Pompey Takeover Saga

[dubai_phil]

Waking up time.

 

That feeling of anticipation, an uncertainty at what the day ahead holds, but an assuredness that

 

 

It isn't Christmas Day, but it feels that way and some how you just know that during the day

 

 

And just somehow you wonder if it really will be

 

[Saint Paul C]

Waking up time.

 

That feeling of anticipation, an uncertainty at what the day ahead holds, but an assuredness that

 

 

It isn't Christmas Day, but it feels that way and some how you just know that during the day

 

 

And just somehow you wonder if it really will be

 

 

More like this?

 

 

[ST Randy]

Do you think its presumptuous to buy a nice cigar and some brandy?

 

Buy a box of cigars and a case of brandy. This show is going to run and run. Sit back and enjoy it!!

[dubai_phil]

More like this?

 

 

 

Was that Marvin the paranoid Android in there or was it Storrie Tellers new "anti-money waving" personal body armour suit?

[Dr Octopus]

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Sick-joke-as-potless-Portsmouth-offer-fans-financial-advice-article341255.html

[Saint Paul C]

Was that Marvin the paranoid Android in there or was it Storrie Tellers new "anti-money waving" personal body armour suit?

 

Very funny...

 

Cheers for that.

[hutch]

I've reflected on yesterday afternoon's development overnight, and arrived at the following conclusion.

 

The real issue, IMHO, is what is different about this particular football club going into administration, when compared with all the others, that has caused HMRC to take this stand. It's certainly reasonably common for clubs to go into admin, and after previous judgements their position is pretty clear, they're shafted, and they take the hit and move on.

 

It's not because it's a PL club and the numbers are bigger. The law is the law, whether it's £100 or £10m at stake. And it's not because it's Pompey, although IMO that would certainly be a good enough reason. Something is different. What?

 

I doubt that their attention is focussed on Baloo (or Portpin). From what I've seen he is a competent businessman and is looking after his interests pretty well. Despite what is posted by others here, I personally doubt that having a person (or other legal entity or Company) who is:

 

a) A majority shareholder, and

b) A secured creditor, and

c) An unsecured creditor

 

of a failed bankrupt business is unique. I accept that we don't know for definate that he is all, or any, of the above. But just say for argument he is.

 

I believe that what is DIFFERENT here is the appointment of Android and his 2 colleagues as administrators, and that is what is under scrutiny.

 

It was reported to be "unusual" when Vantis didn't have their initial appointment extended to become administrators. Hell, I understand that eyebrows were even raised. Maybe there are adverse comments in the SoA about the prospects for creditors if the Company were to go into admin, but we don't know that.

 

What I think is the most unusual part, in my experience, is that Baloo is apparently underwriting the administrator's costs. Would administration have been an option if he hadn't agreed to do that? If not, they would have been wound up by now, as HMRC intended.

 

So, is it lawful for a creditor and/or shareholder to take this step if it only enhances his own position to the detriment of the general body of creditors?

 

It was reported that it is the "debenture" which will be questioned in Court. I'm not sure what that is, but understand it to be the mandate under which the administrators were "appointed". Somebody will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I think the pertinent questions which are being asked are:

 

1. Is Baloo entitled to underwrite the administrator's costs, and

 

2. In the absence of that undertaking, would Android have been in a position to accept the appointment and proceed with the administration?

 

 

Just a theory, of course, and there are too many unanswered questions in this case to read the situation with any degree of certainty.

[ericofarabia]

A dedication from HMRC to PCFC

 

 

A few hints on how to find the money .....

 

 

[CB Saint]

For those who wonder about the case of Wimbledon Football Club:

 

can “super-priority” creditors be paid ahead of preferential creditors?

 

The Football League Limited (the “League”) As the holder of one share (the “Share”) in the League and accordingly a member of the League, Wimbledon Football Club (“Wimbledon”) was bound by its rules.

 

Wimbledon was in administration and wanted to exit administration via a company voluntary arrangement. However, under the rules of the League, the administrators could only sell Wimbledon’s undertaking and the Share at an advantageous price if the purchaser paid specified non-preferential (“super-priority”) creditors in full.

 

The arrangement

 

The proposal (which was approved by the creditors) was that a purchaser agreed to buy Wimbledon’s undertaking and assets (including the Share) and assume its obligation to pay the “super-priority” creditors in full. The proceeds of the sale would be used to pay preferential creditors 30p in every £1. The Inland Revenue (a preferential creditor of Wimbledon, as this was a pre-Enterprise Act case) opposed the voluntary arrangement.

 

The result

 

The High Court held that it was possible for a third party to pay certain non-preferential creditors ahead of preferential creditors out of its own “free” money. The particular arrangement did not infringe s4(4) Insolvency Act 1986, which provides that any proposal under which “any preferential debt of the company is to be paid otherwise in priority to such of its debts as are not preferential debts” shall not be approved by the creditors, because the payment came out of the purchaser’s own pocket and did not reduce the assets available to the creditors. The court further remarked that it does not matter that the payment was made “on behalf of” or “at the instance of” or “for the benefit of'' Wimbledon.

 

Scope to evade preferential claims?

 

The judge made it perfectly clear that the ruling does not give any scope for evading the principle that preferential creditors rank in priority to the general body of unsecured creditors and that nothing in the judgment can or should be taken as encouragement for an arrangement to defeat preferential claims.

 

…it is possible for a third party to pay certain non-preferential creditors ahead of

preferential creditors out of its own “free” money…

 

1 Inland Revenue Commissioners v (1) The Wimbledon Football Club Ltd (2) Martin Gilbert Ellis and (3) James Earp [2004]

 

Thanks Weston

 

I get the football creditor now. The rules of insolvancy haven't changed, the football creditor doesn't rank above the secured and preferred creditors. After the administration is complete i.e. there is nothing left in the pot and the new purchaser has bought the assets, the new purchaser goes to the league to "buy" the golden share, which just so happens to cost as much as the outstanding football creditors of the club.

 

All perfectly legal and morally reprehensible.

 

And I have just realised that if PCFC manages to shaft HMRC completely then I as a taxpayer have just lost 50p.:mad:

[Goalie66]

I've reflected on yesterday afternoon's development overnight, and arrived at the following conclusion.

 

The real issue, IMHO, is what is different about this particular football club going into administration, when compared with all the others, that has caused HMRC to take this stand. It's certainly reasonably common for clubs to go into admin, and after previous judgements their position is pretty clear, they're shafted, and they take the hit and move on.

 

It's not because it's a PL club and the numbers are bigger. The law is the law, whether it's £100 or £10m at stake. And it's not because it's Pompey, although IMO that would certainly be a good enough reason. Something is different. What?

 

I doubt that their attention is focussed on Baloo (or Portpin). From what I've seen he is a competent businessman and is looking after his interests pretty well. Despite what is posted by others here, I personally doubt that having a person (or other legal entity or Company) who is:

 

a) A majority shareholder, and

b) A secured creditor, and

c) An unsecured creditor

 

of a failed bankrupt business is unique. I accept that we don't know for definate that he is all, or any, of the above. But just say for argument he is.

 

I believe that what is DIFFERENT here is the appointment of Android and his 2 colleagues as administrators, and that is what is under scrutiny.

 

It was reported to be "unusual" when Vantis didn't have their initial appointment extended to become administrators. Hell, I understand that eyebrows were even raised. Maybe there are adverse comments in the SoA about the prospects for creditors if the Company were to go into admin, but we don't know that.

 

What I think is the most unusual part, in my experience, is that Baloo is apparently underwriting the administrator's costs. Would administration have been an option if he hadn't agreed to do that? If not, they would have been wound up by now, as HMRC intended.

 

So, is it lawful for a creditor and/or shareholder to take this step if it only enhances his own position to the detriment of the general body of creditors?

 

It was reported that it is the "debenture" which will be questioned in Court. I'm not sure what that is, but understand it to be the mandate under which the administrators were "appointed". Somebody will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I think the pertinent questions which are being asked are:

 

1. Is Baloo entitled to underwrite the administrator's costs, and

 

2. In the absence of that undertaking, would Android have been in a position to accept the appointment and proceed with the administration?

 

 

Just a theory, of course, and there are too many unanswered questions in this case to read the situation with any degree of certainty.

 

Some very good points but I still feel as I have said eleswhere in this massive thread along with the likes of Guided Missile, that I do not see how Chanrai can be Owner and Prefferred Creditor without a conflict of interest. I imagine that HMRC will argue that Chanrai is not a Preffered Creditor and therefore had no right to appoint an Administrator. If they win that argument then I see two results:

 

1. The Judge will appoint an Administrator

2. THE WuP will become a Winding UP Order in fairly short order

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Some very good points but I still feel as I have said eleswhere in this massive thread along with the likes of Guided Missile, that I do not see how Chanrai can be Owner and Prefferred Creditor without a conflict of interest. I imagine that HMRC will argue that Chanrai is not a Preffered Creditor and therefore had no right to appoint an Administrator. If they win that argument then I see two results:

 

1. The Judge will appoint an Administrator

2. THE WuP will become a Winding UP Order in fairly short order

 

I'd settle for 2.

 

that would make my day after watching that buffoon and his pals on their day out to Burnley. The whole attitude permeates the club from owner(s) right down to fanbase

 

" I got fazzzands a pands of det but I gotta follow pompee" (TCWTB)

 

Probably the only innocents are the staff such as the tea lady etc.

[hutch]

Some very good points but I still feel as I have said eleswhere in this massive thread along with the likes of Guided Missile, that I do not see how Chanrai can be Owner and Prefferred Creditor without a conflict of interest. I imagine that HMRC will argue that Chanrai is not a Preffered Creditor and therefore had no right to appoint an Administrator. If they win that argument then I see two results:

 

1. The Judge will appoint an Administrator

2. THE WuP will become a Winding UP Order in fairly short order

Baloo is not the owner. It is a limited Company. He may or may not be (or represent) the majority shareholder, but that is all. That is a bit different from being the owner. My simplistic understanding is that the directors run a limited company, and hold the responsibility for it's well being. Shareholders have the opportunity to influence the running of the company through resolutions at General meetings (annual or extraordinary). Limited liability gives a lot of protection to shareholders, in exchange for which they relinquish some control. Baloo is not a director, he's not that daft.

 

But he very certainly does have a conflict of interest. I'm with you, GM and everybody else on that point. It's that conflict, and how it has affected the administration process, which is going to be scrutinised.

 

HMRC know that the cards are stacked against them, but if admin is going to happen, they want to be damned sure that there are only 52 cards in the deck, and that the process is not carried out by anybody's "puppet".

 

I think today will result in a temporary halt in the process. The more interesting developments will follow over the next few days.

 

And one other very significant thing which I just remembered, uncovered by others, is that, from the record, Jacobs has been representing Falcondrone (Al-Mirage) AND Portpin (Baloo). That will certainly open a few eyes.

[Goalie66]

Baloo is not the owner. It is a limited Company. He may or may not be (or represent) the majority shareholder, but that is all. That is a bit different from being the owner. My simplistic understanding is that the directors run a limited company, and hold the responsibility for it's well being. Shareholders have the opportunity to influence the running of the company through resolutions at General meetings (annual or extraordinary). Limited liability gives a lot of protection to shareholders, in exchange for which they relinquish some control. Baloo is not a director, he's not that daft.

 

But he very certainly does have a conflict of interest. I'm with you, GM and everybody else on that point. It's that conflict, and how it has affected the administration process, which is going to be scrutinised.

 

HMRC know that the cards are stacked against them, but if admin is going to happen, they want to be damned sure that there are only 52 cards in the deck, and that the process is not carried out by anybody's "puppet".

 

I think today will result in a temporary halt in the process. The more interesting developments will follow over the next few days.

 

And one other very significant thing which I just remembered, uncovered by others, is that, from the record, Jacobs has been representing Falcondrone (Al-Mirage) AND Portpin (Baloo). That will certainly open a few eyes.

 

According to the Official web site of PCFC he is !!

Edited 2 March, 2010 by Goalie66

[StuRomseySaint]

My very simple and probably wrong view is that Chanrai repossesed the stadium, as a result of non-payment of debt. So he has called in his security on the loan... so effectively, he is settled?

 

And Chanrai is either a) The owner, in which case he cannot put the club into admin, or b) a secured creditor, as such again, he cannot put the club into admin?

 

And this is what HMRC are kicking off about?

[dronskisaint]

Anyone know how to cancel an eBay bid? I bid on a Mickey Mouse outfit for my nephew and I'm now minutes away from owning Pompey

 

You'll be hearing from Disney...bringing Mickey Mouse's name in to disrepute:)

[EastleighSoulBoy]

My very simple and probably wrong view is that Chanrai repossesed the stadium, as a result of non-payment of debt. So he has called in his security on the loan... so effectively, he is settled?

 

And Chanrai is either a) The owner, in which case he cannot put the club into admin, or b) a secured creditor, as such again, he cannot put the club into admin?

 

And this is what HMRC are kicking off about?

 

I'm fully expecting that at some stage in the proceedings the PCFC lawyers will ask the judge for an adjournment so that Mr Story can invite the HMRC to 'step outside for a chat about things'.

[Rational Rich]

 

It was reported that it is the "debenture" which will be questioned in Court. I'm not sure what that is, but understand it to be the mandate under which the administrators were "appointed". Somebody will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

The debenture is essentially the charge (mortgage) document creating Portpin's security, similar to the mortgage deed for a residential mortgage, except it creates security (fixed and floating charges) over all the assets of a company, including goodwill, cash, stock, contractual rights, intellectual property, etc rather than just the land alone.

 

If you have what is known as a floating charge over "all or substantially all" of the assets of a company, and your document states that it is a "qualifying floating charge" for the purposes of the Insolvency Act, then you have the right to appoint an administrator in certain circumstances. Without having seen the debenture and knowing all of the background, it is hard to say for certain on what grounds HMRC are challenging, I guess we will find out today.

[dubai_phil]

As everyone is having an opinion we should set up a sweepstake!

 

HMRC will be taking this action to get a decision. They would not have done that unless they think there is a doubt.

 

I think that may be a little different from whether Chanrai is allowed to do this under the law.

 

My guess is that this is all about pieces of paper. Are the right pieces of paper in the right places at the right time.

 

But that's a guess, let's hope their filing system was as bad as their Corporate Governance

 

Less than two hours to go.

[sidthesquid]

Typical of this bloody forum - "always with the negative waves Moriarity"

 

We'll make it to 25,000 no problemo

 

Personally my estimate is 50000 before we're done. This thread is the gift that just keeps on giving.

[pedg]

The debenture is essentially the charge (mortgage) document creating Portpin's security, similar to the mortgage deed for a residential mortgage, except it creates security (fixed and floating charges) over all the assets of a company, including goodwill, cash, stock, contractual rights, intellectual property, etc rather than just the land alone.

 

If you have what is known as a floating charge over "all or substantially all" of the assets of a company, and your document states that it is a "qualifying floating charge" for the purposes of the Insolvency Act, then you have the right to appoint an administrator in certain circumstances. Without having seen the debenture and knowing all of the background, it is hard to say for certain on what grounds HMRC are challenging, I guess we will find out today.

 

I 'think' GM's point is there was something that was not a debenture was registered before the WUO was issued and then a debenture was issued after the WUO. Theory being I think that if they needed the second for him to put the club into admin then because it was issued after the WUO then it should not apply. I think!

[EastleighSoulBoy]

You'll be hearing from Disney...bringing Mickey Mouse's name in to disrepute:)

 

I'll get my lawyers on to you!

 

[hutch]

The debenture is essentially the charge (mortgage) document creating Portpin's security, similar to the mortgage deed for a residential mortgage, except it creates security (fixed and floating charges) over all the assets of a company, including goodwill, cash, stock, contractual rights, intellectual property, etc rather than just the land alone.

 

If you have what is known as a floating charge over "all or substantially all" of the assets of a company, and your document states that it is a "qualifying floating charge" for the purposes of the Insolvency Act, then you have the right to appoint an administrator in certain circumstances. Without having seen the debenture and knowing all of the background, it is hard to say for certain on what grounds HMRC are challenging, I guess we will find out today.

Thanks for that. I think it's common ground that the "floating charge" was registered after the WUP was issued, and is therefore potentially subject to challenge.

[tony13579]

Its pay day in Portsmouth and as usual the wages haven’t arrived in bank accounts. The players are surfing their accounts on their blackberries and iPhones with grim faces.

The chirpy old loyal tea lady rattles in with the tea tray and the players tell her the news. She quietens down and pours the tea in silence. One of the long standing players calls over the player liaison officer (a relative of Storie) Mate you have access to my bank account, you pay my bills… pay the tea lady 1 months wages out of my bills account…. The player Liaison officer comes back a little later to the player and says to the player, sorry mate there isn’t enough in your bills account. It’s down to £2 grand. The player looks shocked! How much is the tea lady paid? He asks.

Well her basic wage is £6.50 an hour £1092 this month. Then There is her bonus, each day she puts jammy dodgers on the plate she gets £150, 20 days £300, Match day bonus 2 home matches, 4 away £100 each £600 and then there is image rights. The half crescent on the badge resembles one of her half eaten biscuits. Each time the Pompey badge appears in the press we pay her 25 Barbadian dollars into an account in the British Virgin Isles that’s about B$3,000

Edited 2 March, 2010 by tony13579

[chrisobee]

My very simple and probably wrong view is that Chanrai repossesed the stadium, as a result of non-payment of debt. So he has called in his security on the loan... so effectively, he is settled?

 

And Chanrai is either a) The owner, in which case he cannot put the club into admin, or b) a secured creditor, as such again, he cannot put the club into admin?

 

And this is what HMRC are kicking off about?

 

No, I think the simple problem is that the Revenue want their money, much of it which will be Tax/NIC. Basically, its tax payer’s money and the collectors are there to collect it, no grey areas, just black and white. Pay up on time or they will take action.

 

 

 

HMRC are getting more aggressive in early 2010 as over 250,000 companies are on some form of payment plan and many are failing to keep up with that time to pay plan. Many are seeing aggressive threats from HMRC so their attitude towards Pompey is completely in line with their current and indeed standard stance.

[stevegrant]

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Sick-joke-as-potless-Portsmouth-offer-fans-financial-advice-article341255.html

Congratulations to the Mirror for spotting something everyone else had seen three months ago

[sussexsaint]

Its pay day in Portsmouth and as usual the wages haven’t arrived in bank accounts. The players are surfing their accounts on their blackberries and iPhones with grim faces.

The chirpy old loyal tea lady rattles in with the tea tray and the players tell her the news. She quietens down and pours the tea in silence. One of the long standing players calls over the player liaison officer (a relative of Storie) Mate you have access to my bank account, you pay my bills… pay the tea lady 1 months wages out of my bills account…. The player Liaison officer comes back a little later to the player and says to the player, sorry mate there isn’t enough in your bills account. It’s down to £2 grand. The player looks shocked! How much is the tea lady paid? He asks.

Well her basic wage is £6.50 an hour £1092 this month. Then There is her bonus, each day she puts jammy dodgers on the plate she gets £150, 20 days £300, Match day bonus 2 home matches, 4 away £100 each £600 and then there is image rights. The half crescent on the badge resembles one of her half eaten biscuits. Each time the Pompey badge appears in the press we pay her 25 Barbadian dollars into an account in the British Virgin Isles that’s about £3,000 B$

 

very good

[hutch]

Congratulations to the Mirror for spotting something everyone else had seen three months ago

This thread?

[dubai_phil]

Congratulations to the Mirror for spotting something everyone else had seen three months ago

 

What is funnier is that it has been there for 3 months.

 

But only now has a Skate Fan noticed it

[Gingeletiss]

Their take from one of their forum experts......

 

ompeyrug

 

Posted 1/3/2010 18:18

#97569 - in reply to #97542

Subject: Re: Customs want us BADLY

 

 

 

Posts: 10793

 

Location: 'Sunny' Devon/Cosham

as said in an article, with this being my understanding - i wrote that sometime ago but chased up some 'theories'/'facts', like i say tho i am no expert...

 

=====

 

A feeling going around is that HMRC basically 'f****d up' so they 'should not' really have much ground to stand on and a winding up order against us will not be granted...

 

Feeling is that they felt they would get 'priority' or 'preferential creditor' ability, although our decision to go into Administration, as opposed to challenging them and 'risking' being done and liquidated – as we almost certainly would have done today had we strolled into court bold as brass – has left it possible that they will get little, if anything at all due to this, hence the 'hard line stance' they are now taking.

 

Although what I would say is I think they 'probably' will take a tough stance down the line so the chances of a points penalty next season as well would have increased, then again if they are not a priority in the list of people that need to agree to the CVA or this happens – and they are not owed 25% of the debt which entitled them to object this CVA – then can they take a hard line?

 

Then again this is Pompey we are talking about some anything is possible!

 

They will have our card well and truly marked though, that much is for sure...

 

For now I will leave it to the experts, as I clearly am not one or I would not be writing this now would I!

[JackFrost]

I think this action confirms without any doubt that HMRC are wanting blood, and are wanting to make an example out of Portsmouth.

 

This case could potentially give a massive wake up call to the English game as a whole.

[tony13579]

With 75 min to go the Pompey supporters are making thier way with thier trusty map to The old Bailey... LOL

[Gingeletiss]

Another insight on another of their forums.....

 

 

 

 

SkyBlueFan

#33 01 Mar 2010 19:51 Complain | Signed: February 2010 re: re: re: re: re: re: The judge will surely say tomorrow.. ... Posts: 24

Trialist

Pompey will win this arguement if it can prove all of the following:

 

1.) They have good assets

2) They have good cash flow

3) They have a future (i.e someone would buy the business)

 

On points 1 and 3 they should be OK. But on point 2 HMRC will I suspect argue that to get through admin they will need enough cash to get through a summer of no gate receipts. They will also argue that should Pompey ask for a CVA then as a creditor they will vote against. So again cashflow come under the spotlight.

 

I may not be a Pompey fan but I do want you guys to survive. So please don't shoot the messenger. Oh and I don't know if this counts for anything but I do work in indirect tax so I have seen HMRC's tactics before.

[Bongo badger]

I dont think anyone in the world would think HMRC would sit back without a plan B,C,D,E,F,G, and so on. They are going to stick to Poompy for a very long time. How can they be seen to be watching from a far, what impression would this give out to the world of business. Make money while achieving huge debts ( this happens)including the tax man, and when you have made enough, call for admin and screw the tax man over. They have got the Skate on a choke chain at the mo and they aint going to let go.

[dubai_phil]

With 75 min to go the Pompey supporters are making thier way with thier trusty map to The old Bailey... LOL

 

Ooh, now you've done it. You'll now be quoted on one of their forums and called a pony twiddler or similar. "Cos we only said that as a joke innit"

 

[Gingeletiss]

....and finally, off yet another board, this guy is always on the money IMO.

 

 

MohamedCohen Posted on 01/03/2010 18:42

HMRC to challenge Chainrai's preferred creditor status

Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message

HMRC is expected to argue that Portsmouth owner Balram Chainrai did not have the power to tip the club into administration, a move that has left him as a preferred creditor who may recoup much of the £17million-£20million he "lent" the club, and quite right too.

 

Chainrai is a crook. He never lent PFC that money in the first place, it's a debt (assumed) which he had with Sacha's father, (from his lawsuit win), that PS allowed to get on PFC's balance sheet for a nice fat bonus. HMRC know that this self same crook, via Portpin, appointed THIS administrator. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the aroma around here is quite pungent.

 

This is why HMRC are madder than hell. We have zero chance of getting them to sign off on our CVA so we'll start life in the Championship on minus 15-20 points, assuming we are still in business by then.

[dronskisaint]

I'll get my lawyers on to you!

 

 

Can we meet at my Dad's house...I haven't got an office?

[Gemmel]

I think this action confirms without any doubt that HMRC are wanting blood, and are wanting to make an example out of Portsmouth.

 

This case could potentially give a massive wake up call to the English game as a whole.

 

I'm not sure I buy into this "Make an example" theory, although I'm quite sure it would have a positive effect on them receiving outrstanding monies from other clubs.

 

My personal veiw is they are just dealing with pompey as they would any other business. In the past it might be said that football clubs have had flexibility that other types of businesses haven't, but the reality is simple; They didn't pay, created a debt, agreed a repayment schedule, didnt pay, agreed another, didn't pay and so on. When they had the chance to raise funds, they sold two players........ and bought another two in. The whole time that they have been increasing thier tax liabilities,, they could have gone into admin. They didn't until the last possible day. The whole thing has been a gamble.

 

Everybody knows you don't fook with the taxman and not only have pompey fooked him, they've done publically with two fingers in the air at him.

 

Waht HMRC is doing to pompey is no different than how they would treat any company, infact arguably they would have acted sooner, had it not been a football club.

[dubai_phil]

I dont think anyone in the world would think HMRC would sit back without a plan B,C,D,E,F,G, and so on. They are going to stick to Poompy for a very long time. How can they be seen to be watching from a far, what impression would this give out to the world of business. Make money while achieving huge debts ( this happens)including the tax man, and when you have made enough, call for admin and screw the tax man over. They have got the Skate on a choke chain at the mo and they aint going to let go.

 

The description of their actions has been often used on here by our posters. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

 

HMRC have been taking a hit for years. They must now think that someone has dropped the ball and given them an opportunity.

 

While they may not change the overall "preferred creditor" status legally, the new attitude may force the Football Authorities to negotiate a more even handed arrangement as opposed to the stand-off they have now.

 

They probably see much more than the simple 18mil. They go at this one like attack dogs, they will go after other clubs like attack dogs and EVENTUALLY the football authorities will have to pick up the phone and talk or there won't be many clubs left.

 

Karma again

 

55 minutes to go, do we have a Twitter Feed lined up from the Court Room?

[EastleighSoulBoy]

I'll get my lawyers on to you!

 

 

Can we meet at my Dad's house...I haven't got an orifice?

 

:smt103:smt103:smt103:smt103

[stevegrant]

[Gingeletiss]

Lol St Lard...they have bestowed hero status on you, as the easiest explanation. They are actually fawning at your feet.....oh, so funny:D:D

 

 

Lard Posted on 01/03/2010 21:05

HMRC to challenge Chainrai's preferred creditor status

Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message

The points here, I think, are as follows:

 

Falcondrone borrows £17M from Portpin which is secured by the shares, Falcondrone own, representing 90% of the share capital of Portsmouth City Football Club.

 

Additionally, Portpin registers a charge on Fratton Park, owned by Portsmouth City Football Club.

 

Falcondrone fails to repay Portpin so Portpin takes ownership of the shares in Portsmouth City Football Club.

 

Portpin charge is satisfied by share transfer.

 

Fratton still owned by Portsmouth City Football Club because Falcondrone borrowed the money from Portpin, not PCFC which is not in default for the original £17M. It was Falcondrone.

 

Chanrai/Portpin is thus not a creditor of PCFC, but the majority shareholder.

 

The additional charge on every asset, current and future of PCFC was registered by Marc Jacobs on the 6th January, when he realised that Chanrai/Portpin were exposed. Fuglers realise that Marc Jacobs has done something that is dodgy, whilst under a court order, following the WUO and they fire him.

 

HMRC want to see the loan instruments that were deposited with Companies House that make Chanrai/Portpin think he/they can march into the sweetshop and empty the till...

 

All pure conjecture...

 

 

 

 

MichMan Posted on 01/03/2010 21:38

HMRC to challenge Chainrai's preferred creditor status

Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message

Lard, your post should be copied and posted as a news article on this website, because that is the best explanation I have heard tonight why HMRC are challenging the decision - and although my head hurts too, I understood every word.

 

We are f*****!

[OldNick]

On Solent they had a expert on from Portland business recovery and he said the high court have a very important decision to be made on this. It will have major ramifications for all business if they allow Pompey to win this as it is a precident and other companies throughout the country could use this to avoid paying up in future. He said it is 50/50 that Pompey will get wound up"!!!!

Pompey will get away with it.

 

 

On the flip side if it drags on Pompey will gain time to stay up as the PL will notdock their points until the final outcome. What happens if that is well after the season finishes.After saturday Pompey could easily pull back the 5 points

[hutch]

The description of their actions has been often used on here by our posters. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

 

HMRC have been taking a hit for years. They must now think that someone has dropped the ball and given them an opportunity.

 

While they may not change the overall "preferred creditor" status legally, the new attitude may force the Football Authorities to negotiate a more even handed arrangement as opposed to the stand-off they have now.

 

They probably see much more than the simple 18mil. They go at this one like attack dogs, they will go after other clubs like attack dogs and EVENTUALLY the football authorities will have to pick up the phone and talk or there won't be many clubs left.

 

Karma again

 

55 minutes to go, do we have a Twitter Feed lined up from the Court Room?

Yep. The FA, FL & PL have it within their power to change the requirements to get your playing licence back from:

 

Pay all your outstanding footballing debts

 

to

 

Pay all your outstanding footballing debts and outstanding taxes

 

 

 

 

But, how could you persuade them to do that?

[JackFrost]

On Solent they had a expert on from Portland business recovery and he said the high court have a very important decision to be made on this. It will have major ramifications for all business if they allow Pompey to win this as it is a precident and other companies throughout the country could use this to avoid paying up in future. He said it is 50/50 that Pompey will get wound up"!!!!

Pompey will get away with it.

 

 

On the flip side if it drags on Pompey will gain time to stay up as the PL will notdock their points until the final outcome. What happens if that is well after the season finishes.After saturday Pompey could easily pull back the 5 points

 

That's sealed their doom :wink:

[SO16_Saint]

reminder for those not lucky enough to be at the Old Bailey or at home watching on TV.....

 

http://www.tvcatchup.com/watch.html?c=35

[tony13579]

In my many dealings with the courts, Ahem, The Crown Prosicution service did not have a plan B,C, D. Plan A was the court is stacked against these suckers. We ere either met with a well prepared breif and were led into a cul de sac... or we were met with an under paid over loaded low ranking solicitor who had not read the arm full of files and was totally unprepared for our devious defences. If ever we broke out of the pre-planned cul de sac there was utter chaos and no plan B.

 

I doubt wether HRMC is that much different to the CPS.

[Draino76]

In my many dealings with the courts, Ahem, The Crown Prosicution service did not have a plan B,C, D. Plan A was the court is stacked against these suckers. We ere either met with a well prepared breif and were led into a cul de sac... or we were met with an under paid over loaded low ranking solicitor who had not read the arm full of files and was totally unprepared for our devious defences. If ever we broke out of the pre-planned cul de sac there was utter chaos and no plan B.

 

I doubt wether HRMC is that much different to the CPS.

 

 

Au contraire.

 

Thats not my experience.

[sussexsaint]

I suspect they will be given time to construct a defence and then the storries of takeovers will be rife once more

[bristolsaint29]

Do you think its presumptuous to buy a nice cigar and some brandy?

 

I have a bottle of moet on ice.

[tony13579]

do we have a Twitter Feed lined up from the Court Room?

 

 

hopefully here http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/custompages/custompage.aspx?pageid=81796