Pompey Takeover Saga

[solentstars]

The way this is going if they manage to retain the Golden Share they are looking more and more likely to end up in non League, which is the punishment they should have got some time ago anyway. Far more fun watching it this way though. WTFILN

no i think they should go bust and start up has a new club with no history myself.

[saint si]

I think if a club is due PPs and is liquidated anything outstanding is divided between the clubs.

 

Yes, the PL clubs! What could we buy with our share?

[andysstuff]

Yes, the PL clubs! What could we buy with our share?

 

WTFILN statue/artwork?

[Pugwash]

Yes, the PL clubs! What could we buy with our share?

 

A joint venture with Tesco?

[Guan 2.0]

1. Adam Blackmore ‏@bigadamsport
   No @saintgert you and others are defending players(mostly to Pompey bash) when my point is players should be treated same as other creditors
   Expand
    
    
    
    
   
2. 2h Steve Grant ‏@SteveGrant1983
   @bigadamsport So far, they have, ie they've received not a penny
   Expand
    
    
    
    
   
3. 2h Trousers ‏@Lord_Trousers
   @SteveGrant1983 @bigadamsport Careful Steve....pointing out the facts = Pompey bashing...
   Expand
    
    
    
   

2h Adam Blackmore ‏@bigadamsport

@Lord_Trousers @SteveGrant1983 My original point was not about clubs, but about the vagaries of Football Creditors rule - u think it's fair?

 

 

LOLdy

[dronskisaint]

Meanwhile Joseph Cala is back in town

 

He wants to buy Fatpipe Park and construct a large multi floored building out of wood recycled from the centuries old terracing soon to become available, baseing his design on plans drawn up by that well known saviour of animals and other species, Noah.

 

However, this time, his aim is to save a particular specimen of fish for future generations of Portsea Islanders and honour one of the Pompey greats.

 

The splendid edifice will be known as.. Cala's Multi Storrie Carp Ark...

 

Applause!

[Ohio Saint]

I don't understand the parachute payments thing regarding PST. They want to use the PP to fund the purchase?

 

Would that not be like me saying I want to buy Microsoft with 10 quid. Microsoft would say, "But you can't afford us" Well, says I "If I buy you for 10 quid, then I'd have your billions, and I could buy you with that!"

 

I'm sure I must be missing something.

[Chez]

they want the PP cash in their hands because they intend to use some of it to help fund the buyout and then they will pay the players over the course of the next three years using the remaining PP cash and other income. Cash flow is required for any new business.

[SaintBobby]

they want the PP cash in their hands because they intend to use some of it to help fund the buyout and then they will pay the players over the course of the next three years using the remaining PP cash and other income. Cash flow is required for any new business.

 

And if you were an ex-player or the PFA would you care if you got the PPs directly or the "same amount" from future cash flow?

 

I suspect you might....

[Whitey Grandad]

I don't understand the parachute payments thing regarding PST. They want to use the PP to fund the purchase?

 

Would that not be like me saying I want to buy Microsoft with 10 quid. Microsoft would say, "But you can't afford us" Well, says I "If I buy you for 10 quid, then I'd have your billions, and I could buy you with that!"

 

I'm sure I must be missing something.

 

Isn't that a leveraged buyout?

[Crab Lungs]

1. Adam Blackmore ‏@bigadamsport
   No @saintgert you and others are defending players(mostly to Pompey bash) when my point is players should be treated same as other creditors
   Expand
    
    
    
    
   
2. 2h Steve Grant ‏@SteveGrant1983
   @bigadamsport So far, they have, ie they've received not a penny
   Expand
    
    
    
    
   
3. 2h Trousers ‏@Lord_Trousers
   @SteveGrant1983 @bigadamsport Careful Steve....pointing out the facts = Pompey bashing...
   Expand
    
    
    
   

2h Adam Blackmore ‏@bigadamsport

@Lord_Trousers @SteveGrant1983 My original point was not about clubs, but about the vagaries of Football Creditors rule - u think it's fair?

 

 

LOLdy

 

I like Adam but he's totally missing the point. Again.

[pedg]

Is not the football creditors rule a red herring in this case? As I understood it, though it was many months and pages ago. The players owed money from before administration reached compromise agreements with the administrator. I thought that meant that they were not then football creditors in relation to the club but had an agreement with the administrator about how and when anyone buying the club would pay them what they had agreed. If that is the case then they may well, having reached the agreements, not have first dibs on the parachute payments and could get nothing. On the other hand one would assume there are conditions in these deals that if not met would make them null and void thus returning them to full football creditor status.

 

or I could be completely misremembering/misunderstanding...

[suewhistle]

It doesnàt look as if Adam Blackmore has thought through the implications of not paying players what they have contracted to pay.

[Lallana's Left Peg]

As I understand it is not that the PST won't pay the football creditors what they are owed it just appears that the rival bid stated they will pay them sooner and as a result the PFA would want that rival bid to be fairly considered.

 

Whether the rival bid have the means to or genuinely will we'll never know, as the FL have dismissed their bid out of hand. From the sounds of it the characters involved in the rival bid do seem like chancers but on the face of it they have more money than the Trust (whether they turns out to be true or not may well be another matter).

 

To be honest I do not blame the PST for wanting to pay the football creditors after other debts - if they still pay them within the 4 years they are legally obliged to (at least, that is what I read) then nothing is wrong here. However for me the PFA are obviously worried about their capability to do so and therefore as a major creditor they have the ability to block the takeover until they are satisfied.

 

As for the football creditors rule itself, it is absolute nonsense and it needs to go. But that shouldn't be the story here - it should be that the PST bid is based on paying the PFA later than either the PFA want or were originally told and as a result the PFA aren't happy - I suspect because they doubt the ability of the club to pay them in a few years as opposed today. It publicly questions the PST bid and that is not a good look for them.

 

As for why the PST may have decided this is open to debate, but I again think they've had to significantly rejig their bid throughout and I dare say their original model has warped significantly enough away from what they wanted to now contradict many of the values they set out to achieve i.e. loans now in the bid etc. It won't be a clean start for the club, it will just be a new start with debt taken on at the club by fans on behalf of the club rather than businessmen on behalf of the club.

 

With so much doubt surrounding the PST bid it doesn't bode too well for them. They have put up a brave face throughout all this and the message has always been consistent but it has never really inspired confidence as the takeover plan and financials have never really been fully disclosed. For now they are stating it doesn't make sense to show their hand while a rival lurks in the background but if they win their court case then it will be interesting to see if there is full disclosure of everything prior to the takeover going through so fans can make a more informed decision about jumping on board.

 

The PST are adamant that fan ownership will be 51%, but unless that TRULY empowers the fans to have the majority vote it won't mean much - especially if there are agreements in the takeover signed sealed and delivered to promise certain things to the property developers who form part of the bid. I'd be pretty ****ed if I invested as a fan in a takeover and was assured of majority ownership yet I discovered that issues which mattered to me (such as the influence of the property developers) are already decided as a part of the bid and actually there is nothing I can do about it. I'd basically be duped...

[benjii]

Whether the football creditors rule is fair or not is irrelevant. In a "normal" scenario if a business was insolvent, but about to receive a cash windfall, that money would find it's way into the hands of creditors one way or another not be used to provide financial assistance for a business sale.

[qwertySFC]

Surely - having the bestest fans would mean they don't actually need any cash from anyone to get their wonderful club onto the new road - It's the Pompy way - borrow more and more and more and more , just to keep 11 blokes kicking a ****ing football around for twice a week - its pathetic

[qwertySFC]

Conditions of PST council loan

That the club owned and operated by the trust is the same club that was relegated and has membership of the relevant football league

That the club and its assets are bought for £7.68m, which includes provision for the full and final settlement of the football creditors

That the club owned and operated by the trust obtains all rights to the £11.7m of parachute payments

That the trust obtains a legal charge over Fratton Park

That no other legal charges are made against the income or assets of the club, beyond those set out in the trust's business plan, without the prior consent of the council

That the council receives an assignment of parachute payments to repay the loan or that an investor guarantee is provided by the trust for the full £1.45m

That a subscription agreement for the trust's Fan Share Scheme, High Net Worth Investors and Associate Director Scheme is in place, which has been approved by the city solicitor and does not allow money to be taken out of the club until the council has been repaid

That proof of funds from the three schemes has been demonstrated

That a suitably skilled and experienced chief executive is appointed by the trust

[SaintBobby]

Conditions of PST council loan

That the club owned and operated by the trust is the same club that was relegated and has membership of the relevant football league

That the club and its assets are bought for £7.68m, which includes provision for the full and final settlement of the football creditors

That the club owned and operated by the trust obtains all rights to the £11.7m of parachute payments

That the trust obtains a legal charge over Fratton Park

That no other legal charges are made against the income or assets of the club, beyond those set out in the trust's business plan, without the prior consent of the council

That the council receives an assignment of parachute payments to repay the loan or that an investor guarantee is provided by the trust for the full £1.45m

That a subscription agreement for the trust's Fan Share Scheme, High Net Worth Investors and Associate Director Scheme is in place, which has been approved by the city solicitor and does not allow money to be taken out of the club until the council has been repaid

That proof of funds from the three schemes has been demonstrated

That a suitably skilled and experienced chief executive is appointed by the trust

 

I am now considering a career as an administrator/corporate lawyer on £500K+ per annum.

 

At a moment's glance, I think I was able to pick out the big flaw in this plan.

 

Obviously, mere mortals wouldn't have spotted this glaring problem....

 

I'm here to help.

[hutch]

I'm not a twit, but I'm sure those of you that are have reminded the other twits that follow you (is that legal?) that the PFA submitted a claim to the administrator on behalf of it's members for £26million. After playing for half a season for not much more than travelling expenses instead of wages, the team were then abused and threatened, and after much compromising, agreed to settle for only £8million instead of 26. The PL will generously donate that £8million to PFC free of charge. What's the problem?

 

In reality if any new facts did emerge yesterday they are buried under mountains of spin, waffle and hope. But the gameplan HAS changed. This wasn't a routine 14-day postponement that we're used to. As soon as it came out the CWA propaganda machine went into overdrive. They've even given us all of the information that was previously "secret for legal reasons".

 

I think Birch is resolved to let them have their day in Court next week if they want it - a sort of "put up or shut up" ultimatum. He's had enough of being made scapegoat by the same idiots that he's been bending over backwards for a year to try to help. He CAN afford to do this now, because he has a viable alternative, one that is approved by everybody except, CURRENTLY, the FL. Remember the Trust have to solve ALL of these obstacles just to get into Court, where they will probably lose anyway.

 

It's a shame really, because I would rather have seen the Trust succeed, and move forward with a divided fanbase, a divided Board, divided owners, meagre income and a mountain of debt. Minus ten pints for next season would have been very nice as well, but you can't have everything.

Edited 14 February, 2013 by hutch

[ericofarabia]

I don't understand the parachute payments thing regarding PST. They want to use the PP to fund the purchase?

 

Would that not be like me saying I want to buy Microsoft with 10 quid. Microsoft would say, "But you can't afford us" Well, says I "If I buy you for 10 quid, then I'd have your billions, and I could buy you with that!"

 

I'm sure I must be missing something.

 

Wowzer Mr Ohio .... a great analogy which has helped even the dimmest of us see through all the legal clap trap and shennanigans going on.

 

Was this Road to Damascus vision made in a rare sober lucid moment or aided by a particularly good home brew session?

 

Miss your banter on the Match Day Threads butnow that we are Prem, I tend to be down the pub (or more likely bloody working!!).

[dubai_phil]

Wowzer Mr Ohio .... a great analogy which has helped even the dimmest of us see through all the legal clap trap and shennanigans going on.

 

Was this Road to Damascus vision made in a rare sober lucid moment or aided by a particularly good home brew session?

 

Miss your banter on the Match Day Threads butnow that we are Prem, I tend to be down the pub (or more likely bloody working!!).

 

Actually Ohio is no genius, that happened all the time.

 

The most obvious example was the Glazers at Manure, but the idiots who bought the scousers pulled the same trick.

 

Leveraged buyouts.

 

unfortunately they are now so noughties.

 

Ergo not surprised the PDT think they can still pull the same trick.

 

The only alternative to PDT is to lose nottarf to Tescos or housing.

 

At least the few will be able to save a few quid of taxpayer money by not having to use their bus passes to get to Tescos to buy their horsemeat fixes

[Waterside.saint]

I'm not a twit, but I'm sure those of you that are have reminded the other twits that follow you (is that legal?) that the PFA submitted a claim to the administrator on behalf of it's members for £26million. After playing for half a season for not much more than travelling expenses instead of wages, the team were then abused and threatened, and after much compromising, agreed to settle for only £8million instead of 26. The PL will generously donate that £8million to PFC free of charge. What's the problem?

 

In reality if any new facts did emerge yesterday they are buried under mountains of spin, waffle and hope. But the gameplan HAS changed. This wasn't a routine 14-day postponement that we're used to. As soon as it came out the CWA propaganda machine went into overdrive. They've even given us all of the information that was previously "secret for legal reasons".

 

I think Birch is resolved to let them have their day in Court next week if they want it - a sort of "put up or shut up" ultimatum. He's had enough of being made scapegoat by the same idiots that he's been bending over backwards for a year to try to help. He CAN afford to do this now, because he has a viable alternative, one that is approved by everybody except, CURRENTLY, the FL. Remember the Trust have to solve ALL of these obstacles just to get into Court, where they will probably lose anyway.

 

It's a shame really, because I would rather have seen the Trust succeed, and move forward with a divided fanbase, a divided Board, divided owners, meagre income and a mountain of debt. Minus ten pints for next season would have been very nice as well, but you can't have everything.

 

You're all heart

[Waterside.saint]

The lonely sound of the 'penny mordaunt' dropping for a solitary skate:

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-court-date-postponed-again-1-4784819

taybrn

7:31 AM on 14/02/2013

SAY GOODBYE TO OUR CLUB.

This has now become a joint operation between the PFA and the FL. They intend to keep the court case going until the end of the season.That way all games will have been played and they don't have the embarrasment of taking points won and lost against Pompey away from other clubs. Pompey will then be thrown out of the league for not having come out of administration. This is the FL's warning to other clubs to get their finances in order. Our mighty club will be a lesson to other clubs sort out your finances or we will do to you what we did to Portsmouth.

To those waiting on the sidelines for PLAN B. Please can I ask where is your team going to play? it wont be at Fratton Park.

[trousers]

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/377525/David-Cameron-backs-Pompey-takeover-amid-criticism-of-court-delay

[Sevvy]

The lonely sound of the 'penny mordaunt' dropping for a solitary skate:

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-court-date-postponed-again-1-4784819

taybrn

7:31 AM on 14/02/2013

SAY GOODBYE TO OUR CLUB.

This has now become a joint operation between the PFA and the FL. They intend to keep the court case going until the end of the season.That way all games will have been played and they don't have the embarrasment of taking points won and lost against Pompey away from other clubs. Pompey will then be thrown out of the league for not having come out of administration. This is the FL's warning to other clubs to get their finances in order. Our mighty club will be a lesson to other clubs sort out your finances or we will do to you what we did to Portsmouth.

To those waiting on the sidelines for PLAN B. Please can I ask where is your team going to play? it wont be at Fratton Park.

 

Mind you should be fairish as most team have 3 points from them

[suewhistle]

It doesnàt look as if Adam Blackmore has thought through the implications of not paying players what they have contracted to pay.

 

Actually, to be generous, in the cold light of morning perhaps I should add "retrospectively". The behaviour of players will change radically if they know they aren't protected by the football creditors rule. In Pompey's case most of them would have been out the door like a shot as soon as their wages weren't paid all those years ago... (I lose track)..

[trousers]

http://m.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/kammy-co-hand-over-unwanted-record-1-4785641

 

Dear Mr Allen,

 

"Home grown" Chris Kamara was born and raised in Middlesborough.

 

Love from all at the SWF x

[trousers]

Actually, to be generous, in the cold light of morning perhaps I should add "retrospectively". The behaviour of players will change radically if they know they aren't protected by the football creditors rule. In Pompey's case most of them would have been out the door like a shot as soon as their wages weren't paid all those years ago... (I lose track)..

 

Indeed, that's the point that Blackmore seems unable to grasp. He wants to retrospectively apply a potential future change to the rules.

 

Just because an existing rule is unpalatable doesn't mean it shouldn't be adhered to.

 

In what other walk of life do people advocate breaking the rules because they don't like the rules being broken?

Edited 14 February, 2013 by trousers

[lifeintheslowlane]

In what other walk of life do people advocate breaking the rules because they don't like the rules being broken?

 

Oh heck...too early for me, I'm going back to bed.

[fanimal]

The Saints are Red, and Pompey are Blue;

 

I give thanks to our Halo I am not one of the Few!!

[dubai_phil]

Indeed, that's the point that Blackmore seems unable to grasp. He wants to retrospectively apply a potential future change to the rules.

 

Just because an existing rule is unpalatable doesn't mean it shouldn't be adhered to.

 

In what other walk of life do people advocate breaking the rules because they don't like the rules being broken?

 

Yeah we get that as an attempt at a defence everytime a couple of drunk tourists try and sh@g each other on a beach or on a taxi.

 

We had one yesterday there was no law that said I could not torture my child to death when I killed her. You only passed this law after I did that and put her name on it. That is unfair. (They're still going to line the cnvt up against a wall and shoot him)

 

Let's think of some other fun rules we don't like so should ignore.

Your Airline Passenger Tax is bullkrap and means I can't use London as a tranist point any more (it costs me 280 quid extra instead of using Frankfurt or Munich) I refuse to pay that tax, make me a special case.

 

Why do I have to pay VAT on anything? I get no benefit.

 

Why should you lot pay for a TV licence if you have only Satellite and online feed? Oh yeah, you have to do it in order to pay Adam's Salary.

[Big Bad Bob]

In what other walk of life do people advocate breaking the rules because they don't like the rules being broken?

 

Most road/driving rules i.e. Speed Limits, Seat Belts, Driving whilst using a mobile etc. etc. etc.

 

BUT anyway I digress..

 

The FCR should be changed so that *CLUBS* get their transfer fees and players are treated like ordinary members of staff, i.e. if there's no money you ain't going to get none...

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Ironic that the skates should now be moaning about the football creditors rule. Let's not forget that the football creditors voted in favour of the first CVA and helped save them from HMRC winding them up. If the football creditors weren't protected they may well have joined with HMRC #madeyourbedlieinit

[trousers]

Most road/driving rules i.e. Speed Limits, Seat Belts, Driving whilst using a mobile etc. etc. etc.

 

Show me a BBC reporter who advocates breaking those rules and I'll show you my secret mole.

[Frank's cousin]

Mr Blackmore please consider this.... you are correct that from a non-footballing perspective the Football Creditors Rule is unfair and when a business fails, administrators and liquidators should be able to ensure all creditors get an equal share of any monies offered by purchasers as part of the CVA.

 

But the football creditors rule has to remain until clubs cannot be trusted to only buy and pay players wages that are sustainable and ensure a fair competition... in Portsmouth's case they have already diluted the amount owed to players, and thus shows they gained an unfair competitive advantage and did not even have to pay for it - how can this be fair? How can it be justified without considerable punishment? How will you stop clubs from risking all if they know that when it comes down to it, a CVA of 0.2 p in pound will get them out the hole and any success achieved along the way will be in the record books no matter how tarnished it is? Come on, you tell me?

 

The only reason why this is now rearing its head again, is because it appears the PST can't afford the agreed repayment or schedule, already substantially reduced through compromise agreements with players... The club have cheated the game, cheated the creditors... and yet no one points out the simple facts this case. £120mil of debt from administration 3 years ago, which after football creditors paid was diluted to 20mil and not a penny paid..... second Admin in 2 years £68 mil of debt, likely to be diluted to 12 mil or so if the court agree to PFKs valuation of fratton at 3 mil.... now the PST want to further change the terms on the compromise agreements with players.... and quite rightly the PFA is defending its members - yet fans of that club refuse to accept that the club has in anyway benefitted on the field through this cheating... You and other Journo's need to wake up and see what this is really about and its not rivalry

 

Its the cheating and implication for football that makes fans angry. Its the rivalry that makes us now laugh at their predicament and enjoy the schardenfreude - you would do well to note the difference.

Edited 14 February, 2013 by Frank's cousin

[Big Bad Bob]

Show me a BBC reporter who advocates breaking those rules and I'll show you my secret mole.

 

Ah, you didn't say BBC reporter originally, but I think I'll pass anyway

[Popester]

Excellent comment

[trousers]

Mr Blackmore please consider this.... you are correct that from a non-footballing perspective the Football creditors rule is Unfair and when a business fails, administrators and liquidators should be able to ensure all creditors get and equal share

 

But the football creditors rule has to remain because clubs cannot be trusted to only buy and pay players wages that are sustainable and ensure a fair competition... in Portsmouth's case they have already diluted the amount owed to players, which ineffectalso shows they gained a competitive advantage and di not even have to pay for it - how can this be fair? How can it be justified without considerable punishment? How will you stop clubs from risking all as they know that when it comes down to it, a CVA of 0.2 p in pound will get them out the hole and any success achieved along the way will be in the record books no matter how tarnished it is? Come on you tell me?

 

The only reason why this is now rearing its head again, is because the PST cant afford the agreed repayments, already substantially reduced through compromise agreements with players... they have cheated the game, cheated the creditors... and yet no one points out the simple facts this case. 120mil of debt form Admin 3 years ago, which after football creditors paid diluted to 20mil - not a penny paid..... second Admin in 2 years 68 mil of debt, likly to be diluted to 12 mil or so if the court agree to PFKs valuation of fratton at 3 mil.... now the PST want to further change the terms on the compromise agreements with players.... yet fans of that club refuse to accept that the club has in anyway benefitted on the field through this cheating... You and other Journo's need to wake up and see what this is really about and its not rivalry.

 

Its the cheating and implication for football that makes fans angry. Its the rivalry that makes us now laugh at their predicament and enjoy the shardenfreude - you would do well to note the difference.

 

I think that ought to be pasted into an email to Mr Blackmore pronto. Excellent summary FC.

[Waterside.saint]

Mr Blackmore please consider this.... you are correct that from a non-footballing perspective the Football creditors rule is Unfair and when a business fails, administrators and liquidators should be able to ensure all creditors get and equal share

 

But the football creditors rule has to remain because clubs cannot be trusted to only buy and pay players wages that are sustainable and ensure a fair competition... in Portsmouth's case they have already diluted the amount owed to players, which ineffectalso shows they gained a competitive advantage and di not even have to pay for it - how can this be fair? How can it be justified without considerable punishment? How will you stop clubs from risking all as they know that when it comes down to it, a CVA of 0.2 p in pound will get them out the hole and any success achieved along the way will be in the record books no matter how tarnished it is? Come on you tell me?

 

The only reason why this is now rearing its head again, is because the PST cant afford the agreed repayments, already substantially reduced through compromise agreements with players... they have cheated the game, cheated the creditors... and yet no one points out the simple facts this case. 120mil of debt form Admin 3 years ago, which after football creditors paid diluted to 20mil - not a penny paid..... second Admin in 2 years 68 mil of debt, likly to be diluted to 12 mil or so if the court agree to PFKs valuation of fratton at 3 mil.... now the PST want to further change the terms on the compromise agreements with players.... yet fans of that club refuse to accept that the club has in anyway benefitted on the field through this cheating... You and other Journo's need to wake up and see what this is really about and its not rivalry.

 

Its the cheating and implication for football that makes fans angry. Its the rivalry that makes us now laugh at their predicament and enjoy the shardenfreude - you would do well to note the difference.

 

Nicely put.

[trousers]

With your permission FC, I can tweet this as a screen shot to Mr Blackmore...

 

Edited 14 February, 2013 by trousers

[Ken Tone]

My understanding of the "busines plan" etc ,based on a mixture of public statements and a couple of chats to acquaintances who are unfortunate enough to be (in one case very) close to the trust insiders:

 

 

Somehow they have met the council condition "That the council receives an assignment of parachute payments to repay the loan or that an investor guarantee is provided by the trust for the full £1.45m" presumably by the latter bit. Also they have the £1 million from the HNW investors in their escrow account -- another requirement. Stuart Robinson is also lending them some money , but I cannot find out how much ..as well as purchasing the surrounding land of course.

 

So they have a bit less than £1.5 million in genuine fans' pledge cash + £1 million from HNWs + £1.45 million PCC short term loan + £X loan from Robinson = c£4+X million to buy the club and Fratton with and have some cash float to start running the club. Just about enough for now.

 

However, both PCC and Robinson want their money back pretty soon, and this can only be afforded by using some of the parachute money that was promised to the ex-footballers as part of their compromise agreements. The 'business plan' is no more sophisticated than "we'll pay back the two short term loans, then by the time we have to pay the players, (and any other creditors they're currently over-looking) something else will have turned up". Hence Taylor's comments about his members now being third in the queue. When they agreed the compromises, they were going to be first in the queue in effect.

 

It's basically the Billy Bunter "I'm expecting a postal order" school of economics, for the oldies amongst you.

 

Even so, they may succeed in the takeover if the Harris bid is perceived by Taylor to be a front, and/or the FL's position means that Harris won't be able to access the parachute payments. Taylor will play brinkmanship, as he is doing now, but in the end he has more chance of getting some money for his members from a live club than from a liquidated one.

 

Meanwhile PKF just want out ..somehow, anyhow .. because they're effectively working for free now, having reached the £2.5 million cap on their fees.

[trousers]

...

Edited 14 February, 2013 by trousers
duplicate post

[Waterside.saint]

My understanding of the "busines plan" etc ,based on a mixture of public statements and a couple of chats to acquaintances who are unfortunate enough to be (in one case very) close to the trust insiders:

 

 

Somehow they have met the council condition "That the council receives an assignment of parachute payments to repay the loan or that an investor guarantee is provided by the trust for the full £1.45m" presumably by the latter bit. Also they have the £1 million from the HNW investors in their escrow account -- another requirement. Stuart Robinson is also lending them some money , but I cannot find out how much ..as well as purchasing the surrounding land of course.

 

So they have a bit less than £1.5 million in genuine fans' pledge cash + £1 million from HNWs + £1.45 million PCC short term loan + £X loan from Robinson = c£4+X million to buy the club and Fratton with and have some cash float to start running the club. Just about enough for now.

 

However, both PCC and Robinson want their money back pretty soon, and this can only be afforded by using some of the parachute money that was promised to the ex-footballers as part of their compromise agreements. The 'business plan' is no more sophisticated than "we'll pay back the two short term loans, then by the time we have to pay the players, (and any other creditors they're currently over-looking) something else will have turned up". Hence Taylor's comments about his members now being third in the queue. When they agreed the compromises, they were going to be first in the queue in effect.

 

It's basically the Billy Bunter "I'm expecting a postal order" school of economics, for the oldies amongst you.

 

Even so, they may succeed in the takeover if the Harris bid is perceived by Taylor to be a front, and/or the FL's position means that Harris won't be able to access the parachute payments. Taylor will play brinkmanship, as he is doing now, but in the end he has more chance of getting some money for his members from a live club than from a liquidated one.

 

Meanwhile PKF just want out ..somehow, anyhow .. because they're effectively working for free now, having reached the £2.5 million cap on their fees.

 

"Something will turn up." - Wilkins Micawber in David Copperfield

[trousers]

@saintgert: .@colinfarmery I thought court case was all about FP valuation. Surely that is no concern of PFA #pompey #smokeandmirrors

 

@colinfarmery: @saintgert If it were as simple as that, the hearing could easily have taken place in December. It's not as simple as that...

 

@colinfarmery: @saintgert I'm sure I've said it before, but PKF want a deal tied up to their satisfaction before the court case. That's their prerogative.

 

@Lord_Trousers: @colinfarmery Surely best way for PKF to "tie up"deal with PST is to get valuation sorted. Unless he thinks he won't win the case...

 

@colinfarmery: @Lord_Trousers PKF has decided it wants a 'done deal' first. Would seem an odd strategy if they weren't confident of a court win.

 

@Lord_Trousers: @colinfarmery I thought the PST bid was a "done deal" a while back now?

[solentstars]

@saintgert: .@colinfarmery I thought court case was all about FP valuation. Surely that is no concern of PFA #pompey #smokeandmirrors

 

@colinfarmery: @saintgert If it were as simple as that, the hearing could easily have taken place in December. It's not as simple as that...

 

@colinfarmery: @saintgert I'm sure I've said it before, but PKF want a deal tied up to their satisfaction before the court case. That's their prerogative.

 

@Lord_Trousers: @colinfarmery Surely best way for PKF to "tie up"deal with PST is to get valuation sorted. Unless he thinks he won't win the case...

 

@colinfarmery: @Lord_Trousers PKF has decided it wants a 'done deal' first. Would seem an odd strategy if they weren't confident of a court win.

 

@Lord_Trousers: @colinfarmery I thought the PST bid was a "done deal" a while back now?

ha ha it gets better loks like they are being used

[hutch]

"Something will turn up." - Wilkins Micawber in David Copperfield

6,22,28,31,32,46 and the Bonus Ball 17

[Big Bad Bob]

6,22,28,31,32,46 and the Bonus Ball 17

 

I'm going to put those on Saturday's draw, that way they'll only get half the money

[trousers]

http://m.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/ertl-it-s-us-against-the-world-1-4784550

 

Johnny Ertl has called for a Pompey siege mentality to drive them through the season’s finale and blasted: It’s us against the world.

 

14/02/2013 10:37 AM GMT

Rate: (5 | 7)

evola

It IS us against the world. I think as soon as it sunk in we hadnt paid charities and had stayed in the Premier and won the FA Cup with players we couldnt afford the tide turned against us. I think if we had a viable Fans Consortium we could have rode this out but we only have the delusional PST so we have lost all credibility and sympathy.

Teams like Luton and Coventry have gone through this with thier heads held high unfortunately we cant say the same.

 

Edited 14 February, 2013 by trousers

[Torres]

Taylor will play brinkmanship, as he is doing now, but in the end he has more chance of getting some money for his members from a live club than from a liquidated one.

 

And that's the key question - does he?

[Ken Tone]

And that's the key question - does he?

 

Well that brings us back to the old issue of what happens to the parachute payments if they are liquidated. Presumably Taylor must have thoght they'd be lost , or he would not have agreed to the original compromises. he coud ave pushed for the full amount.

 

Of course if and when they are liquidated football creditors have no more clout than any poor old creditor. Legally they've always been the same; it's just the need to meet FL requirements for the golden share that has given them a special priority.