Sevvy Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/603895058?-11209 A bit in the Telegraph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 My thumb suck is they're spending about quarter of a million a month above ordinary income. That's roughly a hundred grand more than they can "afford" on player wages and a hundred and fifty grand on administrators fees more than a typical L1 executive board and support staff would cost them. They've got about three million left from that parachute payment, so they could go through the season if they wanted to. They have to go back to Court, I think, in February to have the admin extended, but that's not likely to be a problem. That could all change, of course, if Kanu won the lottery at his hearing. Having an extended administration period is by far the worst thing that can happen to them. The PST is totally and utterly reliant upon the parachute payments as their operating budget; those payments are being spent as we speak and the PST's budget is slowly dripping (flowing) away. Chinny wants his money back, and will take what we can. If he can't get the parachutes then he'll likely just pillage the club in other areas and take whatever isn't nailed down (its likely he'll do that anyway, to be fair). Pompey fans should enjoy the ride while they can; they currently have players they can't really afford and so have a team much better than they should. It's only going downhill fast once the takeover goes through, the minus 10 hits, and the players all leave as the club can't afford their wages. Be careful what you wish for, Skates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Red Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Can anyone hazard a guess as to what date the PKF burn rate absorbs the remaining assets? (Incl parachute payments). Sometime next year I would guess? And would this date come before or after the maximum amount of time a court allows a company to be in administration? (18 months IIRC = August 2013) Surely the player burn rate of money (with b*gger all income) is having a far greater effect than PKF It's got to be £40-50k a week compared to PKF's £9k hasn't it. That could be PKF's tactic and why they're still signing players they shouldn't - just burn up the money In 6 months time when the last tranch of parachute money has gone it'll be a case of PKF saying, 'right Chinney. The cash has gone. Complete a purchase or we liquidate tomorrow.' ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 PKF fees are nine grand a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 we are guesstimating as always, but I would reckon they have less time than that. Hasn't PFK only had something like £4/500k already? If so they are still due a million+ of the £3M - and the banked money was the only reason they are continuing, surely if they can't physically see their fee money they'll shut shop. Let's work the same way the Trust has using a back-of-the-envelope system that estimates in four months they'll average 11,000 gates and generate approx £1.2-£1.4M. With little further income and all other costs to cover, that COULD leave them £100k a month down via the players + £300K for Trev. And let's remember that not a penny of debt has been addressed yet, this is just using up the money needed for debt repayments, to stand still. So in essence, the Trust's capital to run the club next season, could be gone by this Christmas. I reckon Birchy has less than four months money left. He might even support that theory by squeezing the squad numbers at the end of November, or starting to take what his company is owed, just so it's looks less ruthless at the end. pompey fans could be in for a tough Christmas, the sort of one where you sit on Santa's lap and only then notice that he's smoking a cigar, wearing coloured glasses, and introducing Showaddy....waddy. Is that a mobile in Santa's pocket? No, it's 1975, and even the keys to a Rolls Royce aren't that chunky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 The pp was reportedly just under £6.1m, and a chunk was set aside for Sacha - just over £1m I recall. I think the figure of around £3½m that was reported at the time was after PKF had set aside enough to pay their own arrears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Avrams gutted! And filleted, with all laid out for show. Same as at Horton Heath then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Not at lunchtime please, mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Neil Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Passionate plea to Avram http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/lap-dancers-stage-noisy-protest-1-4361182 Love the woman in the front row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Passionate plea to Avram http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/lap-dancers-stage-noisy-protest-1-4361182 Love the woman in the front row. You should tell her. Maybe send her some flowers as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/603895058?-11209 A bit in the Telegraph A good summary....some salient quotes from that article... "The troubled club faces what is likely to become a deadline for a takeover’s completion, since the players’ monthly contracts expire next Tuesday." Yay! Another deadline....anyone keeping count? "Pompey would not be able to gain access to Fratton Park under PST ownership. Chainrai holds a secured charge over the ground that has not been challenged during the administration" Really? Wasn't that one of Birch's first pledges when he was appointed administrator? That he would challenge Chainrai's charge on the ground...? "It is expected that Chainrai would prevent the club playing at the stadium under the Trust. Indeed, unless the courts force the charge to be released or force Chainrai to accept its valuation of the ground, it could lead to the club becoming homeless." Where's Holepuncture with his Moneyfields photograph when you need him....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/midfield-talent-could-stay-put-at-pompey-1-4359769 Akos Buzsaky today lifted the lid on his reasons for joining Pompey Buzsaky admitted building his fitness was a key factor in him linking up with Pompey. But so was being part of the set-up at a club with the Blues’ status. . Buzsaky said: ‘On the table, I played last season in the Premier League for QPR and now I’m in League One. ‘But Portsmouth is not a League One club. I understand that, I came here because this is a good place to play. ‘But I don’t want to lie. I came here to be fit. I want to play well and score goals and then I can move forward – and, hopefully, Portsmouth will move forward. ‘I didn’t come here to be rich. Money is not important for me. ‘This is a massive club. Hopefully they get new owners and move forward. Buzsaky admitted he arrived at Pompey after dallying over his future. Buzsaky said: ‘I had options in the summer but I ended up without a team. ‘That, of course, was my fault and if I could go back I’d maybe decide more carefully. ( ‘I could have stayed at QPR and had Championship sides who were interested. ‘But I don’t want to look backwards, I want to move forwards with Portsmouth.’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Can someone who knows about these things explain in laymans terms the following? As I understand it the job of teh administrator is to ensure he gets the BEST deal for the CREDITORS... Where a company ahs little chance of generating major revenues as an ongoing concern, and has reasonable assets this would probably mean liquidation and disperal of the funds raised to creditors.... Or where there is the posibilty of the company being sold as goiung concern whereby the creditors accept a reduced payment of what they are owed, usually through a CVA... but this situation tends to be the one in which they get nothing if the company is liquidated, so a small amount is better than nothing.... .... but we have situation ...perhaps unique, where by the parachute payments receive last month or so, meant that the company assests were greater than the proposed CVA amount of £500,000. And as football creditors are lumped in with the others on liquidation, was not teh best deal for non-footballing creditors, liquidation? OK so its complicated further by the various amounts considered to be owed to Chinney, and the fact that another 8mil of parachutes is also available by August next year - which would be lost on liquidation... ... but can someone explain how either the chinney or PST bids offer better value to creditors than liquidation with cash in the bank? What am I missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 I think, Frank, that the answer lies somewhere in the secured v. unsecured thing. The £500,000 you mentioned is the amount offered to the unsecured creditors in the CVA. I think (but I could be wrong) that if the company is liquidated right now, the secured creditors would get first dibs at any cash, until they are paid up in full, (remember Chinny is secured for £18m) so the unsecured creditors would get nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Can someone who knows about these things explain in laymans terms the following? As I understand it the job of teh administrator is to ensure he gets the BEST deal for the CREDITORS... Where a company ahs little chance of generating major revenues as an ongoing concern, and has reasonable assets this would probably mean liquidation and disperal of the funds raised to creditors.... Or where there is the posibilty of the company being sold as goiung concern whereby the creditors accept a reduced payment of what they are owed, usually through a CVA... but this situation tends to be the one in which they get nothing if the company is liquidated, so a small amount is better than nothing.... .... but we have situation ...perhaps unique, where by the parachute payments receive last month or so, meant that the company assests were greater than the proposed CVA amount of £500,000. And as football creditors are lumped in with the others on liquidation, was not teh best deal for non-footballing creditors, liquidation? OK so its complicated further by the various amounts considered to be owed to Chinney, and the fact that another 8mil of parachutes is also available by August next year - which would be lost on liquidation... ... but can someone explain how either the chinney or PST bids offer better value to creditors than liquidation with cash in the bank? What am I missing? I don't think you're missing anything FC. Indeed, I posed the very same question on here in August when it became clear that "the club" had c.£4m sitting in its bank account. I'm as convinced as one can be that if this was any other company than a football club the administrator would've called time at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 I think, Frank, that the answer lies somewhere in the secured v. unsecured thing. The £500,000 you mentioned is the amount offered to the unsecured creditors in the CVA. I think (but I could be wrong) that if the company is liquidated right now, the secured creditors would get first dibs at any cash, until they are paid up in full, (remember Chinny is secured for £18m) so the unsecured creditors would get nothing. Ah, yes, that rings a bell as the answer last time around. cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 I think you're pretty close with this one. IMO whats happening is: - PKF are legally bound to choose the best deal for the creditors - Chinny is put forward to the FL for the FAPPT and the FL say no (or we need xxx changed in Chinny's bid to agree him) - PKF go back to Chinny who tells them he ain't changing anything - PKF cannot recommend the trust as an alternative as they have to still have a legal obligation to nominate the best deal for the creditors They're all stuck in this legal loop until someone blinks and changes their position, or the money runs out. If Chinny is turned down by the FL then the PST would become the best option for creditors, because with Chinny at the helm PFCs golden share would be removed, along with income streams needed to support football and non football creditors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Can someone who knows about these things explain in laymans terms the following? As I understand it the job of teh administrator is to ensure he gets the BEST deal for the CREDITORS... Where a company ahs little chance of generating major revenues as an ongoing concern, and has reasonable assets this would probably mean liquidation and disperal of the funds raised to creditors.... Or where there is the posibilty of the company being sold as goiung concern whereby the creditors accept a reduced payment of what they are owed, usually through a CVA... but this situation tends to be the one in which they get nothing if the company is liquidated, so a small amount is better than nothing.... .... but we have situation ...perhaps unique, where by the parachute payments receive last month or so, meant that the company assests were greater than the proposed CVA amount of £500,000. And as football creditors are lumped in with the others on liquidation, was not teh best deal for non-footballing creditors, liquidation? OK so its complicated further by the various amounts considered to be owed to Chinney, and the fact that another 8mil of parachutes is also available by August next year - which would be lost on liquidation... ... but can someone explain how either the chinney or PST bids offer better value to creditors than liquidation with cash in the bank? What am I missing? they are better off alive than dead simply because of that £8m to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 I don't think you're missing anything FC. Indeed, I posed the very same question on here in August when it became clear that "the club" had c.£4m sitting in its bank account. I'm as convinced as one can be that if this was any other company than a football club the administrator would've called time at that point. And presbmably at least somoeon at PKF feels that too, which is why Birch has ben sidelined for 'going native'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 they are better off alive than dead simply because of that £8m to come. aye I see that, but that assumes that chinneys scured status is watertight and not an investment thatw ent wrong considering its only secured against fratton ? and the football creditors in the queue on liquidation.. Just cant help feeling teh creditors would end up with more with a liquidation now than they ever get with chinney... and surely thats what Birch should be deciding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Appy to Burnley anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamplemousse Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Neil Allen @pn_neil_allen So 3,700 signed Portpin petition.Critics say doesn't represent views of all. Well nor do elections.Your choice. http://whorunsmyclub.co.uk #Pompey How many of those are nutjobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Appy to Burnley anyone? Had a heated discussion with one of my Blackpool supporting colleagues this afternoon, he reckoned Appy has been doing a brilliant job with the Skates and deserves a step up to Bolton or Burnley. Needless to say I disagreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Neil Allen @pn_neil_allen So 3,700 signed Portpin petition.Critics say doesn't represent views of all. Well nor do elections.Your choice. http://whorunsmyclub.co.uk #Pompey How many of those are nutjobs? From memory, 4 of them are me ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Neil Allen @pn_neil_allen So 3,700 signed Portpin petition.Critics say doesn't represent views of all. Well nor do elections.Your choice. http://whorunsmyclub.co.uk #Pompey How many of those are nutjobs? The critics have got a valid point to be fair! The plucky 3,700 - let's ignore those multiple votes and nutjobs! - represent a measly 1.5% of the 250,000 bestest fans on Southsea common Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 If Chinny is turned down by the FL then the PST would become the best option for creditors, because with Chinny at the helm PFCs golden share would be removed, along with income streams needed to support football and non football creditors.The point maybe that whilst FL may make that decision, how legally binding is it? PKF will be legally bound by insolvency law, not by a gentlemen's club agreement - it's a catch 22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 The point maybe that whilst FL may make that decision, how legally binding is it? Doesn't have to be, the FL is a private members club. If they turn down Chanrai then the administrators will have to make the trust the preferred option, if what they offer is better than liquidation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 The point maybe that whilst FL may make that decision, how legally binding is it? PKF will be legally bound by insolvency law, not by a gentlemen's club agreement - it's a catch 22. if by selecting one owner over another you stop a crucial revenue stream that will effect the amount payable to creditors PKF would be legally bound not to select that owner. PKF has a responsibility to maximise return to creditors. If the FL say no to Chanrai then I dont see hpw PKF can't sell to him. We shall see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Attention Nutjobs, Saga nears end! http://m.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/oct/12/portsmouth-balram-chainrai?cat=football&type=article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Surely the safest thing for PKF to do is call another creditors meeting & let them choose. It's not PKF's fault Chainrai is the biggest creditor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Attention Nutjobs, Saga nears end! http://m.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/oct/12/portsmouth-balram-chainrai?cat=football&type=article Interesting - I've been emailing stuff to David Conn for some months now and, last week, forwarded Micah Hall's stuff It seems like he's finally taken on board all the info he's been sent and put two and two together. I should add I claim no fame because of the stuff I sent him - I just forwarded stuff that had been posted on here so the credit goes to the sleuths on here. And I'm probably not the only one to do so. But I do have a small shiver of excitement that the stuff interested him - his responses to me suggested that he was very interested in the goings on down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Attention Nutjobs, Saga nears end! http://m.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/oct/12/portsmouth-balram-chainrai?cat=football&type=article Oh goodie. This gives us at least another 18 months of fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Interesting - I've been emailing stuff to David Conn for some months now and, last week, forwarded Micah Hall's stuff It seems like he's finally taken on board all the info he's been sent and put two and two together. I should add I claim no fame because of the stuff I sent him - I just forwarded stuff that had been posted on here so the credit goes to the sleuths on here. And I'm probably not the only one to do so. But I do have a small shiver of excitement that the stuff interested him - his responses to me suggested that he was very interested in the goings on down the road. That's the big issue though BTF, lot of the media (Matt Slater) did nothing until Micah Hall's blog, looks like DC has kept his powder dry. Wonder if the others will now start to dig harder. The danger for the Trust (besides the Funding & Politics they will face) will continue to be the Baker Tilly report. That comment about possible litigation - we KNOW the FL have previous and will have to act (as they seem to be doing here) - if they DON'T then lawyers for other clubs may start looking at what was done to them and look to see whether it was consistent. Financial irregularities get exposed and FL do not take action? Ooh I'd love to be a lawyer connected to Luton Town - loadsa free money as compensation Explains why things have been quiet the past day or two Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andysstuff Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Attention Nutjobs, Saga nears end! http://m.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/oct/12/portsmouth-balram-chainrai?cat=football&type=article Complicated and expensive? Yeah, just about sims up the last few years down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 skate site not working again. PKF not paying the bills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrek Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Ooopsy, so PCC may have to provide a loan after all? Or will the Premier League's refusal to ring fence parachute payments for them put an end to that pipe dream anyway? The proposed PST car crash may well need more forensic examination than Channel 4's Boeing 727 experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Just for clarity.... One of the most unhappy sagas in English football's history of club ownership may finally be nearing its conclusion after the Football League declined to approve the bid by the Hong Kong-based businessman Balram Chainrai to take over Portsmouth again. The league's board, at its meeting on Thursday, reached no definitive conclusion but it is understood to have significant doubts about accepting Chainrai's British Virgin Islands-registered company, Portpin, as the owner of the traumatised south coast club. Portsmouth's administrators, the accountants PKF, are expected to resume discussions next week with the Pompey Supporters Trust over its proposal to take the club over. PKF may then present the league with the trust's bid to own Portsmouth, via a one-member-one-vote mutual democratic form of ownership, as its preferred bidder. A central issue the league is known to have considered is whether Chainrai may not pass the "fit and proper person test", now known as the "owners and directors'" test, were he to buy Portsmouth back from a second period in administration in two years. One of the league rules is that a person cannot own a football club or be a director if he has previously twice been a director or owner of a club when it has fallen into administration. Chainrai was the owner when Portsmouth went into administration the first time, in February 2010. He then sold the club to Vladimir Antonov, the owner of Snoras, a Lithuanian bank, but in November Antonov was arrested on suspicion of large-scale bank fraud, which he denies. That plunged Pompey into crisis again and in February they fell into administration for a second time. During that latter period Portpin had retained a charge over Fratton Park and the club's assets, to secure £17m which he loaned into the club during the early months of his first involvement. The league is understood to be examining whether, after Antonov's arrest and the collapse of his Portsmouth ownership, Chainrai in effect controlled affairs at the club. If Chainrai were, in practice, in executive control of Portsmouth at that time, the league is concerned that this could amount to his having been acting as a "shadow director". According to league rules, acting as a shadow director counts, as does being a formally registered director, as executive involvement in a club. So, if Chainrai was acting to that extent in directing Portsmouth's affairs, that would mean he was a shadow director when the club went into administration a second time. That second involvement would bar him from being a "fit and proper person" under the league rules. Chainrai, a spokesman said, "categorically denies" he "exercised any level of control" over Portsmouth during the period of the second administration. Chainrai's position is that he was still owed £17m, secured by the charge over the club and Fratton Park, but he did not take a role in running the club in the lead-up to it being forced into administration due to the collapse of Antonov's funding. Members of the league's executive, led by its chief operating officer, Andy Williamson, met Portpin representatives last week to discuss Portpin's proposals, which were presented by PKF as the administrator's preferred bid. The league is understood to have presented Portpin with a list of questions and outstanding issues, including the company's ownership structure, the source of Chainrai's funds, details about the running of the club – and, centrally, this question of Chainrai's involvement leading up to the second plunge into administration. The league's board met on Thursday, with the Portpin bid for Portsmouth, presented by PKF, on the agenda. The league issued no statement and would not discuss the outcome of the meeting but it is clear that the questions over Portpin's bid were not answered in full or satisfactorily. The league has outstanding concerns over Chainrai's involvement and other details and so, to agree a sale of the club and bring the club out of administration, PKF is likely to turn to the trust, whose bid does not carry such baggage. It is not straightforward, however, because the trust would have to buy the ground, with Chainrai releasing his charge. The trust has had Fratton Park professionally valued at between £1.6m and £2.75m. That is nowhere near the £17m Chainrai is owed for loans he put into Portsmouth when he first became involved towards the end of 2009. If Chainrai were to reject the trust's offer for Fratton Park, PKF might have to seek a court's approval for it as a fair offer, which would be complicated and expensive. So the fate of Portsmouth, a ruined casualty of football's moneyed era, limps towards a conclusion, between a mutual, democratic trust of lifelong supporters, and a lender of money, based in Hong Kong. There is a lot of supposition in that article. The author (David Conn, who knows his stuff) does not say the bid had been rejected. He's said that the Football League have doubts about Portpin. So, until it's confirmed one way or the other this is just a journalist putting two and two together; he may well be right, he may well be wrong. All in it doesn't sound good for Portpin, and really that can only be good for football as the man is an utter disgrace. However he will fight this all the way, there's no doubt about that, and that will be a long and very costly exercise; one which the PST can barely afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Neil Allen @pn_neil_allen So 3,700 signed Portpin petition.Critics say doesn't represent views of all. Well nor do elections.Your choice. http://whorunsmyclub.co.uk #Pompey How many of those are nutjobs? There were also a significant number of duplicates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 I see the Pompey fans on Twitter are all busy blowing each other that the trust are now home and dry. Just the small matter of the ground, the land, the team and the points deductions to worry about chaps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Attention Nutjobs, Saga nears end! http://m.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/oct/12/portsmouth-balram-chainrai?cat=football&type=article Damn....I'd geared myself up for another couple of fun filled years with Chainrai at the helm. Looks like I'll have to be content with the comedy value offered by the Trust ownership instead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 I see the Pompey fans on Twitter are all busy blowing each other that the trust are now home and dry. Just the small matter of the ground, the land, the team and the points deductions to worry about chaps! And, after all that, the budget of actually running the club. The very same budget which was previously supposed to be being financed by the parachute payments recently received, which will now be diverted to PKF's running and court costs. The takeover saga thread may be at an end soon. The "how long until the PST implode" thread that follows it; well that may not last that long either, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 A few more details from the Telegraph report by Matt Scott (again, knows his stuff about Pompey) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/portsmouth/9603676/League-looks-to-Portsmouth-fans-as-Balram-Chainrai-bid-stalls.html League officials have been making inquiries into Chainrai’s suitability for renewed ownership of the club under the owners and directors’ test since last month. A meeting of the League board on Thursday was told the inquiries proved inconclusive. Now the club will remain in administration, with PKF, the administrators, expected to renew dialogue with the Portsmouth Supporters Trust. It has presented a rival, funded bid that the administrator had hitherto considered secondary to Portpin’s. But there remain a number of hurdles for the trust to overcome before it can be approved as Pompey’s owner. Chainrai's Portpin holds a debenture – a secured loan – over Fratton Park and there is a significant discrepancy between what it has demanded to sell it to the trust and what the trust considers fair value. PKF has been reluctant to apply for the courts to force the sale because of the expense and time involved in litigation, and the risk that the price set would be too high for the trust to pay. PKF has feared that if at the same time Portpin is blocked by the League from proceeding with the purchase it would leave Pompey with no credible buyer and liquidation would be inevitable. However it seems that because of the League’s rejection of the Portpin bid – it is unlikely to consider the matter again until its next board meeting on Nov 8 – PKF has little alternative now than to make an application to the courts. Sources within PKF claim counsel have warned the second potential legal challenge to Portpin’s stance, over the legitimacy of the debenture, which was transferred from the club’s insolvent former parent company, CSI, in January, may fail. A source with knowledge of what went on during the period leading to the club’s current administration suggested Chainrai cannot pass the owners and directors test: “In 2010 Portpin definitely benefited from the administration, and the spirit of the League’s rules is to ensure that insolvency should not be beneficial to clubs or their shareholders. “Portpin effectively chose to put the club into administration because they refused to fund the club to trade on.” The League refused to comment yesterday and a spokesman for PKF did not return calls. The trust said: “We are meeting PKF next week as part of our ongoing discussions.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Ooopsy, so PCC may have to provide a loan after all? Now would be the time to scrutinise the exact wording of the council's conditions of providing the loan. Could they possibly squirm out of it (if indeed they felt inclined to do so) by virtue of the fact that there ARE other bids on the table, it's just that the league are steering PKF to not choose Portpin. As such, the council's criteria of the Trust being the only bid on the table doesn't technically hold true. Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvaughanwilliams Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 (edited) aye I see that, but that assumes that chinneys scured status is watertight and not an investment thatw ent wrong considering its only secured against fratton ? and the football creditors in the queue on liquidation.. Just cant help feeling teh creditors would end up with more with a liquidation now than they ever get with chinney... and surely thats what Birch should be deciding? The Football Creditors rule is a condition for being granted the Golden Share to play in the league. It does not apply in liquidation. If the club were to be liquidated Chinny and Birch get paid first. Unlikely to be anything left to pay anyone else. Also Chinny has a debenture which is a fixed and floating charge over all of the assets of the club. Admittedly, there's not much of any value except the ground. Edited 12 October, 2012 by dvaughanwilliams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvaughanwilliams Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 For PKF and Birch, choosing Portpin was an easy choice. As a secured creditor, it is easy to justify the choice over the Trust. However, if Chinny is blocked from taking over by the Football League, he becomes a massive obstacle to the club's survival. Quotes from various people suggest that he remains optimistic on the valuation of his debenture, £17m now or £1m per year rent. If he can't get his money back through ownership and the Trust don't meet his valuation, he's going to be pushing very hard for liquidation, maybe after helping PKF to string things out until the next installment of the Parachute Payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 well that's the last we've seen of Chinny then! Bye old friend, sorry it didn't work out for you, leave the keys to the ground, we'll post you the £1.6M.... Unless of course a previously unseen and brand new consortium mysteriously steps from the shadows next week... No links to any other potential owners past nor present, fronted by some imaginary Arab/Russian - probably with Andronikou as an advisor, and a figure of £17M mentioned somewhere! Surely Birch has no legal interest in the league's stance or tests? Who offers the best deal for creditors - A or B? What happens after he's put them forward as the best option is their problem. Should they be unable to complete for whatever reason then he starts the process again. The Trust then has to show that it has business plans to satisfy PKF, and then the league. That's two BIG hurdles! If they clear them and take control then we are definitely in for some laughs, pausing first to congratulate them on following in the footsteps of the likes of Exeter City. Either way, you show me a loan shark who has ever walked away quietly from £17M, and I'll explain to my ruddy-cheeked boss how my total football ideas on a strict budget will get a team of kids promoted from the championship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey_saint Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 Now would be the time to scrutinise the exact wording of the council's conditions of providing the loan. Could they possibly squirm out of it (if indeed they felt inclined to do so) by virtue of the fact that there ARE other bids on the table, it's just that the league are steering PKF to not choose Portpin. As such, the council's criteria of the Trust being the only bid on the table doesn't technically hold true. Maybe. I once (as part of my a-level project on the scramble for Africa) once read Ian Douglas Smith's biography where he suggests that politicians spend a vast amount more time before signing a contract or offering one, actually drawinf up ways in which it can be opted out of, kinda plausable denial....I can see that happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 12 October, 2012 Share Posted 12 October, 2012 (edited) @mattslaterbbc: I hear something wonderful is brewing at #Pompey. Well done, keep going. Big moment for trust movement, inspirational stuff http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19934524 @NabilHassan79: Just an add to the #pompey story, administrators dealing with the sale of land around Fratton Park tell me a deal may be announced next week Edited 12 October, 2012 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 13 October, 2012 Share Posted 13 October, 2012 they are better off alive than dead simply because of that £8m to come. And when it comes, they are better off dead than alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 13 October, 2012 Share Posted 13 October, 2012 @NabilHassan79: Just an add to the #pompey story, administrators dealing with the sale of land around Fratton Park tell me a deal may be announced next week Ah that'll be the compulsory purchasing and ringfencing department at Portsmouth City Council then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts