Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted

Mr Barker said that since November 11 the club has paid more than £4m to the HMRC.

That is probably just what has been due in those months.As in vat on players sales, tickets and merchandising

SO16_Saint

SO16_Saint

Posted
Posted
You know, I suddenly feel some sympathy.

 

We haven't taken a moment to stop and spare a thought for people who's lives will be ruined by the events so far today.

 

Let us just wish all those reading the days' events when they get in from work tonight great strength and fortitude and may we hope that they have not sprayed too much tea/coffee/beer over their keyboards/screens.

 

I also think that we should get some T-Shorts made. I was there when the skates went to court.

 

you wear some funky sh!t in Dubai!

Joensuu

Joensuu

Posted
Posted
I have no idea, i am in no way any sort of financial expert or anything like that.

 

Perhaps it has to do with the ground ?? Without a football club he will not get his 1m a year and anyone who wishes to buy the club will have to negotiate with him for that ground.

 

TBH the whole thing stinks, i see your point, why would he put extra money in ?? He has said he doesn't want the club.

 

There is more to come out of the woodwork yet i believe, lets just hope there is a full and unbiased review.

 

I see what you mean... but the ground's value has already been removed from the £13.5m still owed; and the ground will be rental arrangement is for £1m x 15 years...

 

Meaning Portpin would be paying £15m to pompey to receive £15m back over 15 years, and would get the additional 'benefit' of having to wait 15 years before they can call in the bulldosers and make some real money...

 

Either Chainrai has grown a heart, or something fishy is going on...

dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted
"Matthew: Mr Barker said if the appointment by Portpin of the administrators is invalid there will be a contingent application for a court appointed administration."

 

If that's really the best that they have to offer in reply, then it looks pretty bad for them.

 

50/50 that they actually succeed with the contingent application, and 50/50 that the independent administrator will wind them up immediately. A 1 in 4 chance of just surviving, never mind the future points deductions.

 

Does anyone have a source for the comments about Fugler's bank accounts and payments to Baloo?

 

http://twitter.com/bbc_matt

 

OMG Shock News Just in

 

Poopey owner in Proof of Funds shocker!

 

Admin's barrister starts his reply & provides letter from BNP Paribas that Chainrai can provide £15m 2 get club 2 end of season.
Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted
Mr Barker said that since November 11 the club has paid more than £4m to the HMRC.

That is probably just what has been due in those months.As in vat on players sales, tickets and merchandising

 

 

Indeed, with the PL managing their transfer dealings, it might well be that they paid Kaboul and the other players VAT money direct to HMRC

Smirking_Saint

Smirking_Saint

Posted
Posted
I see what you mean... but the ground's value has already been removed from the £13.5m still owed; and the ground will be rental arrangement is for £1m x 15 years...

 

Meaning Portpin would be paying £15m to pompey to receive £15m back over 15 years, and would get the additional 'benefit' of having to wait 15 years before they can call in the bulldosers and make some real money...

 

Either Chainrai has grown a heart, or something fishy is going on...

 

For me it just doesn't make sense for him to do that, and he has already said he is not after the club.

 

People like him do not just chuck 15mil for a 'worthy cause'

 

Something stinks, and this time its not TCWTB

bristolsaint29

bristolsaint29

Posted
Posted
For me it just doesn't make sense for him to do that, and he has already said he is not after the club.

 

People like him do not just chuck 15mil for a 'worthy cause'

 

Something stinks, and this time its not TCWTB

 

Portsmouth in general?

Joensuu

Joensuu

Posted
Posted

Hmmm... and why cough up £15m after administration... and not before? He could have prevented any point deductions and perhaps even relegation had he invested 2 weeks ago.

Bucks Saint

Bucks Saint

Posted
Posted
Mr Barker - It's far too hasty to have meeting next Thursday to assess validity of Admin..... er, why?

 

Unbelievable. This lawyer is talking cra*p. They either have, or have not, been validly appointed. No amount of time can change that. If its not valid then it needs to be ruled upon immediately - otherwise the Administrator can carry out acts that he has no power to!

hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted

Why do I keep hearing Johnny Rotten singing God Save The Queen (and her Revenue and Customs).

 

Maybe it's the "Nooooow Future for You"

dronskisaint

dronskisaint

Posted
Posted

Presumably they took all the time in the world to validify the plate smasher's Admin credentials!?

 

They don't like my comments on the ooze thread...tried Pratton Fark this time!

Bucks Saint

Bucks Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
Given the questions over their administrator, can somebody remind me - who paid Mark Fry ?

 

He was paid out of the assets - i.e. the funds he raised from selling SFC, and any other assets owned by SLH Plc. He would have had agreement of the amount with the creditors though before taking it, or if they said no, the court.

Edited by Bucks Saint
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted

Michell back on the attack

 

Mr Mitchell for HMRC says the evidence of money available for administration is not good enough.

He said: 'It doesn't really go very far. It's only a promise, it isn't the provision of funding. Whether or not funding will be provided remains to be seen.'

bristolsaint29

bristolsaint29

Posted
Posted

Matthew: Mr Mitchell for HMRC says the evidence of money available for administration is not good enough.

 

 

He said: 'It doesn't really go very far. It's only a promise, it isn't the provision of funding. Whether or not funding will be provided remains to be seen.'

hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted

"Matthew: Mr Barker said 'Really 4pm on Monday March 8 is far too tight a time table."

 

The judge isn't going to have any of that. If anything, it's far too long just to provide some existing documents.

Joensuu

Joensuu

Posted
Posted
Hmmm... and why cough up £15m after administration... and not before? He could have prevented any point deductions and perhaps even relegation had he invested 2 weeks ago.

 

And here's my answer... Portpin AREN'T going to pay £15m

 

Mr Mitchell for HMRC says the evidence of money available for administration is not good enough.

He said: 'It doesn't really go very far. It's only a promise, it isn't the provision of funding. Whether or not funding will be provided remains to be seen.

Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted

Mitchell not impressed, with proof of funds...... I think he is going to ask them to deposit the money in some sort of escrow / court account. ....LOL i think Chainrai would **** his pants

Johnny Bognor

Johnny Bognor

Posted
Posted (edited)

As it stands....

 

Total people viewing the lounge = 275

Total people viewing the main board = 130

 

Mods, do you think it would be a good idea to create an SWF area on the Pompey Takeover Saga Forum?????

Edited by Johnny Bognor
Bucks Saint

Bucks Saint

Posted
Posted
welcome back Bucks saint ,we have missed your insight to add to some of the other informed posters.

Pompey will get out of it

 

cheers. sorry been busy on another Administration (I offered to do PFC for free......)

Weston Saint

Weston Saint

Posted
Posted
He was paid out of the assets - i.e. the funds he raised from selling SFC, and any other assets owned by SLH Plc. He would have to had agreement of the amount with the creditors though, or if they said no, the court.
So is this statement wrong - Statutory requirement that incumbent owner or Directors that file for admin have to pay the bill
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted

"@Ron Tic - Statutory requirement that incumbent owner or Directors that file for admin have to pay the bill"

 

Do any of our own IP's know if that is true?

saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted

no idea if anyone has seen this or not and havnt looked back across too many post so appologies if its already on here.

 

News report outside the courts with an update as to whats happening inside.

 

3 main points but I cant remember what they were cause I was too busy laughing at the song in my head.

 

Lets all laugh at pompy,

Lets all laugh at pompy

La la laa la hey

La la laa la hey

 

http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,26691,16465_5998636,00.html

Smirking_Saint

Smirking_Saint

Posted
Posted
I always thought it was Markus?! Probably wrong though.

 

They keep the club going through the clubs funds and basically build up a payment that comes directly from the sale of the club (or sale of assets) i believe. So Fry would get X amount an hour for X hours and that overall amount is payable on completion.

 

Difference here is that Portsmouth are unable to fund themselves through the admin process and i believe thats part of what is causing this court case as it questions the validity of the administration process.

 

I think

Bucks Saint

Bucks Saint

Posted
Posted
So is this statement wrong - Statutory requirement that incumbent owner or Directors that file for admin have to pay the bill

 

Yes, its wrong. Fees are usually paid out of assets and that is the case no matter who appoints the Admin.

 

Its quite possible to have costs covered another way, particularly if there is a concern that assets may not be enough / may not be realised for a long time - this is usually something the Admin will insist on to protect himself.

hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted

Just loved this one:

 

"[Comment From Keith Keith : ]

It seems to me HMRC do not believe a word on any aspect of this case coming from our side, surley its time for the judge to step in and make them see reason or else this case will never be resolved
."

OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted

is it just me or have the News sent a young kid to go and report. There seems to be massive pauses in his info and surely there are a lot of other info coming out that he is not telling us. You need a shrewd mind to take it on board but this guy is just giving very little snippets.

Bucks Saint

Bucks Saint

Posted
Posted
"@Ron Tic - Statutory requirement that incumbent owner or Directors that file for admin have to pay the bill"

 

Do any of our own IP's know if that is true?

 

Its wrong.

Saint_clark

Saint_clark

Posted
Posted
is it just me or have the News sent a young kid to go and report. There seems to be massive pauses in his info and surely there are a lot of other info coming out that he is not telling us. You need a shrewd mind to take it on board but this guuy is just givimg very little snippets.

 

Well that ain't surprising, he needs SOMETHING to sell the papers in the morning.

Channon's Sideburns

Channon's Sideburns

Posted
Posted
is it just me or have the News sent a young kid to go and report. There seems to be massive pauses in his info and surely there are a lot of other info coming out that he is not telling us. You need a shrewd mind to take it on board but this guuy is just givimg very little snippets.

 

If you read his posts alongside the BBC Twitter feed through @BBC_Matt - there's a distinction.

 

Which is, the BBC are reporting the facts - The News are reporting what suits their target market - mushrooms.

Winchester Red

Winchester Red

Posted
Posted
Just loved this one:

 

"[Comment From Keith Keith : ]

It seems to me HMRC do not believe a word on any aspect of this case coming from our side, surley its time for the judge to step in and make them see reason or else this case will never be resolved
."

 

Nice to see their taking a rational equally balanced view on this.

 

(That's because it's all lies you f*ckwit!!!)

(Keith Keith, not Hutch obviously!)

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...