Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

ottery st mary

ottery st mary

Posted
Posted
you have to think that HMRC are looking at the big legal picture regarding Redknapp, Mandaric, Storrie, Azougy etc...

They must have several investigative teams liasing and sharing info around the winding up and the rest of it, the current delve into the books should assist all ongoing cases.

 

If this is the tip of a dodgy iceberg I suggest we will need to launch a new thread.

To try and cover a further year of investigation into Pompey's illegal trading and tax evasion on here could break the internet itself.

 

Anyway, have we now established that they traded their entire history for a 1-0 win over a bankrupt mid-table championship side?

 

Before it all comes a tumble:rolleyes:

 

Just a small thank you to fellow posters...

 

 

Including this statement and many others on here..I would personally like to thank you all for a very informative thread....Keep up the good work :)

 

I believe the HMRC and all other associated investigation squads have also

taken great delight in following and taking various pieces of info from this forum:smt052

 

The old saying.....You can run but you can not hide forever.....;)

 

The bad boyzz

are now being marked on the calendar..

 

COYRs

Link to comment
Share on other sites
View From The Top

View From The Top

Posted
Posted
The stadium is security against a loan that he gave to the club. The club defaulted on repayments to him which invoked a clause in the loan agreement that means that he takes ownership of the club. Then follows the 'fit and proper person' test before the PL allow him to own it, if I understand it all correctly.

 

What I can't work out is if he is currently the owner, and then legally in the poo if it's proved that they are trading illegally, or isn't the owner as he has yet to be sanctioned by the EPL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goalie66

Goalie66

Posted
Posted
What I can't work out is if he is currently the owner, and then legally in the poo if it's proved that they are trading illegally, or isn't the owner as he has yet to be sanctioned by the EPL!

 

Owners (shareholders) are not liable for the running of a company. Directors are. Mind you shareholders appoint Directors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted (edited)
£5 on 'sorry, your High Judgemental Supremacy, but my dog ate it' by 16:03 on 17th from Storrie

 

Bit of a coincidence if his dog ate both the copy at fratton park and the one at PL HQ?

 

But given what's happened so far probably completely believable!

Edited by pedg
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
The stadium is security against a loan that he gave to the club. The club defaulted on repayments to him which invoked a clause in the loan agreement that means that he takes ownership of the club. Then follows the 'fit and proper person' test before the PL allow him to own it, if I understand it all correctly.

Not sure I agree entirely. We don't know what the loan agreement says. We have seen reports about the charge which was registered in January, and it doesn't say that.

 

It has been reported that, as part of the loan agreement (or other deal?), Chainrai held Al-Mirage's shares in a safe somewhere, together with a signed but undated share transfer.

 

Chainrai has been reported (in the South China Morning Post?) as having said that he is not the owner of the club. He said he has placed the shares in trust, and appointed two trustees. He himself is not one of those trustees.

 

In my eyes, that doesn't make him the owner, but it does give him an inside track at the moment.

 

The PL have made comments about him being interviewed, and put through the new tougher FAPPT, but I've seen nothing from Chainrai on this. I do, though, expect that he would pass it if he had to and wanted to. I doubt if he will take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
More story telling: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=740052&sec=england&cc=5739

 

Storrie told Soccernet: "The Revenue want £4.7m for the last two months PAYE. We have told them that we would willingly pay them that right now, but they are refusing, unless we also pay them the £7m plus VAT.

 

Right, you would pay the 4.7M at the drop of a hat but could only come up with 1.8M when trying to negotiate with HMRC?

You have to take what Storrie says, or doesn't say, with a very large pinch of salt.

 

What Storrie meant to say, but couldn't, was:

 

"We have told them that we would willingly pay them that right now, but they are refusing to withdraw the petition, unless we also pay them the £7m plus VAT."

 

Make more sense now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
Not sure I agree entirely. We don't know what the loan agreement says. We have seen reports about the charge which was registered in January, and it doesn't say that.

 

It has been reported that, as part of the loan agreement (or other deal?), Chainrai held Al-Mirage's shares in a safe somewhere, together with a signed but undated share transfer.

 

Chainrai has been reported (in the South China Morning Post?) as having said that he is not the owner of the club. He said he has placed the shares in trust, and appointed two trustees. He himself is not one of those trustees.

 

In my eyes, that doesn't make him the owner, but it does give him an inside track at the moment.

 

The PL have made comments about him being interviewed, and put through the new tougher FAPPT, but I've seen nothing from Chainrai on this. I do, though, expect that he would pass it if he had to and wanted to. I doubt if he will take it.

I was just reporting what I had read in the papers, but I expect that they know less than us. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted

Agreed. It's quite interesting just how much the papers and news media get wrong in this issue.

 

Editor: Hey, seems something fishy's going on down at Portsmouth. See what you can dig up.

 

Journo: Right, boss.

 

ring ring

 

"Hello, Peter Storrie speaking"

 

"Hi Pete mate, can you fill me in on what's going on down at Pompey"

 

"Sure, ............."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
That's not true. The first mention of Vantis in the hearing was by PFC's QC who informed the court that Vantis had been appointed to carry out full analysis and report on PFCs financial situation. He also claimed that this would take 3 weeks.

 

Vantis were not appointed by the judge.

 

what's to stop the appointed company producing a biased or even false document if they are not neccessarily independant? I'm not saying Vantis would, I just wondered why the accused so to speak gets to pick the accountant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
what's to stop the appointed company producing a biased or even false document if they are not neccessarily independant? I'm not saying Vantis would, I just wondered why the accused so to speak gets to pick the accountant?

That's why HMRC get it for 2 days before they go back to Court. I'm sure they've seen a few before. They'll know what to look out for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gingeletiss

Gingeletiss

Posted
Posted

From a Poopey fan, almost funny;);)......

 

According to the Cork Observer

 

'we can today reveal the true identity of the potential new owners of Portsmouth Football Club . A spokesperson for the O'Naire family has confirmed that Billy O'Naire and his siblings Trilli and Milly are currently in talks with the English Premier League Club , included in these talks there is two American business men , though not named , are rumoured to be Richard Lyst , Rich to close friends and Russian born Ivor Loadakash .

 

The spokesperson when asked would the O'Naires have any problems passing the Premier Leagues Fit and Proper Test , replied with ' no problems ,Billy is Proper Irish and his two daughters are well fit '

Billy O'Naire is a very avid follower of football and was over heard this weekend commenting on this weekends cup match that even if Portsmouth were to lose , with his guidance and wealth he can see Portsmouth having many years of success in the Gaellic Cup .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gingeletiss

Gingeletiss

Posted
Posted
what's to stop the appointed company producing a biased or even false document if they are not neccessarily independant? I'm not saying Vantis would, I just wondered why the accused so to speak gets to pick the accountant?

 

More than their reputation is worth, if found to have done so, they would be finished!!!!....IMHO of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bucks Saint

Bucks Saint

Posted
Posted
what's to stop the appointed company producing a biased or even false document if they are not neccessarily independant? I'm not saying Vantis would, I just wondered why the accused so to speak gets to pick the accountant?

 

Because pfc are instructing them, and giving them access to the books etc, and paying them (hopefully!) they get to pick

 

They (Vantis, or whoever) would never work again if they producing something deliberately inaccurate - the loss of reputation and future revenue would far outweigh whatever pfc are paying them

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SW5 SAINT

SW5 SAINT

Posted
Posted
Without being funny, do you honestly think that Gaydamak Jnr/Snr/Fahim/Farj/Chainrai care one jot about where the team will be playing next year? I doubt they do, they might well want to pull this kind of deal off (after all Chainrai is still only a creditor at the moment until FAPPT so coul call in admin) and buy the club back in yet another company backed by a Gaydamak stooge. Then they can flog it for a cut price.

 

The clean money, no matter how small, is better than stacks of dirty money.

 

Exactly, in the same way that RL did not care where Saints would have playing next season( so the date he put us into admin was of no consequence to him) after we went into admin. These directors (investors - much abused word) are only interested in their investment, absolutely nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Barfy

Barfy

Posted
Posted
That's why HMRC get it for 2 days before they go back to Court. I'm sure they've seen a few before. They'll know what to look out for.

 

I'd also hazard a guess that any accountancy firm worth it's salt would not be interested in risking it's future merely to help pompey stay in business.

 

After all if they produce a biased report now, and pompey subsequently go pop, then if the accountants are found to be complicit in lying to the court they will at the absolute minimum lose their FSA licence, but more likely face criminal charges (perjury??).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doctoroncall

Doctoroncall

Posted
Posted
One way Pompey might try to avoid a painful death is to reschedule their debt according to a debt expert on South Today.

 

He basically said that whilst the shear amount of debt would put most investors off buying Pompey, if the creditors to Pompey (Gaydamak, Chainrai, et al) agree to structure the debt and repayment schedules in a very attractive way, it might be more encouraging to an investor.

 

For example they might accept very long repayment schedules or perhaps structuring the amount based on the division Pompey eventually free-falls into, effectively sharing the risk with the potential new owner.

 

If you were a creditor then you might accept these otherwise unacceptable terms on the basis that in 9 days time you might get 'k all.

 

Not sure it'll change anything much but perhaps we should stop thinking about £60M+ and instead consider that it could be something more manageable.

 

Just catching up on the posts and this caught the eye. It certainly sounds a good plan but do you think it's doable to arrange all this in seven days with all the creditors involved? Doesn't HMRC want payment in full now?

 

They have to produce a statement of affairs in that time and I would LOVE to know how different it is to the one they gave the PL a month ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crab Lungs

Crab Lungs

Posted
Posted

They have to produce a statement of affairs in that time and I would LOVE to know how different it is to the one they gave the PL a month ago.

 

Awesome point... The PL have a lot of questions to answer themselves for lifting the embargo... ****ers, its a disgrace, really. Another bent organisation intent on feathering their own nest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Channon's Sideburns

Channon's Sideburns

Posted
Posted
Awesome point... The PL have a lot of questions to answer themselves for lifting the embargo... ****ers, its a disgrace, really. Another bent organisation intent on feathering their own nest.

 

Having said that though CL, it does seem from the report posted by Skates who went to the PL, that they have been on the case concerning the ownership links between all of parties, convicted fraudster et al...

 

It could be that the Premier League are another institution that stick the knife in to finish them off - in conjunction with the FA as per the earlier posts.

 

If the FA went in and claimed financial irregularities, then we could have another Swindon on the go, EVEN if they find a blind, deaf, mute, dumb billionaire investor. In less than a week. Who wants to deal with Storrie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
I'd also hazard a guess that any accountancy firm worth it's salt would not be interested in risking it's future merely to help pompey stay in business.

 

After all if they produce a biased report now, and pompey subsequently go pop, then if the accountants are found to be complicit in lying to the court they will at the absolute minimum lose their FSA licence, but more likely face criminal charges (perjury??).

I've spent too many years now working with "Johnny Foreigner". Maybe I'm too much of a sceptic. But Vantis can only report on what they're shown and what they're told.

 

If the report doesn't fit the facts as they see them, I expect HMRC to let the dogs out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eastcowzer

Eastcowzer

Posted
Posted
interesting note in the fa rules re a club that goes into liquidation - 'their results would be declared void'.

Not just league results.

 

So if we win, great, if they win and then lose it court - result scrubbed from the records.

 

 

And does this all mean that Maradona isn't coming anymore?

 

That being the case, then even if we lose, we should therefore be re-instated as per a case where a team plays an ineligible player and is subsequently banned.though that will probably throw the FA Cup programme into chaos so they will take the easy way out and maintain the status quo

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted (edited)
The comparison between the numbers prepared by Pompey and shown to the PL and those prepared by Vantis and shown to HMRC will be interesting, to say the least.

 

:D

 

Glad someone else has spotted this rather than keeping asking the endless repeats of the question of "yeah but what does it mean"

 

IMHO the next sweepstake will be based around what date the Police raids start

 

Now where did we put that nice snippet about Mr Richards? at the PL recommending one of their owners this year who (according to the opinion of the court) has apparently allowed his operation to trade illegally all season?

 

Oh no look at that = a link between the PL and rule breaking.

 

Just shows, when your toilet bowl starts backing up, it is best to call in a plumber straight away, not to go and tell the world how you will be holding the World Cup before travelling around the world looking for investors.

 

Oh how did that work out PS BTW?

You spent all that company money on that lovely round the world trip to meet the investors you took to Court last week... Oh no didn't they get their visas in time?

 

So what does that all mean then nothing? surely not - Oh I know - it's ok, you flew to Aus for a holiday using the cash you owed St John's Ambulance, no surely THAT couldn't have happened, obviously all nasty allegations and not worth commenting on, simply different account codes in the ledgers?

 

Well done, jolly good show I bet the luvvies in London think you're a star, let's do lunch some time, I can explain how to get money out of Arabs for the next club you screw over, no, sorry that isn't the right description, the next club you or Risdale work for

Edited by dubai_phil
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
Because pfc are instructing them, and giving them access to the books etc, and paying them (hopefully!) they get to pick

 

They (Vantis, or whoever) would never work again if they producing something deliberately inaccurate - the loss of reputation and future revenue would far outweigh whatever pfc are paying them

 

Well, let's hope they are being paid up front - who would take on any work for PFC at the moment without being paid in full in advance?

 

Either that, or let's hope HMRC / The Courts are guaranteeing their payment for when the inevitable bell tolls....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintbletch

saintbletch

Posted
Posted
As a recently retired HMRC employee, I can assure everyone that the main reason HMRC want the club wound up is to draw a line in the sand over any future losses of VAT, PAYE and NI. They have basically given up on recovering existing amounts, although they may well be hoping to retrieve a small part via the creditor route. They are merely mitigating future losses.

 

Interesting to hear the likely motivation spelled out. Many have speculated about setting an example, that HMRC has had enough of football or even vengeance.

 

Mitigating future losses makes the most sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pancake

Pancake

Posted
Posted
So fookin' Strachan's best friends now are Poopey fans. Bet he's been entertaining the w an k er W ******d behind our backs. What a traitor he's become. Not only to Celtic fans but to us Saints.

 

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/10/02/11/SOCCER_Portsmouth_Strachan.html

 

He is a "traitor" for having Portsmouth fans as mates? I would wager a good portion of posters on here have Skate mates Art...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joensuu

Joensuu

Posted
Posted
So fookin' Strachan's best friends now are Poopey fans. Bet he's been entertaining the w an k er W ******d behind our backs. What a traitor he's become. Not only to Celtic fans but to us Saints.

 

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/10/02/11/SOCCER_Portsmouth_Strachan.html

 

Perhaps he means it in a condecending liberal middle class way, you know:

 

'One of my best friends has... I can barely bring myself to say it, but one of my best friends has the misfortune of being a skate'

'Oh how frightfully shocking, how ever do you cope? Do they wash themselves? Well I suppose we all need to do our bit for charity
'

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joensuu

Joensuu

Posted
Posted
Could someone correct me if I'm wrong but is the only way admin would be a possibility now would be for a secured creditor to place them into admin but as it stands now the current "owner" is still a major creditor and therefore he could still place them into administration?

 

Mostly, yeah. Only a secured creditor, or the court itself, can now put pompey into admin.

 

Who knows whether Chainrai is now legally the owner, or still a secured creditor? I guess by this time next week HMRC will know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Keith

Saint Keith

Posted
Posted
Presumably these two gents would be happy to restructure their debts rather than get nothing much from a wind up or admin.

 

not so sure about that, i think liquidation suits them better. what they are owed is all tied up in the land they own, therefore its in their financial interest for their to be no football club, so they can develop the land

 

if they go into admin and restructure the debts, they either have to wait a very long time for their money, or get less than they are due. or both. if the go into liquidation the development can start quite quickly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joensuu

Joensuu

Posted
Posted (edited)

45% of the gate money works out to about £400K before any matchday expenses or tax are taken out.

 

I hope Cortese is paying the police very well for this game...

 

 

Ooh, didn't notice at the time, but 13,000!

Edited by Joensuu
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goalie66

Goalie66

Posted
Posted
Could someone correct me if I'm wrong but is the only way admin would be a possibility now would be for a secured creditor to place them into admin but as it stands now the current "owner" is still a major creditor and therefore he could still place them into administration?

 

Yes he could. Invest £17million, convert that loan to shares put them into admin and be bottom of the pile on any scraps coming out of admin. Good idea !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
45% of the gate money works out to about £400K before any matchday expenses or tax are taken out.

 

I hope Cortese is paying the police very well for this game...

 

Plus they have already effectivly been given a portion of the gate money from the tickets they were given which they have almost certainly already spent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
View From The Top

View From The Top

Posted
Posted
Ironically..the game at home to us has probably helped them in way

 

SSN just said they will pick up around £500k from the game (their share) and the winners getting another £188k..which im sure they will think they are favourites..

 

They won't get £500k, no where near.

 

They get 40% AFTER matchday expenses and you can imagine the OB bill for Saturday.

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