Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga


Fitzhugh Fella

Recommended Posts

And unfortunately for one person, someone to pay their debts

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/31/portsmouth-fan-told-pay-club-debts

 

I hope the Skates do not try to use this to confuse the Judge on Feb 10th.

 

"e.g. This bill / form was not sent to company 03747237 (City Football Club Ltd)

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/da708cec55a055867a1b317fa2d44468/compdetails

 

We can only think it must have been sent to company 06567232 (Football Club Ltd)

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/342391a8a7b399c35f3dc730db08d6fa/compdetails

 

or the DISSOLVED company 05763080 (...F.C Ltd)

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/b1cef7377129ea9419d2c2e6e251febf/compdetails

 

I would hate for them to escape on a technical issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been away since saturday morning and don't have time to trawl through the seemingly hundreds of new posts since I was last online.

 

Can anyone summarise the weekends goings-on for me?

 

They are hanging on by the skin of their teeth but only because

the PL and FA don`t have the balls to do right thing and admit they

are insolvent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Storrie says: "Now we've sold Kaboul, this is no longer an issue."

 

Been reading the figures :) So they couldnt pay the staff on Friday which means no money in the bank. They sell Kaboul for £6.5m, so the reported £3m wages takes that down too £3.5m

 

£2.7m to other clubs means they have £800k in the bank which isnt gonna help them!!!!

 

I would love to know how they can't can't pay their staff on time and owe money left right and centre and yet they can afford to fly to Manchester and overnight at a five star hotel?

Again, how can the authorities allow them to carry like this? They are blatantly taking the ****....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to know how they can't can't pay their staff on time and owe money left right and centre and yet they can afford to fly to Manchester and overnight at a five star hotel?

Again, how can the authorities allow them to carry like this? They are blatantly taking the ****....

 

It's an absolute **** take, I agree. Their staff at 'working class' level must be bloody ****ed off. If I were Storrie, I'd be paying them all myself.

 

Irrespective of that, since the enbargo was laughably lifted (probably assurances but no real evidence from Storrie and co that they have money coming in) they sign two loan players probably on £20,000 per week.

 

Disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an absolute **** take, I agree. Their staff at 'working class' level must be bloody ****ed off. If I were Storrie, I'd be paying them all myself.

 

Irrespective of that, since the enbargo was laughably lifted (probably assurances but no real evidence from Storrie and co that they have money coming in) they sign two loan players probably on £20,000 per week.

 

Disgusting.

 

LOL.

 

I can't see why people get so worked up over this.

 

It's quite simple, either they have the £7m to pay HMRC on the 10th of Feb or they don't. If they do, then fair play to them for raising the funds and not trading illegally, and if not, then they will cease to exist :D

 

On another note, does anyone remember the dates of Peter - I live overseas on Hayling Island - Storrie, and Twitchy's court dates??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL.

 

I can't see why people get so worked up over this.

 

It's quite simple, either they have the £7m to pay HMRC on the 10th of Feb or they don't. If they do, then fair play to them for raising the funds and not trading illegally, and if not, then they will cease to exist :D

 

On another note, does anyone remember the dates of Peter - I live overseas on Hayling Island - Storrie, and Twitchy's court dates??

 

For me it's because I think its a bloody disgrace clubs like Luton, Rotherham and even Bournemouth were severely punished for being half in the sh1te compared to the Skates.

Bournemouth never failed to pay players or staff yet are still unable to sign anyone - only relaxed last week to allow 1 player in as emergency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it's because I think its a bloody disgrace clubs like Luton, Rotherham and even Bournemouth were severely punished for being half in the sh1te compared to the Skates.

Bournemouth never failed to pay players or staff yet are still unable to sign anyone - only relaxed last week to allow 1 player in as emergency.

 

This what I have said all along, it is because the Premier League is a brand and they want to protect it self. If Pompey were in the FL they would have been ****ed over by now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stoke have bid 3m for Begovic so thats more money in the coffers....they will get out of this and wriggle away scot free.

 

I can't believe it would be 3M up front as he can't kick a ball for Stoke until next season. I thought Stoke needed a GK for the rest of this season. Perhaps the deal is to loan Bergovic back to Poopey with James going the other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe it would be 3M up front as he can't kick a ball for Stoke until next season. I thought Stoke needed a GK for the rest of this season. Perhaps the deal is to loan Bergovic back to Poopey with James going the other way.

 

They were trying to get it overturned as he only played a couple of games for Ipswich on an 'emergency' loan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if Portsmouth survive this season and are relegated, it looks a possibilty that they may not be allowed to play in the FL either.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/31/premier-league-debts-panel

 

Portsmouth have really exposed the failures of the system, and almost regardless of what happens to them now it just shows that the Premier League's fit-and-proper-person test does not work. Even if Portsmouth survive until the end of the season, if they are in anything like the current financial state, it will be very hard for the Football League to accept them or a team facing those kinds of problems.

 

The football authorities – whether it's the FA or the Premier League – have either got to demonstrate palpably that the FAPPT can work (and it palpably hasn't) or they have to set up a genuinely effective test of ownership, almost certainly in collaboration with the Football League.

 

That should then be implemented rigorously, by a third party – an objective, external panel, probably involving a lawyer, somebody who knows the game, and another party. As it is, the FAPPT is discredited and the Premier League is becoming a source of ridicule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe it would be 3M up front as he can't kick a ball for Stoke until next season. I thought Stoke needed a GK for the rest of this season. Perhaps the deal is to loan Bergovic back to Poopey with James going the other way.

 

Bergovic will be allowed to play for Stoke.

 

Loans don't count. Neal Trotman for example played a couple of games for PNE and was loaned to us. He has now been loaned to Huddersfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though we all expect more sales I wonder if they will bother as with their main assets gone there is little left they can sell and still field a team (there is a limit I believe on loans and not that many free's around unlike end of season when players are released). If they are hoping for some white knight to step in then selling more players may buy then a very short period of extra time to find him but any player sale income now is not going to make a dent in the money needed for the HMRC and gady and not having a decent team at the end of the transfer window is not going to make them attractive to a buyer who could then do little to help them avoid relegation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they don't bring in money tomorrow they really are f*cked.

 

The really telling thing, IMHO, is the lack of appeal regarding the HMRC case.

 

You can imagine the conversation...

 

"PFC" Can you put in an appeal for us on the VAT case please.

 

"Lawyer" But you don't have much of a case, given client confidentiality can you explain more?

 

"PFC" Okay, actually we are dead broke and can't pay any of our bills till we find someone stupid enough to buy the club

 

"Lawyer" Would that include paying Lawyers fee's?

 

"PFC" Yes

 

"Lawyer" Um, I get back to you later shall I

Edited by pedg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were given leave to appeal as the presiding judge deemed the decision "difficult" and the skates, or at least Jacobs, were adamant that they would be appealing.

 

They didn't.

 

I wonder if the judge used "difficult" in terms of doing something he knew to be correct but would condemn the club which he did not want to do (like having an old faithful dog put to sleep because it was suffering sort of difficult decision) rather than a difficult point of law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the judge used "difficult" in terms of doing something he knew to be correct but would condemn the club which he did not want to do (like having an old faithful dog put to sleep because it was suffering sort of difficult decision) rather than a difficult point of law?

 

I don't think judges take emotion into account when judging. I think it's more likely to be an interpretation of the law that's proving difficult.

 

Or - as someone said earlier - the judge is waiting for an appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think judges take emotion into account when judging. I think it's more likely to be an interpretation of the law that's proving difficult.

 

Or - as someone said earlier - the judge is waiting for an appeal.

 

Possibly but its interesting they just chose to take the one word out of his judgement (that I assume has not been released) and base their idea of appealing on that? no clarification of what area he thought was difficult or what there argument against it was. You wonder if its like when a critic says "I wanted it to be brilliant but it was crap" and they just put "brilliant" on the poster.

 

anyway the bottom line is there is no documented evidence they have appealed and with extra names on the winding up order who want their money and are not subject to the appeal as they are more clear cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5pm Monday 1st February is what is always quoted. It's because of the Bank Holiday on the 1st January, I suppose.

 

I guess the question is, given he is not likely to get his money, is the only recourse open to him to add his name to the winding up order? I believe he could attempt to put them into administration?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly but its interesting they just chose to take the one word out of his judgement (that I assume has not been released) and base their idea of appealing on that? no clarification of what area he thought was difficult or what there argument against it was. You wonder if its like when a critic says "I wanted it to be brilliant but it was crap" and they just put "brilliant" on the poster.

 

anyway the bottom line is there is no documented evidence they have appealed and with extra names on the winding up order who want their money and are not subject to the appeal as they are more clear cut.

 

Is the Winding up petition heard in court as a whole, or on a creditor by creditor basis that have joined the petition?

 

How does this work and what happens on the hearing date on Feb 10th with the additional creditors joining?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...