical stock reply myself. The only thing that consoles me, is that the FL will have had quite a considerable amount of correspondence questioning why the Skates' last CVA has not been honoured and yet that is somehow not seen as being the same as exiting administration without a CVA, which is punishable with a points deduction.

 

I accused them of having no balls and said that their inaction was making them a laughing stock within English football. Who knows whether this deluge of correspondence might yet have some influence on their decision to grant them the golden share or not, or at the very least to dock them an additional points penalty.

[The Kraken]

I got the identical stock reply myself. The only thing that consoles me, is that the FL will have had quite a considerable amount of correspondence questioning why the Skates' last CVA has not been honoured and yet that is somehow not seen as being the same as exiting administration without a CVA, which is punishable with a points deduction.

 

I accused them of having no balls and said that their inaction was making them a laughing stock within English football. Who knows whether this deluge of correspondence might yet have some influence on their decision to grant them the golden share or not, or at the very least to dock them an additional points penalty.

 

To be fair, you can see the logic in the FL's response. Until it is absolutely certain that any CVA is less than 100% (or at least the CVA1 portion of it) then there's absolutely nothing they can do about. CVA-1 hasn't failed yet; the way it was structured meant that it only had to be fully paid off within a number of years, staged payments were not set in stone, they were really only a suggestion (devious but clever by the Android). So until CVA-2 comes out and formalises a % in the £ for CVA-1, CVA-1 is still (by law) perfectly valid.

 

You would have to hope that, as soon as CVA-2 comes out, and if it included a dliution of CVA-1, the FL will be ready to act. As they must, unless their rulebook had just as well be chucked in the bin if you can circumvent it so easily.

Edited 6 June, 2012 by The Kraken

[Joesaint]

Had a reply from the FL today, I wil just copy the whole thing here taking out my e mail (top message most recent);

 

 

Joseph,

 

As aforementioned The Football League will comment in due course once the club’s exit is clear. We do not have jurisdiction over any comments the administrator may which to make in the interim.

 

Thank you for contacting The Football League.

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Andrew Pomfret

 

Customer Services Officer

 

The Football League Limited

Email - enquiries@football-league.co.uk

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk

 

 

From: JOSEPH

Sent: 06 June 2012 12:09

To: FL

Subject: Re: No further points deduction for Portsmouth

 

Why have you said to Portsmouth there will be no further points deduction then?

 

 

From: FL

To: 'JOSEPH

Sent: Wednesday, 6 June 2012, 10:58

Subject: RE: No further points deduction for Portsmouth

 

 

Joseph,

 

We thank you for contacting The Football League on this matter, however until all the circumstances surrounding the club’s exit from administration become clear, The League is unable to make any official comment at this time regarding any points deductions. Updates that we do give will be made available on http://www.football-league.co.uk and you should check there for any further updates in due course.

 

 

Thank you again for your email.

 

Kind Regards

 

 

Amanda

 

Amanda Craig

 

 

Customer Services Administrator

 

 

The Football League Limited

Email - enquiries@football-league.co.uk

 

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk

 

 

 

 

From: JOSEPH

Sent: 30 May 2012 18:13

To: FL

Subject: No further points deduction for Portsmouth

 

 

 

Hello,

 

 

Heard this;

 

"BBC Solent Sport ‏@solentsport

To clarify statement from PKF - #pompey will start next season without further points deduction even if they are still in admin"

 

I understand that failing to reach a CVA, would mean a points deduction (I believe Leeds were deducted 15 points), surely the Portsmouth 2010 CVA now has to be classed as failed, with the dept having to go to a second CVA.

 

What I do not understand, is failing to exit with a CVA means points deduction, but reaching a CVA but ignoring it, to add onto a second CVA, after another admin does not.

 

Case A Leeds owed about 35 million I think but could not agree a CVA.

Case B Portsmouth owed about 120 million but gained a CVA to pay back 20%'.

 

Both Case A and B do not pay back anything,

 

Case A has 15 point penalty.

 

Case B increases their debt still further, build up extra dept by signing extra new players, not paying charities on top of other depts; has a 10 point penalty for second admin, within a couple of years. The fist CVA now part of the second CVA so they will only be able to get a tiny fraction of money owed, not sure this is fair at all.

 

A small local business owed around £10,000 for example, would get £2000 from the first CVA. Now I have no idea of what the next CVA would get creditors but if it would be 20% again they would only get £400. I believe HMRC were owed 17 million, on a second CVA at 20% would mean they may only get £68,000. No wonder they are not happy with the football creditors rule, that I must confess is a joke and not done any favors to football at all, unless you can tell me otherwise.

 

As I believe the football league should be fair, can you please explain how two clubs can fail a CVA but only one has a points penalty for it?

 

Thank you for your time

 

 

 

Joe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS, wrote this very quickly and just wanted to make the point, I understand I do not understand all the facts, and may be miss-informed. I love football and want the best for the game.

[aintforever]

It's crazy that they're waiting to see how the club exits admin. Simple fact is they got CVA1 and paid nothing, increasing debt further instead. Whatever happens with this administration doesn't change the fact CVA1 failed. The points penalty should be for exiting admin LAST TIME without a CVA, as having one you ignore really doesn't count.

 

I think it's because in theory a Leibherr type could till buy the club and pay off all the debts in full.

[fromdayone]

It's crazy that they're waiting to see how the club exits admin. Simple fact is they got CVA1 and paid nothing, increasing debt further instead. Whatever happens with this administration doesn't change the fact CVA1 failed. The points penalty should be for exiting admin LAST TIME without a CVA, as having one you ignore really doesn't count.

 

Yes but technically until the white knight fails to turn up and fully pay CVA1 it hasn't failed, even though the administrator has said it won't be honoured. The FL can't be 100% certain a new owner won't turn up tomorrow and completely wipe out all the debt. Therefore they are right in waiting until they exit admin to see if any breaches of rules have taken place.

[The Kraken]

It's crazy that they're waiting to see how the club exits admin. Simple fact is they got CVA1 and paid nothing, increasing debt further instead. Whatever happens with this administration doesn't change the fact CVA1 failed. The points penalty should be for exiting admin LAST TIME without a CVA, as having one you ignore really doesn't count.

 

It hasn't failed yet, though. Not in law.

 

CVA-1 stated that 20p in the pound would be paid back, but only by 2015. There were stage payments that were listed but these were not contractual, they were just guidelines (as I said a devious but clever move by Andronikou). So unless the club miss their final deadline of 2015 to pay all creditors, or unless there is a dilution of the original CVA as part of CVA-2, CVA-1 is still (in law) valid right now.

[Torres]

CVA-1 stated that 20p in the pound would be paid back, but only by 2015. There were stage payments that were listed but these were not contractual, they were just guidelines (as I said a devious but clever move by Andronikou). So unless the club miss their final deadline of 2015 to pay all creditors, or unless there is a dilution of the original CVA as part of CVA-2, CVA-1 is still (in law) valid right now.

 

Not quite true. That was part of the original CVA and would have still been the case had the agreement not been reached for the liquidation of OldCo. Under the terms of the liquidation and transfer of assets from OldCo to NewCo, I quote from the UHY completion report:

 

As detailed above PFC10 is obligated to make a contribution to the Liquidation which ensures a dividend of 20 pence in the pound, before costs and expenses, is paid to all unsecured creditors. I have detailed below the dates and quantum of the contributions due. Please note that the percentages are that of 20 pence in the pound:

Contribution due - Due on

15% of 20% of the unsecured creditors’ claims agreed - In equal installments on 1 April 2012 and 15 August 2012

25% of 20% of the unsecured creditors’ claims agreed - In equal installments on 1 April 2013 and 1 September 2013

30% of 20% of the unsecured creditors’ claims agreed - 1 April 2014

The balancing figure required in order to comply fully with the CVA proposal document approved by creditors on 6 May 2010 - By 17 June 2015

 

It's on page 2 and 3 here http://www.uhy-uk.com/assets/media/download/portsmouth%20reports/Completion%20report.pdf

 

The CVA was, legally, completed, as proven by Appendix II of that report. However, at the time the NewCo failed to pay the first instalment to the OldCo liquidators (Baker Tilley), NewCo had effectively defaulted on that debt and agreement.

 

The issue that the FL have to decide on is whether a completed CVA that no money was ever actually paid in to is a satisfactory method of exiting administration. I'd suggest it's not.

Edited 6 June, 2012 by Torres

[The Kraken]

Not quite true. That was part of the original CVA and would have still been the case had the agreement not been reached for the liquidation of OldCo. Under the terms of the liquidation and transfer of assets from OldCo to NewCo, I quote from the UHY completion report:

 

 

 

It's on page 2 and 3 here http://www.uhy-uk.com/assets/media/download/portsmouth%20reports/Completion%20report.pdf

 

Yeah, I know that's where it came from. My point was, I'm sure there was discussion that showed that although those stage payments were listed in the CVA document they were not actually set in stone. I'm sure that before going into administration PFC were already talking about delaying the CVA repayments, without penalty.

 

There is a clause in that document, on page 9, which states that Newco will be given 4 years and 3 months to pay the outstanding consideration into the liquidation; and that, from memory, was the line that confirmed that the percentage stage payments were not actually a contractual requirement of the CVA, it was only final figure in 2015 that mattered.

[The Kraken]

It failed the second they ended up back in admin. Even if a new owner comes in now, they won't be paying the original CVA so a points deduction is vital.

 

No it didn't. You simply cannot 100% guarantee that a new owner won't yet come in a repay all of the debt. Until a new CVA is drafted that also encompasses the debts owed by CVA-1, the original CVA has not yet failed.

[Pedro]

So, after 4 days of a FL conference in Portugal, the only thing that has come out is the 7 sub rule (unless I've missed others) there must be loads of other snippets to be confirmed surely. If TB pulls this off then he will get a more elevated job because the Skates should be dead and buried by now.

[St Chalet]

I think it's because in theory a Leibherr type could till buy the club and pay off all the debts in full.

 

I googled that and got this image?

 

[Torres]

Yeah, I know that's where it came from. My point was, I'm sure there was discussion that showed that although those stage payments were listed in the CVA document they were not actually set in stone. I'm sure that before going into administration PFC were already talking about delaying the CVA repayments, without penalty.

 

There is a clause in that document, on page 9, which states that Newco will be given 4 years and 3 months to pay the outstanding consideration into the liquidation; and that, from memory, was the line that confirmed that the percentage stage payments were not actually a contractual requirement of the CVA, it was only final figure in 2015 that mattered.

 

If I recall correctly, the "shifting" of CVA payments was possible before the liquidation of OldCo as the original payments and the scheduling of them were dependant on them being able to shift players in the summer transfer window at StorrieTeller's rather optimistic valuations. However, once the liquidation and transfer of assets took place this option was denied the owners of NewCo. At this point, they were no longer CVA payments - they're contributions towards liquidation that NewCo are obliged to pay.

 

My interpretation (and it is only that, tbf) of the "4 years 3 months" period is just to cover the previously outlined schedule of payments. It doesn't suggest to me that these dates on which payments are "due" are flexible.

 

Of course none of this really matters as BT, as supervisors of the liquidation of OldCo, are due £16.5m (less costs and expenses)from NewCo and are unsecured creditors who have the voting rights in any new CVA to match.

Edited 6 June, 2012 by Torres

[pedg]

Shall we have a competition on guessing what the CVA proposal tomorrow will be?

 

I shall go for 2p in the pounds now, and an extra 10p in the pound staggered over 3 years.

[The Kraken]

If I recall correctly, the "shifting" of CVA payments was possible before the liquidation of OldCo as the original payments and the scheduling of them were dependant on them being able to shift players in the summer transfer window at StorrieTeller's rather optimistic valuations. However, once the liquidation and transfer of assets took place this option was denied the owners of NewCo.

 

My interpretation (and it is only that, tbf) of the "4 years 3 months" period is just to cover the previously outlined schedule of payments. It doesn't suggest to me that these dates on which payments are "due" are flexible.

 

Of course none of this really matters as BT, as supervisors of the liquidation of OldCo, are due £16.5m (less costs and expenses)from NewCo and are unsecured creditors who have the voting rights in any new CVA to match.

 

I haven't been able to find any information on it, so I'm speculating either way. However, my understanding is that it came out shortly before PFC went into administration that the stage payments were NOT a contractual requirement of the CVA. It was only the final date of April 2015 that meant anything. Like I say I have nothing to back that up, but that's the way I've understood it for a while.

 

As for Baker Tilley being the liquidators and therefore are the unsecured creditor for the £16.5M, again I'm not so certain of that either! I've heard argument that if the CVA gets renegotiated then the original administrator (UHY) is in control of it, and therefore retains the voting rights. That's just a theory I've seen put out there; I guess we'll find out either way on all of this soon enough.

[pedg]

As for Baker Tilley being the liquidators and therefore are the unsecured creditor for the £16.5M, again I'm not so certain of that either! I've heard argument that if the CVA gets renegotiated then the original administrator (UHY) is in control of it, and therefore retains the voting rights. That's just a theory I've seen put out there; I guess we'll find out either way on all of this soon enough.

 

Baker Tilley are definitely listed in the PKF document as begin owed the 16.5M. I doubt very much that UHY have any influence over how that share of the vote is to be used. Plus it does not appear to be a renegotiation as that would imply the debt would have to be unshrunk from its CVA levels before the renegotiation. It is more the money owed from CVA 1 being part of the debt for CVA 2.

Edited 6 June, 2012 by pedg

[The Kraken]

Baker Tilley are definitely listed in the PKF document as begin owed the 16.5M. I doubt very much that UHY have any influence over how that share of the vote is to be used.

Again, I can't be certain either way, but its a theory that was put forward, and we'll soon see.

[trousers]

@pn_neil_allen: There's a number of superb #Pompey bloggers around worth reading.Here's a thought-provoking piece from @Lord_Palmerston http://t.co/pRqVVmhS

 

Supporters Direct Self-destruct Part II

 

I reviewed in my last post recent history at Portsmouth FC, with an eye on the appointment of our former CEO at Supporters Direct. More importantly than any single blogpost, there has been plenty of disquiet expressed by supporters about this state of affairs. Many of us feel that while not everything that happened at Fratton Park in the last two years is any direct fault of David Lampitt, there were plenty of mistakes and lapses of judgment made by the management of the club, which he led. If you missed my last post, it’s worth reading because although he responds to several criticisms with the statement reviewed below, there are a few things glossed over.

 

The disquiet about the appointment provoked a slightly startled, but determinedly defensive, response from Sports Direct. Their initial bland announcement of Lampitt’s appointment provoked derision for the reasons I’ve already explained. This and other criticism prompted David Lampitt himself to respond to some of the criticisms. I don’t find it a convincing response, but judge for yourself.

 

He starts by dealing with the Football Creditor issue, and I think we will all be grateful for confirmation that he is only able to claim for past unpaid salary and not any future sum of money. It is unfortunate that in view of what he admits is a relatively small sum of money owing that the Football League has withheld money due to Portsmouth FC, further imperilling it. From the point of view of Messrs Lampitt, Redgate, and Byrom they have perversely increased the likelihood of the club being liquidated and themselves losing out completely. There are plenty of staff at Fratton Park who are owed back salary. If, as Mr Lampitt claims, all those people are football creditors we have to wonder why the League only stepped in when the three directors registered their claims explicitly a couple of weeks ago. It suggests mainly that the Football League haven’t got a clue what is going on.

 

The charities who have lost money due to the problems at Portsmouth will appreciate his commitment to contribute towards any shortfall. But perhaps it would be best of Mr Lampitt not to go into whether or not he is a wealthy individual when he is rebuilding his house in Kent and planning a new swimming pool. Wealth is inevitably a subjective matter, and most of his past customers and the non-footballing staff whose livelihoods have been taken away from them will take a dramatically different view of things to him.

 

Mr Lampitt comes to deal directly with the issue of the non-payment of charity money. I’ll reproduce the relevant text here to avoid misunderstanding:

 

"I have commented publicly on this situation previously and do not propose to re-hash those comments here. However there are a few things to consider that may provide some further context: there are good causes that received donations earlier in the season that would not have benefited if we had not made the gesture of donating these funds;"

 

In other words, the club promised to give some money to charity and actually did manage to give some money to charity. I don’t see anything remarkable in that, perhaps pointing it out is meant to extenuate what happened afterwards. I don’t see how it does.

 

[T]he funds were freely offered from the ticket revenues of the club; it was not a charitable marketing campaign and there was no point of sale information;

 

We had better agree to disagree with Mr Lampitt on what constitutes a marketing campaign. This story went up on the official club website long before the club went into administration – let’s be clear about that – but if you headline it “Charity Starts at Fratton” and then subsequently claim there was never any kind of “charitable marketing campaign”, you are going to leave people wondering what you mean.

 

The decision to donate the £2 surcharge to charity was taken to pacify supporters who found it to be another unreasonable part of the ticket pricing policy Mr Lampitt had unveiled in March 2011. Most people in business do their best to maximise impulse purchase – the sweets at the checkout – but Portsmouth took a conscious decision to penalise those who decided to try to buy a ticket on the day. In the light of declining attendances in the earlier part of last season it looked like a very poor decision by the management.

 

Reading the next part of Mr Lampitt’s statement, it doesn’t look like he himself is at all sure what was going on:

 

"In the few weeks prior to the collapse of the ownership last November, there were two games for which donations did not get paid over. The monthly reconciliation process was in hand at the point of CSI’s collapse which unfortunately happened before payments were made. Perhaps rightly, I have been criticised, along with others, for failing to get these payments out more quickly which I certainly regret. But I do not believe that should cast any doubt over my integrity, the integrity of my staff, or indeed the integrity of SD in appointing me."

First of all, I went out of my way in my last piece to say that the issue of non-payment was not one of personal integrity in my eyes. But if he regrets not making the payments the “perhaps rightly” qualifier about the criticism is absolutely redundant. The payments should have been made, and if you wear “two hats” as a charity Trustee as well, then that should additionally concentrate your mind.

 

The club carried on trying to trade normally after CSI collapsed into administration, from November all the way into February and PFC’s own administration. Why did nobody from the club come clean about the problem at the time? The issue might not be one of personal integrity, but it certainly is one of judgement of those taking decisions.

 

A justification for not making the payments would be if Lampitt and Redgate were advised they were “connected persons” for the purposes of the Insolvency Act. Since Lampitt and Redgate were both Trustees of Pompey Sport & Education Foundation, it may be they have been advised that they are “connected persons”, and so at risk of legal proceedings if those payments had been made. It may be that is what he means by

 

It should also be remembered that subsequently, our obligations as directors prevented us from treating any single creditor or class of creditors in a preferential way.

 

But what that implies is that there was an unresolved conflict of interest for Lampitt and Redgate, and yet surprisingly they are both at the time of writing still Trustees of PSEF. Whatever happened here, it looks embarrassing for all concerned and will do as long as they are both Trustees.

 

The process of how SD came to appoint him and the repercussions of that for the Board can wait until next time. But let’s allow Mr Lampitt’s own words, from his “January [2011] Diary” from the club website do some talking on the subject of corporate integrity:

 

"I’ve said before that the only way for the club to win back any sort of trust and credibility after what has happened in the past, is for us to keep our word and deliver what we say we’re going to – I’d like to think this is another small step along that road. Similarly the fact that we have now paid in full the three main charities (Tom Prince, Harbour Cancer Trust and Faith & Football) that were owed money by the old company is part of that same process. We said that we wanted to have this done by Christmas and we have now, I hope, put to bed one of the most shameful aspects of the legacy we inherited. Our best wishes go out to each of those charities for the coming year."

 

Fair enough to him for ensuring that the last of the old charity debt was paid up. His comments about “trust and credibility”, and rightly identifying the previous charity dishonour as “shameful”, do however make it all the more extraordinary that the situation recurred on his watch. The next part of the Supporters Direct statement deals with his relationship with CSI:

 

"Let’s be crystal clear on this point – Portsmouth FC went into administration for one reason only and that was the extraordinary overnight collapse of the business interests of its principal shareholder and funder."

It wasn’t an overnight collapse, it was a slow-motion disaster right from the point Antonov was refused permission to operate a bank in this country by the FSA. It sped up a bit once the FL waved CSI through, before you could say “Fit and Proper Person’s Test”, but to suggest that nobody could have seen it coming is naive. Business is mainly about managing and minimizing risk. Football is one of very few careers where you can do neither and still move from one job straight into another one.

"When the club came out of administration in 2010 it was always going to require funding for at least three years whilst it recovered from the legacy issues and contractual obligations of the previous regime. Inspite of this, we managed to get the club into a financially relatively stable state with losses of less than £1m on our P&L in the season to 2011. This compares very favourably with other clubs in the same division. However, it also masks the fact that there was still a cash funding requirement to keep the club going."

 

contd below/....

Edited 6 June, 2012 by trousers

[Torres]

There seems almost to be more written about Lampitt and SD than there is about Pompey's very immediate future at the moment

Edited 6 June, 2012 by Torres

[trousers]

@pn_neil_allen: There's a number of superb #Pompey bloggers around worth reading.Here's a thought-provoking piece from @Lord_Palmerston http://t.co/pRqVVmhS

 

..../contd

 

He has a point in relation to inherited contractual issues, which were numerous. More openness with supporters about the situation would have lessened the shock when the second crunch eventually came, more prompt attention to boosting attendance in the face of disappointing attendances, more focus on non-football revenue generation, all these things would have helped. But note that several of our expensive current squad (Huseklepp on £18k p/w, anyone?) were signed after CSI took over and there was never any questioning from the management of the club about relying on a foreign benefactor of dubious background. I do, however, want to recall some more of Mr Lampitt’s January 2011 Diary piece, and invite you to compare it with the quoted section above:

 

"In terms of our transfer activity this month we have to be prudent. I don’t intend to put the club’s future at risk by pursuing a spending policy that cannot be supported, that significantly increases the club’s indebtedness or risks the intervention of the Football League, who oversee and approve all our player trading in line with the business plan. After everything that the club has been through this would be unthinkable – we must learn to live within our means knowing that, by operating in this way, any success we achieve will be hard-earned but untainted. We also have to be mindful of our responsibilities to pay creditors under the terms of the CVA which is obviously a burden most other clubs do not have to contend with."

 

I’d dearly love someone from the League to tell us what exactly their oversight of PFC amounted to at this time, and subsequently in view of their waving-through of another set of basket-case owners. There is plenty of sensible talk in that piece from Mr Lampitt, yet somehow every thing that he said must not be allowed to happen again did happen again while he was CEO.

 

Writing this as Cardiff City are seemingly on the edge of one of these fantasy foreign takeover binges (are they still called Cardiff, or have the Malaysians changed the name as well as the colours?) I can only repeat a few words of advice which I always find useful, and which most people in football ignore: “If it seems to good to be true, it usually is”.

 

I’ll discuss Supporters Direct themselves as an organisation in the final part of this trilogy later sometime later in the week.

 

Edited 6 June, 2012 by trousers

[Chez]

the notion of Pompey packing the park in league 1 makes me laugh. Pack it? They couldn't even spell it.

[Saint in Paradise]

the notion of Pompey packing the park in league 1 makes me laugh. Pack it? They couldn't even spell it.

 

Well to be fair that was rather a long word for those poor dears.

[alehouseboys]

the notion of Pompey packing the park in league 1 makes me laugh. Pack it? They couldn't even spell it.

 

First off I thought "thick skate". Then I realised...'INFORAMTION' is just a new word they've invented to cover both 'information' and 'ramifications' being that they'll get instructions on how to hand over their money but then get absolutely f*ckall for it.

[FarehamRed]

I wonder how much it costs for a full page add in the Evening News. £5k? £10k? More??

[SaintRichmond]

I wonder how much it costs for a full page add in the Evening News. £5k? £10k? More??

 

 

Well, that's next season's transfer budget blown already .......

[sussexsaint]

Well, that's next season's transfer budget blown already .......

 

Oi thats secret inforamtion

[pedg]

Knowing pompey I assume that rather than creditors directly receiving the CVA document today they will instead get a card from the royal mail saying that they have a letter without a stamp on it and could they come and pay the postage plus surcharge to get it.

[Torres]

But note that several of our expensive current squad (Huseklepp on £18k p/w, anyone?) were signed after CSI took over and there was never any questioning from the management of the club about relying on a foreign benefactor of dubious background.

 

Nor indeed from the fans. In fact, they and the local media (FAO @pn_neil_allen) willfully ignored the very obvious concerns about the "dubious background" of their new owners and celebrated spending other people's money (maybe MLG could ask his friend Neil to give us the links to the artciles he claims he wrote questioning the wisdom of signing Huseklepp etc at the time - he hasn't given him a poke for a few days).

 

Only when it came back and bit them on the bottom did they start to ask these kind of questions and thrash around desperately for someone else, anyone else, to blame.

 

No sympathy. None.

Edited 7 June, 2012 by Torres

[trousers]

@pn_neil_allen: RT @notBaluChainrai: Cardiff set big precedent, to increase following in my beloved Nepal #Pompey will play in red & white stripes #MyManifesto

[Kingsbridge Saint]

The CVA is sort of irrelevant if they can't shift the high earners. There ain't no shuffling off your liabilities under the FCR. Unless Chanrai has agreed to underwrite all the salaries, including the deferred amounts, they are probably buggered anyway.

[Winchester Red]

This. 100%

[holepuncture]

Knowing pompey I assume that rather than creditors directly receiving the CVA document today they will instead get a card from the royal mail saying that they have a letter without a stamp on it and could they come and pay the postage plus surcharge to get it.

 

That has been the standard practise all season I think, I read a skate thread where they were all complaining about it, it made me PMSL.

 

As I write, the future of Portsmouth Football Club is hanging by a thread. Both Balram Chanrai and the Trust have indicated they will not be able to afford to take over the club unless the current wage bill is drastically reduced.

As players, many of you with your own families to support, I can understand the position you find yourselves in.

You signed legal contracts with the club, and feel you deserve to be compensated for the remainder of those contracts.

I can understand too that you might feel reluctant to give up any of the money you are entitled to while Mr Chanrai holds out for all of his money, including interest.

But I am appealing for you to think of the fans. For years we supported you faithfully whether you were playing well or badly. Many of you called us the best fans in the country. We are not a rich city, but we have put together a bid to save this club out of our own pockets, and out of our own family incomes. This is your chance to support that bid -- I am also sure none of you wants to be associated with the liquidation of this historic club, which means so much to this city.

I would appeal to you now to agree to relinquish what you are owed if and only if the Trust bid is successful. \

That way you can make a powerful contribution to the rebirth of Portsmouth FC and forever be remember by the fans of this club as the people who saved Pompey.

In the unlikely event of your not being able to find another club by Christmas, I am sure the club would offer compensation.

But for now we need your support. For the past few years we have supported you on the pitch. Now you can be our heroes for ever.

 

Its all very cute, but you have to ask yourselves, why? Why should the players walk away when the former directors are fast tracking their own claims... if its ok for former FA Head of Integrity then why cant it be ok for TBH?

 

If Chainrai can repeatedly wipe out HMRCs and creditors debts and carry on securing his investment, why should TBH walk away?

 

The club knowingly steals money from the tax man and charities, why should TBH do them a favour especially considering the public hounding he is getting everyday through no fault of his own?

 

This level of begging just shows how incredulous the PST bid is... pretty ridiculous to be formalising a bid entirely dependent on company emplyees agreeing to burn millions of pounds they are due.

 

God Bless TBH

 

 

 

 

On another note, where on earth is Chinnys bid?

 

 

Just had a look online and found this:

 

http://www.icchk.org.hk/main.asp?pn=memberDetail&uu=10

 

balu@chainrai.com

 

Shall we drop him a line to give him a little pep talk; keep your head up Chinny-boy, youre doing the right thing, almost got your hands on those parachutes etc...

[Gruffalo]

The CVA is sort of irrelevant if they can't shift the high earners. There ain't no shuffling off your liabilities under the FCR. Unless Chanrai has agreed to underwrite all the salaries, including the deferred amounts, they are probably buggered anyway.

 

Absolutely..

 

Depending on the actual level of wages and any image rights, and ignoring any deferrals to date, they'd have to shift between 5,400 and 7,500 full price season tickets just to keep Ben Haim warming the sub's bench during his swansong season at FP..

 

And then they need to consider Ginge, the ticket selling thug, Huseklepp, Varney, Norris, etc...

 

Buggered doesn't look like coming close to describing their situation.

[Jones91]

This is better than sex