Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

I think the Withdean is more their scene, though it might be a bit big for them.

They could claim to have the biggest UK football ground formerly used for athletics...

 

I'm not sure pompey would want to travel as far as Brighton - I'm just amazed that no one has suggested Moneyfields before, that would be ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alehouseboys

alehouseboys

Posted
Posted
You heard it here first, Plan B involves ground share with Brighton if Fratton Park deal falls through.

 

Not a hope - planners were extremely strict when the Amex was built as to how many times it could be used a season.

 

Sussex OB would more than likely put the mockers on that idea too for the same reasons as them groundsharing St Mary's. There's certainly no love lost between the 2 sets of fans, they are Brighton's more obvious (than Palace) 'local' rivals, there's been a number of hefty threads on North Stand Chat about the "cheats" this one of the latest... http://www.northstandchat.com/showthread.php?242527-Will-Pompey-fold-(merged-threads)/page62

 

I can't see any mention of a possible groundshare mentioned on NST and they're usually pretty much on-the-ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
You heard it here first, Plan B involves ground share with Brighton if Fratton Park deal falls through.

My guess would probably be earlier implementation of Plan A. Their new "friends" wouldn't let them stay at FP for long anyway. As soon as the next looming property boom kicks in properly they would be relocated anyway, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
So when does the court case start then ? Is it the 10th or the 11th? Think the skates are cutting it a bit fine timewise !

 

My understanding is that they all convene at the court tomorrow and the judge then decides whether the case goes ahead there and then or defers the start to Thursday. Depends if there are still some uncrossed t's and undotted i's I guess...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ric

Ric

Posted
Posted
You heard it here first, Plan B involves ground share with Brighton if Fratton Park deal falls through.

 

I thought ground shares had to be in the same county, or is that just some Internet myth I've been conned by?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
andysstuff

andysstuff

Posted
Posted
My understanding is that they all convene at the court tomorrow and the judge then decides whether the case goes ahead there and then or defers the start to Thursday. Depends if there are still some uncrossed t's and undotted i's I guess...

 

There can't be anything left uncrossed and undotted. Haven't you heard PDT have been 'ready to go' for months and months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted

http://www.pompeytrust.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=555:fans-urged-to-show-court-solidarity-at-fratton-park&catid=34:demo-category

 

Fans are being urged to show solidarity with court proceedings at a special event organised by SOS Pompey and the Pompey Supporters' Trust at Fratton Park, rather than attend the hearing in London.

 

The floating nature of the date for the hearing means that fans could end up wasting money on a fruitless journey, so Ashley Brown, PST chairman, has called for fans to go to Fratton Park instead.

 

'SOS Pompey and PST, in conjunction with the club, have arranged for the Victory Lounge to be open on the days the court case goes ahead and I would urge all fans to attend that event instead,' he said.

 

'It is frustrating, but we simply don't know when this case will start. We really don't want fans to waste their money going to London, when it could well turn out proceedings don't even start.'

 

The court case, which will determine the club's future, could start any time from the morning of Wednesday April 10 but no time has yet been fixed.

 

'Representatives from the PST community bid, including our legal team, will be in court from Wednesday morning and we will be keeping fans back at Fratton Park informed of what's going on.

 

'We have been overwhelmed by the show of solidarity by fans and we feel this event at the Victory Rooms is the perfect focus. There will be community bid representatives at the event, who will be available to answer any questions fans may have,' he added.

 

Bob Beech from SOS Pompey said: 'SOS Pompey have supported the PST bid since day one and we understand why fans would want to feel a part of an historic day for our club and they will be able to do this by joining us at Fratton Park.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted

http://twohundredpercent.net/?p=22564

 

Harris made a bid to buy the club back in February which encompassed a lease back deal for the ground from debenture holder Portpin. How Portpin were to re-gain control of a ground, currently in the hands of the administrator, in order for this to happen was never explained. A powerless 15% sop of shares was offered to the Trust and rejected with the attitude, ‘why have 15% when we can get 100% with our own deal?’ Now we are told that Harris is prepared to lay out £6.3m to buy, not the club, not the ground, but the debenture held by Portpin on the ground. It seems to be an attempt to separate club and ground one way or another. You have to ask where this money has come from when six weeks ago there was no money for ground purchase. You can ask, but you cannot publish the answers you find without threats of court proceedings. Such is the transparency of the bid.

So, can you trust this ‘football man’? Ultimately you can only look at their actions and decide, for their words do not hold water. In words, Harris claims his bid will cut all ties with the past ownership history of the club. In deed, he brings on board as financial director John Redgate. A man appointed by Portpin’s administrator Andrew Andronikou in 2010 and kept on by Portpin and CSI. A man implicated in the Hiroshima deal that saw the diversion of season ticket money away from the club. The man who helped put the club into administration in February 2012. Redgate is a football man too – a Pompey fan of long standing. But he is also a businessman with a history of business dealings with Portpin’s administrator of choice, Andrew Andronikou.

This is clearly not a classic growth play. If it was, why pay £6.3m for a debenture about to be challenged in the High Court? Why burden a club in severe need of re-development and in League 2 next season with that amount of debt? The ground could be got for half that sum after the hearing. The Pompey Trust are offering £3m for the ground in a bid that injects equity not debt, one that has Football League and administrator approval. Harris has neither, despite his assertions to the contrary on Portsmouth’s Express FM Radio’s Football Hour last Friday. The Football League will be handing the Golden Share to no one but the Pompey Trust. No share – no club to play at Fratton next season. Why make a play for a club, its ground or the debenture on its ground that could, if successful, drive the club into liquidation? Are these the actions of a ‘Football Man’?

So you have to ask, just what is Mr Harris trying to fix? And for who?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
I refuse to believe this until Neil Allen has confirmed it.

 

Which will probably go something like...

 

 

 

Pompey court case.

 

 

to be heard from 10.30 tomorrow

 

 

Court 31

 

 

Rolls Building

 

 

Mr Justice Peter Smith

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted

A previous football case he presided over....

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/former-liverpool-tom-hicks-and-george-806302

 

A High Court judge today said he did not trust two American businessmen who used to own Liverpool Football Club.Mr Justice Peter Smith said Tom Hicks and George Gillett had "demonstrated" that they would "abuse" the court process if it suited them.

Texas-based Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett lost control of Liverpool when the club was sold to New England Sports Ventures - headed by another American businessman, John W Henry - in a £300 million deal in October 2010.

The judge criticised Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett when hearing evidence at the High Court in London during the latest phase of litigation launched following the sale.

And he refused to allow Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett to have "full and unrestricted" access to private documentation featuring in the litigation because of fears about "potential misconduct".

The judge said an American lawyer representing Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett had twice misled an American court in October 2010 following the Liverpool sale.

He said Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett had given "no credible explanation" for that lawyer's behaviour and suggested they had taken a "Manuelesque - 'I know nothing"' stance.

"I do not trust your clients," the judge today told British lawyers representing Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett in the current High Court litigation.

"(They) have demonstrated ... that if it suits them they will abuse the process."

Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett tried and failed to block the sale of Liverpool before launching damages claims in which they alleged that the club was sold at a "substantial undervalue" and said the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and then Liverpool directors had "deliberately" blocked their attempts to "refinance".

RBS bosses and directors dispute the allegations.

In March, bank bosses involved in the sale asked Mr Justice Peter Smith to declare them not guilty of "any dishonesty or corruption".

Lawyers representing the RBS said Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett had alleged a "grand conspiracy" but failed to produce "any evidence".

The bank asked for declarations of innocence at a High Court hearing in London. Mr Justice Peter Smith adjourned that hearing to allow lawyers representing Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett to study more documentation produced by RBS. It is expected to resume in the near future.

Lawyers representing Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett today asked for permission to give their clients unrestricted access to the documentation.

RBS was opposed and said - given that their lawyer had "misled" an American court in October 2010 - Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett "couldn't be trusted" with the documents.

Mr Justice Peter Smith sided with RBS.

"In my view that was and remains a legitimate concern," he said. "They are entitled to be fearful about potential misconduct."

And he said RBS was entitled to have the privacy of its documents maintained.

He said Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett could not have "unrestricted access" although their British lawyers could study the documents and take instructions from their clients.

Mr Justice Peter Smith said Mr Hicks and Mr Gillett had sought a "restraining order" in Texas - after failing to block the Liverpool sale at the High Court in England.

He said an American lawyer representing the businessmen had "misled" a Texan court twice in October 2010 - "untruthfully" saying an application could not be made in London because it was "late" and courts were closed and saying a similar application had not been made in the UK when it had.

"No credible explanation has been given, ever, as to how it was a lawyer retained by the defendants was able to mislead the court in that way," said the judge.

"Despite numerous opportunities, the defendants have not availed themselves of the opportunity to explain how it came about."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Winchester Red

Winchester Red

Posted
Posted

This is judge who's quite happy to upset the status quo.

 

If only I knew what that was though. If you believe factlessallen and the pdt then the world wants pompey to survive (with Nottarf Krap), yet if you talk to anyone else in football then you'll know they want them held accountable for years of cheating.

 

He's going to upset someone anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
Norwich City? :)

 

I thought that too initially but the "canary" is facing the wrong way....

 

He's a member of the US and British Titanic Societies, so could be that I guess... (tenuous connection with Southampton purely incidental of course...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BlakeySFC

BlakeySFC

Posted
Posted
on the basis of that I'd say he's just what the skates want . he'll treat chanrai like he did Gillet and Hicks and sell the club (ground) for a lower value.

 

So does that mean that that particular judge could help them weasel out of the -10?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)
Will it be a case of "whatever you want" PST.

 

If they survive it'll be 'Down Down', and like 'Ice in the Sun' they're melting away. But that's what you get when you 'Break the Rules', whilst 'Living on an Island', a real 'Mess of Blues'.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teamsaint

teamsaint

Posted
Posted
If they survive it'll be 'Down Down', and like 'Ice in the Sun' they're melting away. But that's what you get when you 'Break the Rules', whilst 'Living on an Island', a real 'Mess of Blues'.

 

Don't waste my time, badger, it's never too late. But i suppose they'll just do the same thing again and again.

 

That is what happens on the wild side of life.

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