Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted

From the news article http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Taxman-questions-39validity39-of-Pompey.6115398.jp

 

What the Judge said in a bit more detail....

 

Mr Justice Norris said: 'It will be necessary for it to be established that new money was given for the charges when granted.

 

'Unless that can be established the charges will be voided. The Revenue are concerned that no new money was given. The basis for that concern lies in evidence filed by the company in answer to the winding-up petition.

 

'The company is owned as to 90 per cent by a company called Falcondrone Ltd. The ownership of Falcondrone itself has changed hands on a number of occasions.

 

'The grantee of the charges on October 6, 2009 and the January 7, 2010, is a British Virgin Islands company called Portpin Ltd, in the ownership of a Mr Balram Chainrai, a welathy Hong Kong businessman.

 

'In evidence which the company itself filed in response to the winding-up petition, the company's head of finance (Tanya Robins) said Portpin Ltd, Mr Chainrai's company, had provided "initial short-term funding to Falcondrone".

 

'Although Portpin is a grantee of the two charges, on the evidence it would appear that it advanced no new money to the company but instead advanced money to the owners of the company.

 

'If that is right, then the charges would not be valid and would not support the appointment of the administrators.

 

'It might therefore be said that a shadow is cast over the existing appointments of the administrators and it is clear that that shadow should be removed as quickly and as cheaply as possible.

 

'There is not time nor money to enter into an extended examination of the validity of the appointment.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted

My initial reaction is that, if everything is above board and Pompey have got nothing to hide, or want out in the open, then it's a pretty good result for them. They can carry on as before confident that they'll win the day in Court next time. They know what the Judge needs to see. All the documents to prove the contents of the SoA w.r.t. Portpin's position as secured creditor, and Baloo's £15m in Andy Pandy's bank account, or on deposit and on-call at the administrator's discretion, not Baloo's. That's pretty much what they said in Court anyway, so no problem for them.

 

Otherwise, they got time and rope. If they're not confident, they (the directors, if there are actually any left) can go back and ask the Court to appoint Andy Pandy & Co. as a Company Voluntary Administration. Risk there is that the Court might say no, or it might say yes, but appoint A.N.Other instead. Mr. Mitchell covered both of those points very well, questioning both the underlying purpose of administration and the independence of the incumbent administrators.

 

They have been set up, and HMRC are not making it easy for Baloo. They're between a rock and a hard place, unless everything is absolutely kosher.

 

I'd say that HMRC are 3-1 up at half time, and most of the Pompey players are already on one yellow card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted

Well HMRC got what they wanted and didn't have to give to much away in terms of their angle or evidence to get it.

 

They started the day by asking for a second hearing to answer the points raised today and they got it.

 

1) Who lent who the money

2) Does that leave chainrai in a position to leagally put the club in administration

3) Is the adminstrator indpendant

 

Papers to be lodged in 10 days.

 

Now assumming that HMRC and Tanya are right about the money. That's it game up, regardless of what finance is in place for administration, it would prove adminsitration was not valid and the case would turn into the actioning of the WUP (With criminal charges to follow I'd guess). Now, where as some indidviduals might not be adverse to back dating certain paperwork or re writing history, if I am not mistaken then this would need to be countersigned / approved / filed by Fuglers (Who are now minus a certain employee Jacobs) which won't happen (Just wait for a document signed by azougy) So unless HMRC and Tanya are wrong, this really could be the end of them.

 

 

The second point leads back to the first and if there was sufficient cause to oust the current administrator, then they are fooked anyway, so my gess is that it all comes down to who lent who the money and whose been telling porkies.

 

If the blue few think today was a good result, then I would hate to see what a bad one looks like...........................15th maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior

Posted
Posted

Thanks for all the expert and excellent factual post my our esteemed legal experts in such insolvency matters

 

The prase a couple of pages back got me thinking

 

"there is a shadow over the administration that must be removed"

 

can I assume the shadow is being cast by storrie and co burning the candle at both ends so they can fudge the books to make them plauseable for HMRC!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted (edited)

This is really not looking very good for them.

 

Not by conjecture, not by speculation.

 

They seem to be in a mess of their own making.

 

The evidence presented in Court was the evidence presented in the WUO.

 

The Judge has said "he agrees with HMRC" by asking PCFC to prove the charge etc ARE correct, proper and Compliant.

 

Now, if you are presenting papers to a Court, would you NOT have done everything to make sure that was the case?

 

How could they now return and say "Yes M'Lud, you are right, we sent the wrong papers in when we submitted the SoA to the Court.

 

A lot of it has to wrapped up in legalese but in Headline Land.

 

HMRC Accuse PCFC of improper dealings.

Judge Agrees and says "You have 9 days to prove otherwise."

 

Spin that one guys

Edited by dubai_phil
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AK

AK

Posted
Posted

Another positive from today would be I don't think the revelations are going to encourage The Premier League and it's member to bend over backwards to help the Skates on Thursday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted

The more I think about it, to more I see the sheer brilliance of HMRC's tactic. I can't stop smiling.

 

I have this vision of Pompey's bunch of crooks standing clueless on a long straight road, with HMRC's demons waiting for them at the end, waving their arms, shouting "Come to Papa".

 

There are turnings off the road, but if Pompey take any of them, they will be shown for what they are. And if they do, the "shadow" won't be removed, it will just get darker.

 

Brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted

It still gives their players (A lot employed unfairly due to their trading position) to get them into a favourable position FAcup and league wise . That will certainly add pressure to any decision the PL make if they do come out of this court intact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JackFrost

JackFrost

Posted
Posted
This is really not looking very good for them.

 

Not by conjecture, not by speculation.

 

They seem to be in a mess of their own making.

 

The evidence presented in Court was the evidence presented in the WUO.

 

The Judge has said "he agrees with HMRC" by asking PCFC to prove the charge etc ARE correct, proper and Compliant.

 

Now, if you are presenting papers to a Court, would you NOT have done everything to make sure that was the case?

 

How could they now return and say "Yes M'Lud, you are right, we sent the wrong papers in when we submitted the SoA to the Court.

 

A lot of it has to wrapped up in legalese but in Headline Land.

 

HMRC Accuse PCFC of improper dealings.

Judge Agrees and says "You have 9 days to prove otherwise."

 

Spin that one guys

 

And this time, Pompey can't get out of it by going into administration ;)

 

Is Pompey being wound up on the 15th a realistic scenario?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Saint

Weston Saint

Posted
Posted
From the news article http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Taxman-questions-39validity39-of-Pompey.6115398.jp

 

What the Judge said in a bit more detail....

 

Mr Justice Norris said: 'It will be necessary for it to be established that new money was given for the charges when granted.

 

'Unless that can be established the charges will be voided. The Revenue are concerned that no new money was given. The basis for that concern lies in evidence filed by the company in answer to the winding-up petition.

 

'The company is owned as to 90 per cent by a company called Falcondrone Ltd. The ownership of Falcondrone itself has changed hands on a number of occasions.

 

'The grantee of the charges on October 6, 2009 and the January 7, 2010, is a British Virgin Islands company called Portpin Ltd, in the ownership of a Mr Balram Chainrai, a welathy Hong Kong businessman.

 

'In evidence which the company itself filed in response to the winding-up petition, the company's head of finance (Tanya Robins) said Portpin Ltd, Mr Chainrai's company, had provided "initial short-term funding to Falcondrone".

 

'Although Portpin is a grantee of the two charges, on the evidence it would appear that it advanced no new money to the company but instead advanced money to the owners of the company.

 

'If that is right, then the charges would not be valid and would not support the appointment of the administrators.

 

'It might therefore be said that a shadow is cast over the existing appointments of the administrators and it is clear that that shadow should be removed as quickly and as cheaply as possible.

 

'There is not time nor money to enter into an extended examination of the validity of the appointment.'

Wow, powerful stuff. Cannot see them getting out of this one.

 

After that???.......If Chainrai continues to fund until a buyer is found the court might be persuaded that Administration is the correct course but appoint a new Administrator.

 

I doubt HMRC will oppose that, but I expect them to ask the court to re-open the suspended Winding up petition and study the SoA in more detail before any decision is made.

 

That may be the reason for the 1 day hearing rather than a couple of hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted

So it would appear not to be a Whistleblower, more sheer incompetence.

 

Even IF they show the monies were moved the right way, they will be shown to have provided "incorrect" Documents to the Court.

 

Judge Norris

'In evidence which the company itself filed in response to the winding-up petition, the company's head of finance (Tanya Robins) said Portpin Ltd, Mr Chainrai's company, had provided "initial short-term funding to Falcondrone".

 

'Although Portpin is a grantee of the two charges, on the evidence it would appear that it advanced no new money to the company but instead advanced money to the owners of the company.

 

'If that is right, then the charges would not be valid and would not support the appointment of the administrators.

 

I ain't no lawyer but I can read and if I was Tanya I wouldn't sleep very well tonight. 250k a year for a clerical error of that magnitude?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
Another take on it is that they get a little longer to find some mug punter to plough money in.

They won't. If there was one out there, they would have found him by now.

 

The only interest is from dodgy leverage borrowers, and no lender is going to touch this with the "shadow" hanging over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted
LOL at Terry the Builder on SSN still blaming the Premier League. "we shouldnt be docked points as its not the fans fault."

 

Txt in and tell him not to worry they won't get a points deduction.

 

The fans can fulfill their fixtures after 15th March. Could their forum find 17 posters to get their first team squad together?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
LOL at Terry the Builder on SSN still blaming the Premier League. "we shouldnt be docked points as its not the fans fault."

 

So by his logic they should be docked points when something is the fan's fault.. so TCWTB must be worth at least -30.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Saint

Weston Saint

Posted
Posted
LOL at Terry the Builder on SSN still blaming the Premier League. "we shouldnt be docked points as its not the fans fault."
He swans around the Rose Bowl as if he ownes it. Spends a fair bit of money there and I assume he is in corporate at FP. Not liked by some.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted
They won't. If there was one out there, they would have found him by now.

 

The only interest is from dodgy leverage borrowers, and no lender is going to touch this with the "shadow" hanging over it.

 

The Shadow is what will really hurt.

 

Having to watch Hank Marvin & Co before the next Home Game

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted
The more I think about it, to more I see the sheer brilliance of HMRC's tactic. I can't stop smiling.

 

I have this vision of Pompey's bunch of crooks standing clueless on a long straight road, with HMRC's demons waiting for them at the end, waving their arms, shouting "Come to Papa".

 

There are turnings off the road, but if Pompey take any of them, they will be shown for what they are. And if they do, the "shadow" won't be removed, it will just get darker.

 

Brilliant.

 

it does seem like HMRC are just sending Poopy 1 hospitol pass after another and its only a matter of time before they cop it with both barrels.

 

I dont get however how its only HMRC that seem to want to fight there corner. How many other clubs and people have Poopy stiched up? If any of this is proved to be down to Poopy fiddling the books then the rest of the prem and even clubs that have been relegated should be screeming for something to be done. Poopys points for the last 4 seasons could be questioned as its been obvious that they have been buying players they had no way of paying for that long.

 

Had they acted in the right manner they wouldnt have had the players that won them the FA cup and also kept them in the league. Other clubs lost there chance to win the FA cup due to there cheating and other clubs have been relegated based on the same.

 

With that in mind its suprising that other clubs are happy to keep quiet or even happy to back them up with offers of loans and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FloridaMarlin

FloridaMarlin

Posted
Posted
LOL at Terry the Builder on SSN still blaming the Premier League. "we shouldnt be docked points as its not the fans fault."

 

Can't see Sky pix, unfortunately, but would Terry the Builder be Terry Clarke?

 

If it is, he's owed a fortune by the club for work he has carried out, so which hat does he put on to his thick head?

 

Is it the fans' hat, which makes him indignant to the 'injustice' being meted out.

 

Or is it his businessman's hat which should make him say: "I've been royally shafted by this bunch"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Saint

Weston Saint

Posted
Posted
Can't see Sky pix, unfortunately, but would Terry the Builder be Terry Clarke?

 

If it is, he's owed a fortune by the club for work he has carried out, so which hat does he put on to his thick head?

 

Is it the fans' hat, which makes him indignant to the 'injustice' being meted out.

 

Or is it his businessman's hat which should make him say: "I've been royally shafted by this bunch"?

Yep, same man
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mickn

mickn

Posted
Posted
He swans around the Rose Bowl as if he ownes it. Spends a fair bit of money there and I assume he is in corporate at FP. Not liked by some.

 

He's a season ticket holder so im led to believe and I know for a fact he was banned for a while this season

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted

I don't think Tanya made any clerical error. I don't think she made any error at all. Her evidence (and we don't know whether that's a statement or documents), read in conjunction with the Judge's comment:

 

'The company is owned as to 90 per cent by a company called Falcondrone Ltd. The ownership of Falcondrone itself has changed hands on a number of occasions.

may begin to close the loop on the early conspiracy theory, that this whole sorry saga is brought about by "Daddy's" attempt to get his hands on some of his "frozen" money from a country where he is no longer welcome, with the assistance of his erstwhile business partner Baloo.

 

Just didn't quite work out as planned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigShadow

BigShadow

Posted
Posted
Txt in and tell him not to worry they won't get a points deduction.

 

The fans can fulfill their fixtures after 15th March. Could their forum find 17 posters to get their first team squad together?

 

LOL....they couldn't even do that - they can't sign any new players - even ones willing to play for free. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted

And another point, which has been rattling around on here for a while, was cleared up for us by the Judge:

 

"The company (PCFC Ltd.) is owned as to 90 per cent by a company called Falcondrone Ltd".

 

As far as we know, although there may be some doubt, Falcondrone was last heard of as being owned by Mythical Ali. It is almost certainly not owned by Baloo.

 

So, despite what Pompey's official website may say, Baloo is not the owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
Give it up nick...the joke wore thin after the second time, but twenty second, come on man:smt108

 

ps...they are toast;)

Lol

I think it's best to make sue you wouldn't want any slip ups.

The paperwork just has to be watertight or they really are in the mire.

Jacob leaving Fuglers always made me think something was not right. Who knows they might have a whistle blower there

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted
And another point, which has been rattling around on here for a while, was cleared up for us by the Judge:

 

"The company (PCFC Ltd.) is owned as to 90 per cent by a company called Falcondrone Ltd".

 

As far as we know, although there may be some doubt, Falcondrone was last heard of as being owned by Mythical Ali. It is almost certainly not owned by Baloo.

 

So, despite what Pompey's official website may say, Baloo is not the owner.

 

isnt that the 90% what Chainrai took control of when his loan repayments were missed?

 

The thing is, before he took control he was a creditor but since he took control he is the owner. As the owner can he put the club into admin while the WUP was in place? If he stayed on the outside he would have been in a better position to play the admin card.

 

Is that the jist of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
INFLUENCED.COM

INFLUENCED.COM

Posted
Posted
My guess is that there is no documents that prove that Chainrai was a secured creditor of PCFC so unless they get someone with a record of forging documents in court caseS.

 

Surely they will need to see evidence of bank transfers to support any documentation produced ?? if so would make it very difficult to create retrospectively(I hope)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
isnt that the 90% what Chainrai took control of when his loan repayments were missed?

 

The thing is, before he took control he was a creditor but since he took control he is the owner. As the owner can he put the club into admin while the WUP was in place? If he stayed on the outside he would have been in a better position to play the admin card.

 

Is that the jist of it?

Provided that the Judge has been quoted accurately in the press, his statement is clear and unambiguous. They don't usually make mistakes.

 

Portsmouth City Football Club Limited is (not was) 90% owned by Falcondrone.

 

The Judge would not have made that up, or got it from reading this thread. He has seen it in the evidence. Unless Chainrai owns Falcondrone, he does not own 90% of PCFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gingeletiss

Gingeletiss

Posted
Posted

Stretching....boy are they stretching!!!!

 

 

feedtheyak Posted on 02/03/2010 13:03

GO HMRC!!! - doing some quality probing

Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message

This could be very good news for the club. If HMRC probe the finances, and serious wrongdoings are found amongst the owners, then our administration may not result in a 9 point penalty, which would make a great escape a hope once again. Further, the corrupt people may struggle to get more money out, with the (hopefully small) amount needed to buy us out of administration hopefully going to small businesses and the taxman (who, quite frankly, deserves his money...it's about time very rich people and rich companies stopped getting away with not paying tax, leaving ordinary people to foot the ball).

 

What would also be interesting is if an HMRC enquiry took until beyond the end of the season (which may well be likely?, with a possible deduction not being possible until its outcome is known. What would the PL do then?

 

I can't see HMRC ordering liquidation under any circumstances really - the player registrations would go straight to the premier league, and we would cease to be part of the premier league. That means no income for transfers, remaining premier league money, and parachute payments. A winding up would be bad for absolutely all parties, so I can't see it happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
Surely they will need to see evidence of bank transfers to support any documentation produced ?? if so would make it very difficult to create retrospectively(I hope)
Fuglers were responsible for that I think. I suggest they are thmselves pretty miffed with jacob if he has indeed done something incorrect whilst using their company.

If unlawful/not properly adhered to, I suggest Fuglers name will be damaged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Under Weststand

Under Weststand

Posted
Posted

I've been on nights so only just got up & trying to decipher all that's gone on. It seems that the no new money into the company could/will invalidate the administration. And they either have to establish that they made a mistake with their SOA, or they have to come up with new un-published paper work to prop up the validity of the Administration. Also the transfer of the ground to Portpin/Chainrai within the WUP is being questioned.

Its not looking good for the blue few today, looks like they are lying stunned on the bottom of the cage at the moment. Very strong worded statement from the judge!

So it wasn't quite what Android quoted as dotting the t's & crossing the i's then :rolleyes:.

Lets just hope those important documents they now need haven't been shredded yet ;) or they will have to get the crayons & tip-ex out again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bucks Saint

Bucks Saint

Posted
Posted
Wow, powerful stuff. Cannot see them getting out of this one.

 

After that???.......If Chainrai continues to fund until a buyer is found the court might be persuaded that Administration is the correct course but appoint a new Administrator.

 

I doubt HMRC will oppose that, but I expect them to ask the court to re-open the suspended Winding up petition and study the SoA in more detail before any decision is made.

 

That may be the reason for the 1 day hearing rather than a couple of hours.

 

It does not matter if Administration looks like the best course of action - if the debt claimed to be owed to the creditor which appointed the Administrator is not valid, or if the charge claimed as security by that creditor is not valid (as its not new money), then the Court cant just agree its the right thing to do, nor can they appoint a different individual as Administrator. The Administration is not valid.

 

It would take a willing new creditor, with valid debt and valid security, before Administration could even be considered again. HMRC will be pressing for Winding Up on the 15th, IMHO, unless the current appointment is shown to be valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
It would take a willing new creditor, with valid debt and valid security, before Administration could even be considered again. HMRC will be pressing for Winding Up on the 15th, IMHO, unless the current appointment is shown to be valid.

Or voluntary by the directors, with the approval of the Court? Or is it too late for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
It does not matter if Administration looks like the best course of action - if the debt claimed to be owed to the creditor which appointed the Administrator is not valid, or if the charge claimed as security by that creditor is not valid (as its not new money), then the Court cant just agree its the right thing to do, nor can they appoint a different individual as Administrator. The Administration is not valid.

 

It would take a willing new creditor, with valid debt and valid security, before Administration could even be considered again. HMRC will be pressing for Winding Up on the 15th, IMHO, unless the current appointment is shown to be valid.

So if the charge is not valid the court/Chanrai etc cannot stop the liquidation on that day, unless chanrai or another pays off the debts beforehand?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bucks Saint

Bucks Saint

Posted
Posted
So if the charge is not valid the court/Chanrai etc cannot stop the liquidation on that day, unless chanrai or another pays off the debts beforehand?

 

Its not certain what the Court will do on the 15th. I am sure HMRC will press for a Winding Up order if the Admin is not valid. PFC will resist of course but they will be open to what the Court decides. Remember that the Court has already said that PFC are trading whilst insolvent and it may take a dim view that they have been in court just a few too many times since then, but still not resolved the position

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