saintds Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/OwusuAbeyie-set-to-sign.6019719.jp Owusu-Abeyie set to sign 27 January 2010 By Jordan Cross Quincy Owusu-Abeyie is set to become Pompey's first signing of the transfer window. The Spartak Moscow man is poised to sign on loan for the Blues until the end of the season. Grant has moved quickly after having the club's transfer embargo lifted for loan and free transfers. Owusu-Abeyie, who can play as a striker or winger, spent time at Arsenal before moving to Russia in 2006. He has had spells on loan at Cardiff and Birmingham, as well as in Spain at Celta Vigo. The 23-year-old has also picked up 12 caps for Ghana, scoring one goal. Grant remains keen on Jamie O'Hara and Romanian international Razvan Cocis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 I'm Peter Storrie! what's with this sauce thing all of the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 they have appealed against tax ruling Strange if they left it to the last minute to appeal. You might almost begin to think they were doing it as a time wasting manoeuvre rather than with an eye to winning the appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintds Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 I'm Peter Storrie! what's with this sauce thing all of the time? Just wanted to know where you heard it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 Strange if they left it to the last minute to appeal. You might almost begin to think they were doing it as a time wasting manoeuvre rather than with an eye to winning the appeal. Classic lawyer stuff - never show your hand until you have to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Keith Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 the latest scam and dodgy deal from pompey. they have sold williamson to newcastle on a free transfer, therefore there is no sell on fee due to watford what a bunch of thieving cheating c(nts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintds Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 the latest scam and dodgy deal from pompey. they have sold williamson to newcastle on a free transfer, therefore there is no sell on fee due to watford what a bunch of thieving cheating c(nts What were the terms of the signing between Watford and the Skates? Is it watertight that Watford won't get any money now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 Just wanted to know where you heard it... sorry, bad say. Radio Solent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 the latest scam and dodgy deal from pompey. they have sold williamson to newcastle on a free transfer, therefore there is no sell on fee due to watford what a bunch of thieving cheating c(nts That doesn't make sense - I think the sell-on was for 20%, so if they sold for £500k, they'd have to give Watford £100k, leaving themselves with £400k. £400k is still a hell of a lot more than nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 the latest scam and dodgy deal from pompey. they have sold williamson to newcastle on a free transfer, therefore there is no sell on fee due to watford what a bunch of thieving cheating c(nts what a surprise. It shows their desperation to offload wages. An assett that has cost 3m to let go for nothing within months is quite astounding. Watford will not be very pleased and I wonder if there is any clever lawyers who could look at that sale. I wonder if there is an angle where Watford could appeal as he had been sold for £1m the week before. Every dodge in the book.The tax man could see that as a tax avoidance as there should have been VAT levied on that sale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 What were the terms of the signing between Watford and the Skates? Is it watertight that Watford won't get any money now? One would guess it was slightly iffy as if it was water tight I would have thought some other clubs would have used it to avoid paying sell on clauses? Or maybe they have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 they have appealed against tax ruling Unless they have a point of law to argue against then an appeal won't be looked on in a good light. Abit like Rio Ferdinand appealing on possibly frivolous grounds and potentially getting a 4 match ban instead of 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 (edited) ................... Edited 27 January, 2010 by Matthew Le God duplicate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 So assuming they have appealed what sort of time line are we talking about.. days, weeks, months or years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Keith Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 That doesn't make sense - I think the sell-on was for 20%, so if they sold for £500k, they'd have to give Watford £100k, leaving themselves with £400k. £400k is still a hell of a lot more than nothing. there were all the sell on clauses as well, that would have bumped the figure by a million, and would automatically have been due of they sold him for a fee. the original fee was £2m, rising to £3m selling him for nothing these are now longer due. or at least, thats what they think, but you have to ask who's looked at the smallprint this time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 What were the terms of the signing between Watford and the Skates? Is it watertight that Watford won't get any money now? Isn't there some sort of tribunal that mediates in the event of a dispute over a player's value? If so, couldn't Watford appeal to such a tribunal if they are being denied that which is rightfully theirs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Keith Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 Isn't there some sort of tribunal that mediates in the event of a dispute over a player's value? If so, couldn't Watford appeal to such a tribunal if they are being denied that which is rightfully theirs? no, only for young players under 21's i think, and only for disputes between the selling club and the buying club, not a 3rd party, which watford are in this case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Keith Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 interesting that chester have been given 42 days to find the money from their winding up hearing with the hmrc today http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/chester/8483487.stm mind you, chester only owe them £26k, pompey owe £7.5M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 interesting that chester have been given 42 days to find the money from their winding up hearing with the hmrc today http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/chester/8483487.stm mind you, chester only owe them £26k, pompey owe £7.5M Not really...I think Poopy were given a simular amount of time before Christmas, they just failed to come with the agreed repayment scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Keith Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 Not really...I think Poopy were given a simular amount of time before Christmas, they just failed to come with the agreed repayment scheme. oh, i didnt realise that. in which case the 10 feb is final then, and they are totally screwed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chorlton Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 oh, i didnt realise that. in which case the 10 feb is final then, and they are totally screwed Unless they are taken over. Which is pretty likely to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulSaint Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 Unless they are taken over. Which is pretty likely to happen. Can the books be inspected & the PL's Fit & Proper test be done in this short timeframe though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 Can the books be inspected & the PL's Fit & Proper test be done in this short timeframe though? Well Notts County's due diligence is reportedly taking 28 days :smt102 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chorlton Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 Can the books be inspected & the PL's Fit & Proper test be done in this short timeframe though? I don't know, but if there is any sort of agreement in principle, then the potentail new owners may clear the HMRC debt if they lose the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 Unless they are taken over. Which is pretty likely to happen. Is it? Seems to me a takeover is only likely in the minds of Storrie and other delusional types. A cursory look at the numbers should be enough to put anyone off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 (edited) Can the books be inspected & the PL's Fit & Proper test be done in this short timeframe though? Will not take long if all the books have all been shreddied!! Edited 27 January, 2010 by pedg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 Has anyone come across confirmation that they have appealed the VAT ruling as nothing appearing online as far as I can see. Would have thought it would have been reported elsewhere than just on solent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 Just been announced that PFC are facing a second winding up petition. ON BBC South Today. Don't know any more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 I came across this. Not directly skate related but a very interesting read to see that sentiment is starting to turn. LBO's and owners with no real money. PL time to change your FAPP rules by one simple line. I think the media will continue to dig and dig at football finance now. No longer should you need proof of funds, but you should provide Proof the Funds are Yours. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7083750/Manchester-United-opens-window-on-murky-world-of-leveraged-buy-outs.html One note of caution from our side. We know Markus is investing in our club, but to date we have not seen any actual facts as to whether he is transferring cash or he is "providing funds". Technically the latter could be simply using his credit rating or security for loans. Not particularly worried about it, and nothing to make me think he has picked one version over the other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 Just been announced that PFC are facing a second winding up petition. ON BBC South Today. Don't know any more than that. Yes I heard that but it is strange that they didn`t say anymore about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Gabriel's Halo Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 Will not take long if all the books have all been shreddied!! Yeah, they had them for breakfast What a cereal this is turning into. Yes, I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 HMRC has really gone to town with the winding orders. How many clubs? Obviously ol Alistair Darling has discovered that the cupboard is more bare that originally thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_John Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 Has anyone come across confirmation that they have appealed the VAT ruling as nothing appearing online as far as I can see. Would have thought it would have been reported elsewhere than just on solent? I just heard that as well and about the SECOND winding up order on BBC South. (My thoughts) The original judgement was last Tuesday and I BELIEVE IT WAS recorded like this on the High Court web site as :- COURT 36 Before MR JUSTICE NEWEY Tuesday, 19 January 2010 At half past 10 FOR JUDGMENT GENERAL LIST GLC 4/10 Re: A Company Pt Hd (It was reported elsewhere that the judge was Justice Newey and he was going to give his judgement at 10:30 - ?? but why was it hidden as "A Company" ??) Now 7 days from last Tuesday means that they needed to get their Appeal in by Tuesday 26th. There was nothing reported yesterday about appealing only this report today from one source. ???? However the Cause List for tomorrow does have an "A Company" in Court 59 in front of MR JUSTICE BRIGGS, which may or maynot be it. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/cause.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 It's a bit of a coincidence that those two judges have the same Christian name.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 Meanwhile, hopefully the technical uploading skills of Eric & the world wide network of informers that DP has, we believe we may have finally come up with a worldwide scoop for the forum. Think we spotted and pictured the mysterious Ali Al Faraj out and about today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
$$$ Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 http://boards.footymad.net/forum.php?tno=424&fid=203&sty=2&act=1&mid=2123064069 the marquee has been closed for the last two games the electronic advertising hoardings were not working last night Rumour is that the blokes who operate the advertising boards weren't paid so withdrew their labour. Same with the marquee, PFC own it but the staff inside are contractors-again not paid. the generators that run the marquee were repossessed by bailiffs on the morning of the Sunderland game Quite why the embargo has been lifted is anyone’s guess. Roll on payday... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint lard Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 http://boards.footymad.net/forum.php?tno=424&fid=203&sty=2&act=1&mid=2123064069 Quite why the embargo has been lifted is anyone’s guess. Roll on payday... Also apparently the youth teams mini buses have been taken back by the leasing company and the catering company that supplys items withdrew equipment and their services until invoices have been paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_stevo Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 Williamson left on a free....so written off £3m there it seems.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamsaint Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 I came across this. Not directly skate related but a very interesting read to see that sentiment is starting to turn. LBO's and owners with no real money. PL time to change your FAPP rules by one simple line. I think the media will continue to dig and dig at football finance now. No longer should you need proof of funds, but you should provide Proof the Funds are Yours. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7083750/Manchester-United-opens-window-on-murky-world-of-leveraged-buy-outs.html One note of caution from our side. We know Markus is investing in our club, but to date we have not seen any actual facts as to whether he is transferring cash or he is "providing funds". Technically the latter could be simply using his credit rating or security for loans. Not particularly worried about it, and nothing to make me think he has picked one version over the other This is all very interesting. LBO's are a fact of business life. They are often just a way of releasing the value of an asset that you cannot really afford. I think the footy authorities are exceptionally unlikely to have the finanial expertise to actually keep such things out of the british game.I mean they can't even devise a financial structure that keeps well run clubs like Norwich an Charlton from all but going to the wall on relegation from the PL, so tangling with the big boys of the financial world isn't really an option. And I agree with your caution on ML. He is , I'm sure , the real deal. But Gaydamac looked, to a lot of people, like the real deal for a long time, whilst just using other peoples money to do whatever it was he was doing. (Building up the asset? money laundering?)OK Gaydamac comes from a (lets ge generous) pretty dodgy background, but the way he did what he did at poopey is still feasible elsewhere.Rich folks are pretty loathe to use their own cash when someone else's will do.Kinda makes you long for the simple days of guy askhams biscuit tin. (well not really) Anyway no doubt our fridge magnate will see us back to the promised land. And poopey can be the first football leveraged wind up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 It's a bit of a coincidence that those two judges have the same Christian name.. Well the Lord Chief Justice is called Justice Judge. Having been born Igor Judge, his future career path seems to have been pre-ordained ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 Well the Lord Chief Justice is called Justice Judge. Having been born Igor Judge, his future career path seems to have been pre-ordained ! He should have been a mad scientist's assistant, tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 He should have been a mad scientist's assistant, tbh. I wonder if, like the Igor's on Discworld, he has his uncle's eyes, ( and his brother's spleen, and his fathers left hand - but they can have them back if they need them ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 This is all very interesting. LBO's are a fact of business life. They are often just a way of releasing the value of an asset that you cannot really afford. I think the footy authorities are exceptionally unlikely to have the finanial expertise to actually keep such things out of the british game.I mean they can't even devise a financial structure that keeps well run clubs like Norwich an Charlton from all but going to the wall on relegation from the PL, so tangling with the big boys of the financial world isn't really an option. And I agree with your caution on ML. He is , I'm sure , the real deal. But Gaydamac looked, to a lot of people, like the real deal for a long time, whilst just using other peoples money to do whatever it was he was doing. (Building up the asset? money laundering?)OK Gaydamac comes from a (lets ge generous) pretty dodgy background, but the way he did what he did at poopey is still feasible elsewhere.Rich folks are pretty loathe to use their own cash when someone else's will do.Kinda makes you long for the simple days of guy askhams biscuit tin. (well not really) Anyway no doubt our fridge magnate will see us back to the promised land. And poopey can be the first football leveraged wind up. In our favour, though with ML are the (I hope I remembered it correctly) fact that his business reputation was built on never having borrowed money and also that despite a reasonable outlay recently we are not living wildly beyond our means, so the business is viable in its own right, which is very different to being someone's plaything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 In our favour, though with ML are the (I hope I remembered it correctly) fact that his business reputation was built on never having borrowed money and also that despite a reasonable outlay recently we are not living wildly beyond our means, so the business is viable in its own right, which is very different to being someone's plaything Having no overdraft charges or mortgage payments certainly changes the way the current account balances up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 Williamson left on a free....so written off £3m there it seems.. actually he's gone on loan till the end of the season with a loan fee involved. The loan will turn into a transfer in the summer with an aditional fee paid. How this effects what Watford get as their own transfer fee is unclear. Hopefully the bastards haven't found some way of screwing Watford over, but the fact te £950,000 move collapsed and then has morphed into this loan suggests they will certainly delay any payments and maybe even reduced them. I'm sure we will hear from Watford fans if they have found a loop hole. Strange old transfer in the first place with no money up front and then large sums down the line, no wonder he never played, if they did play him you can bet your bottom dollar a fee would have to have been paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 27 January, 2010 Share Posted 27 January, 2010 (edited) Edit Edited 27 January, 2010 by Colinjb Wrong forum, blame the beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 28 January, 2010 Share Posted 28 January, 2010 If he's gone on a free, that would surely cause them more trouble. AFAIK it in unlawful to dispose of any assets at less than market value after the winding-up petition was issued (to prevent asset-stripping before winding up an empty shell). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravesend Saint Posted 28 January, 2010 Share Posted 28 January, 2010 HMRC has really gone to town with the winding orders. How many clubs? Obviously ol Alistair Darling has discovered that the cupboard is more bare that originally thought. So THAT'S how he plans to cut the deficit in public funds! It all makes sense now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 28 January, 2010 Share Posted 28 January, 2010 Its all a bit odd at the moment isn't it. A radio report that they have appealled again the VAT ruling but then no confirmation anywhere else. A TV report that they have been hit with a second winding up order and again no confirmation elsewhere. Both are news worthy enough stories relating to a premiership (at the moment anyway) club that you would think that someone is the print/online media outlet would have run the story(s) but not a whisper on either. On top of that the 'new's coming out of FP that they have allegedly one group interested in buying them has not set the media alight. So far really one claim about gadaffi followed by a club denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 28 January, 2010 Share Posted 28 January, 2010 If he's gone on a free, that would surely cause them more trouble. AFAIK it in unlawful to dispose of any assets at less than market value after the winding-up petition was issued (to prevent asset-stripping before winding up an empty shell). They have been quite cunning here. They still own the asset. They have got some cash in and got rid of the wage bill. Plus if the loan becomes permanent in the summer, then something will have turned up by then or if they go bust, they won't care about any sell on clauses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts