hutch Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 You've gotta admire Chainrai. He's sitting back (probably with a box of popcorn) watching the PST fighting tooth and nail to steal the parachute payments from the football creditors so that they can pass them on to him in exchange for the keys to FP. And if they fail, up steps the Harris mob to rent FP from him for ever and a day, and if they fail too then Birch will give him FP as part of the liquidation of assets. Don't ever play chess with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 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. Last time around I think there was a lot more pressure applied to the PFA and the players directly to compromise on their outstanding wages. This time there is much less AND they can point to the fact they have already taken a huge cut in what they were owed. It may not be that Taylor thought they'd get nothing from liquidation previously, just that it wasn't in the interests of the PFA to be seen as totally intractable and thus pulling the trigger on Pompey. Edit - even though that's exactly what they should have done. A bullet in the head would have been kinder to all involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Trousers - up to you, but best to correct the typos first - will go back and edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 So as long as you can get the football creditors to agree to whatever demands they have, there will be no points penalty? In that respect, the PST/PKF are doing a sterling job especially if they get the golden share while owing that sum over a specified term. Assuming the PST do takeover, what would happen if they miss a payment to the football creditors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Trousers - up to you' date=' but best to correct the typos first - will go back and edit[/quote'] And clarity over the sums of money from CVA1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 And clarity over the sums of money from CVA1. Think the total including football creditors was over 100 mil, with 80mil dilute to 20 mil for non secured creditors IRRC. I have presumed that the football creditors were paid pout of previous parachutes, but not sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 might be best not to post it as the figures are probably not known to anyone... its a dark mess of numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 So as long as you can get the football creditors to agree to whatever demands they have, there will be no points penalty? In that respect, the PST/PKF are doing a sterling job especially if they get the golden share while owing that sum over a specified term. Assuming the PST do takeover, what would happen if they miss a payment to the football creditors? No the points penalty is for reneging on the promises made as they came out of the last administration, nothing to do with football creditors. FL rules insist that football creditors are paid in full. There has already been a major concession made in allowing PFC to agree compromises with their ex-players to pay only a fraction of what their contracts should have given them. If they reneged on those payments s well, I can't see the league giving them another points penalty; it would be expulsion from the league. The trust are deperate however. Either they scrape together every last penny from the back of the sofa and borrow more than they can really afford to re-pay, or the club definitely disappears now. So the have nothing to lose in setting out on a process that risks it maybe disappearing in a few years' time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Saints play in Red You play in Blue You're financially Ruined And off to League Two Happy Valentines Day Pompey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Think the total including football creditors was over 100 mil' date=' with 80mil dilute to 20 mil for non secured creditors IRRC. I have presumed that the football creditors were paid pout of previous parachutes, but not sure[/quote'] The "diluted" amount to be paid to the unsecured creditors over 5 years was £16.5m if that helps. The whole £16.5m is now included in CVA 2 because not a penny was paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 FL rules insist that football creditors are paid in full. There has already been a major concession made in allowing PFC to agree compromises with their ex-players to pay only a fraction of what their contracts should have given them. If they reneged on those payments s well, I can't see the league giving them another points penalty; it would be expulsion from the league. Sadly not herefore, as a condition of membership, any new company established to apply for ownership of Portsmouth Football Club's share in The Football League will be required to: 4 - Pay all football creditors in full, unless mutually acceptable compromise agreements are put in place. http://www.football-league.co.uk/footballleaguenews/20120712/league-board-makes-membership-offer-to-portsmouth_2293334_2847729 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Sadly not http://www.football-league.co.uk/footballleaguenews/20120712/league-board-makes-membership-offer-to-portsmouth_2293334_2847729 Originally Posted by Ken Tone FL rules insist that football creditors are paid in full. There has already been a major concession made in allowing PFC to agree compromises with their ex-players to pay only a fraction of what their contracts should have given them. If they reneged on those payments s well, I can't see the league giving them another points penalty; it would be expulsion from the league. Sadly not herefore, as a condition of membership, any new company established to apply for ownership of Portsmouth Football Club's share in The Football League will be required to: 4 - Pay all football creditors in full, unless mutually acceptable compromise agreements are put in place. THAT is the escape clause Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 I cannot see the PFA allowing their members to take a further haircut and let's remember that the sticking point is when they are paid. They've negotiated the best deal available once, they won't do it again. It's sets a bad precedence if they do and they're not mugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMPR Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 I cannot see the PFA allowing their members to take a further haircut and let's remember that the sticking point is when they are paid. They've negotiated the best deal available once, they won't do it again. It's sets a bad precedence if they do and they're not mugs. PFA are over a barrell though. No club = no money. Club = money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 PFA are over a barrell though. No club = no money. Club = money Except you don't know that is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Originally Posted by Ken Tone FL rules insist that football creditors are paid in full. There has already been a major concession made in allowing PFC to agree compromises with their ex-players to pay only a fraction of what their contracts should have given them. If they reneged on those payments s well, I can't see the league giving them another points penalty; it would be expulsion from the league. Sadly not herefore, as a condition of membership, any new company established to apply for ownership of Portsmouth Football Club's share in The Football League will be required to: 4 - Pay all football creditors in full, unless mutually acceptable compromise agreements are put in place. THAT is the escape clause Yes I realise that. My point was that this 'escape clause' has already been used to allow the current, not yet paid, 'mutually accepted compromise' deals. If they then go on to renege on even those compromises I can't see the league tolerating it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 PFA are over a barrell though. No club = no money. Club = money Except that Taylor is no mug. He knows the CWA are bust, and that in this case if your lot do take over No club = no money Club = no money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMPR Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Except that Taylor is no mug. He knows the CWA are bust, and that in this case if your lot do take over No club = no money Club = no money Honeslty no clue what CWA means. Were due £11.7m in parachute payments where we have some money in the account and are due more of it. The PFA will get there money if the trust takoever, absolutely no doubt there. If other parties connected to chainrai takeover the PFA will get 20%-30% of what they are due as more money is taken from the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Indeed. Given that the chances of the PST ever actually paying the football creditors are probably quite slim, it may well be that the PFA feel they have more chance of getting some cash from outstanding PPs with the club dead - I know I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 PFA are over a barrell though. No club = no money. Club = money Don't be so sure. We both know that the EPL/FL make rules up as they go along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Honeslty no clue what CWA means. Were due £11.7m in parachute payments where we have some money in the account and are due more of it. The PFA will get there money if the trust takoever, absolutely no doubt there. If other parties connected to chainrai takeover the PFA will get 20%-30% of what they are due as more money is taken from the club. Rubbish. The EPL has already made it clear that money owed to football creditors will be paid directly to them from the PP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 (edited) The PFA will get there money if the trust takoever, absolutely no doubt there. :lol: :lol: Edited 14 February, 2013 by Torres Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMPR Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Rubbish. The EPL has already made it clear that money owed to football creditors will be paid directly to them from the PP. Last post. Then why do Portsmouth City Council believe £11.7m of parachute payments are coming into the club? If they are being immediately diverted to fund the football creditors parachute payments would not be bein gpaid into the clubs account. They have £3m sitting in the account now and another payment has either just happened or is imminent, thats why Chainrai is hanging on by his finger nails he wants those payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Ken is highlighting the fact that mutually acceptable compromise agreements are in place, but a further negotiation would break those agreements, and create new mutually acceptable compromise agreements. This is all new territory for the rules. Also I see no way that about 10 players will all agree to save the club - again. To be shafted once is naive, to be shafted a second time in the same manner would be plain stupid. Is Ben Haim looking to help out? Good luck getting his vote. And do we really think that on liquidation the PFA will allow the Premier League to leave players' agreements unpaid, and give the money to clubs instead? Too many Property Developing Trust supporters assume that the club will only be sold as a football club and not as a bit of land, and they also seem to think that the Trust has a hand of aces to wave in Chinny's face, when in reality they have Master Bun the Baker's son, and a library token from 1980. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 A point needs to come when the football creditors rule is considered breached. Any club can potentially get round it by saying "unless you reduce your backdated wage demands from £1m to 10p, we will go bust and you'll get nothing. So, you might as well agree the 10p." If this is acceptable practice, what's the point of the rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Yes I realise that. My point was that this 'escape clause' has already been used to allow the current, not yet paid, 'mutually accepted compromise' deals. If they then go on to renege on even those compromises I can't see the league tolerating it If they renege on them then that should exclude the mutually acceptable part. The players have agreed a time table for payment, a time table that is, one assumes, included in any legal document they have signed. If the club decide not to stick to the time table then unless they can get the players to agree they would be in breach of the agreement. In fact it may well be that the players could get more from the remaining parachute payments if the club broke the agreement as once those agreements are null and void ones assumes they will return to the initial amount owed to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Last post. Then why do Portsmouth City Council believe £11.7m of parachute payments are coming into the club? If they are being immediately diverted to fund the football creditors parachute payments would not be bein gpaid into the clubs account. They have £3m sitting in the account now and another payment has either just happened or is imminent, thats why Chainrai is hanging on by his finger nails he wants those payments. Because the conditions of the loan state, clearly, that either the PP must be diverted OR a guarantor found. Robinson = Guarantor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Last post. Then why do Portsmouth City Council believe £11.7m of parachute payments are coming into the club? If they are being immediately diverted to fund the football creditors parachute payments would not be bein gpaid into the clubs account. They have £3m sitting in the account now and another payment has either just happened or is imminent, thats why Chainrai is hanging on by his finger nails he wants those payments. The PCC tried to get the PL to agree to divert enough of the PPs directly to them to cover any loan default last time around, the PL said "NO", very clearly. And who has "£3m sitting in the account"? The club or the PST? If the club have £3m in their account and are expecting more cash from the PPs, then I doubt that anyone is going to let the PST buy the club for, erm, £3m. If you mean the PST have £3m sitting in the account, why is next payment going directly to them? You seem a tad confused, mate. Or stupid. Or both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 "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" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Rubbish. The EPL has already made it clear that money owed to football creditors will be paid directly to them from the PP. Or even to avoid what economists call "moral hazard". Write off the c.£8m from Pompey rather than risk a plethora of clubs over the years following suit and depriving PFA members of £25m or £50m in backpay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Honeslty no clue what CWA means. Were due £11.7m in parachute payments where we have some money in the account and are due more of it. The PFA will get there money if the trust takoever, absolutely no doubt there. If other parties connected to chainrai takeover the PFA will get 20%-30% of what they are due as more money is taken from the club. 1. CWA = Chancers Without Answers (I nicked it from your lot on the News site) 2. £11.7m was last August. Birch has spent half of that since then 3. The PFA will not get their money if PST takeover if they agree to let the parachutes be used to fund the purchase (which is what PST are trying to do by pledging what's left of the parachute payments in exchange for cash loans now) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panda Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Last post. Then why do Portsmouth City Council believe £11.7m of parachute payments are coming into the club? If they are being immediately diverted to fund the football creditors parachute payments would not be bein gpaid into the clubs account. They have £3m sitting in the account now and another payment has either just happened or is imminent, thats why Chainrai is hanging on by his finger nails he wants those payments. If the club have £3m sitting in the account now why are the HNWI having to subsidise running costs each month? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 I must say i have a lot of respect for Farmery as he is prepared to try and debate with Saints fans. Ok he is not winning it but he does not resort to name calling or not replying. i suspect his passion for PFC is cynically being used against him. At least he is trying, and so he can hold his head up high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 I must say i have a lot of respect for Farmery as he is prepared to try and debate with Saints fans. Ok he is not winning it but he does not resort to name calling or not replying. i suspect his passion for PFC is cynically being used against him. At least he is trying, and so he can hold his head up high. Fair point. I get that impression too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 I must say i have a lot of respect for Farmery as he is prepared to try and debate with Saints fans. Ok he is not winning it but he does not resort to name calling or not replying. i suspect his passion for PFC is cynically being used against him. At least he is trying, and so he can hold his head up high. Seems a decent bloke to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 If the club have £3m sitting in the account now why are the HNWI having to subsidise running costs each month? They're not - that's why they are playing the quality players they have now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Seems a decent bloke to me. He is indeed a decent bloke. I suspect there may even be one or two other decent blokes amongst their fans -- you never know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 http://m.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/guy-sodje-leap-of-faith-paying-off-1-4784551 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 @NabilHassan79: Portsmouth Council Leader Gerald Vernon-Jackson has today written to the PFA thanking them for their support in #pompey ownership battle. From the council who haven't got more important things to worry about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 @NabilHassan79: Vernon-Jackson: "I note the late expression of interest from Mr Harris has been dismissed by the PFA. My thanks for the support." #pompey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 http://m.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/guy-sodje-leap-of-faith-paying-off-1-4784551 'monumental performance' 'immense man of the match display.' To secure a draw against the team bottom of the table. Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skintsaint Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 'monumental performance' 'immense man of the match display.' To secure a draw against the team bottom of the table. Lol. I love the part about teaching some lad to head a ball... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Finally - after two weeks without broadband having moved to a new house - I'm back! So could some kind soul give me a precis of events of the past two weeks please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Bloody hell! where do the prats bury their heads. PKF statement- April 2012. Outstanding PPs £14m, less £5m football creditors, less £1.6m transfer fees due, less August 2012 PP paid out. There is also a caveat about deferred wages that are being accrued each month. This is without the payments agreed with the players. £11.7m , this is feeding the 5000 with loaves and fishes parable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Finally - after two weeks without broadband having moved to a new house - I'm back! So could some kind soul give me a precis of events of the past two weeks please? They're stuffed .. no they're not ..yes they are ..no they're not .... etc. So, much as before your 2 weeks lapse. I believe the episodes you've missed may be on i-player. Try searching under 'comedy' and 'soap operas'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 @NabilHassan79: Have just spoken to PFA chief Gordon Taylor about suggestions they're undermining the PST bid for #pompey. He's not a happy man, story soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 (edited) @NabilHassan79: PFA chief Gordon Taylor has hit out at suggestions they are undermining #pompey takeover calling claims a "fallacy": http://t.co/LS2x27b5 Professional Footballers' Association chief Gordon Taylor has hit out at suggestions they are undermining the Supporters' Trust takeover of Pompey.On Wednesday Portsmouth North MP Penny Mordaunt claimed in Parliament the PFA were "undermining the community buy-out of the club" and put the question to the Prime Minister David Cameron. But Taylor says this is not the case and they support the PST's bid. “It's total fallacy to suggest we have undermined the PST's bid for Pompey. It is just not our job, we cannot decide who takes over a football club” "It's very frustrating when you hear those lies," Taylor told BBC Sport. On Wednesday the High Court hearing to determine the future of Portsmouth Football Clubwas adjourned for a fourth time. It is understood the adjournment was because the PFA were asking for clarity over a rival bid from Keith Harris, and in particular their stated aim of paying football creditors more promptly. It led to Mordaunt asking the Prime Minister: "Does the Prime Minister take a dim view of people who say one thing and do another, such as purporting to support fan ownership of football clubs while undermining the community buy-out of Pompey, as the Professional Footballers' Association has done this week?" But Taylor says the PFA have been caught up in the middle of a complicated situation and have ultimately been made scapegoats for the adjournment. "I was upset to hear the comments of the MP in parliament," continued Taylor. "My reaction was 'what the devil is going on here?'. I thought it was really weird. "We were asked to ring the Football League and seek more clarity as to why they had rejected the bid from Keith Harris, so we rang the league. "It's total fallacy to suggest we have undermined the PST's bid for Pompey. It is just not our job, we cannot decide who takes over a football club so from that point of view it's particularly frustrating." The hearing to determined the future of Pompey will now be heard on 21 February and Taylor says the PFA support the Trust's bid. "We have no objection to the Trust because we know they will have the club's best interests at heart," he added. "But I do have to make sure our players are protected, so we checked with the Football League. The administrators were looking to pass the blame to someone and we were a very convenient excuse. "We have been portrayed in a false manner." In response to Wednesday's developments the leader of Portsmouth City Council Gerald Vernon-Jackson wrote to Taylor to thank the PFA for it's support in helping to resolve the ownership of the club. "I note that the late expression of interest from Mr Harris has been dismissed by the PFA," said Vernon-Jackson in his letter. "It seems to me that it is clear that the Pompey Supporters' Trust offer is the only long-term plan realistically available to make our football club sustainable for years to come. "As you are aware, Portsmouth City Council has resolved to make a loan available to the Trust to assist their bid to take over the club, and the City Council is working hard to enable this to occur. "My thanks again for the support that the PFA are giving to get the ownership of the club resolved and the club brought out of administration." Edited 14 February, 2013 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Sooo the PFA making one phonecall to the league is the only reason for a weeks postponement? Right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jawillwill Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 Finally - after two weeks without broadband having moved to a new house - I'm back! So could some kind soul give me a precis of events of the past two weeks please? I created this quite frankly brilliant picture. Please LOL at it. It'll make my valentines day so special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 14 February, 2013 Share Posted 14 February, 2013 moneypenny carefully selected her venue for accusing the PFA of lying. I wonder if she'll be repeating the accusation outside of the safe haven of parliament? Or perhaps she'll apologise for getting it so wrong in her ruthless attempt at snuggling up to voters? Either way she has upset the PFA and their members, all for some cheap headlines. The Trust could do without friends like her. Overall though, no change - potless dreamers still planning to borrow their way to glory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts