Pompey Takeover Saga

[pedg]

That's good. But I don't any more (agree with myself, I mean).

 

If we read things correctly, there is no point in them proceeding with 1. in Court on the day. In fact it would be harmful. If I were them, I would, just before the hearing, concede 1. with glossed-up spinning press releases and p.r. statements, and proceed straight with 2. by asking the Judge to make Andy & Co. Court-appointed administrators.

 

We might get some pointers by seeing how much actual "administrating" they do between now and then.

 

Agree as no point them risking going to court if they can't prove andy android correctly appointed and risk everything on the day. I guess it depends on whether asking to have the court appoint an administrator will be a straight yes/no question or could it go through several rounds of negotiation before one is appointed? (how about this?, no, how about this then?, ... etc) as if that's the latter case then the sooner they ask the more chance they have of reaching a deal before the court case.

 

But then that might be the sensible option and so probably not allowed under the perverse 'pompey rules' they appear to be working to.

[Bucks Saint]

 

I don't think they'll be wound up at the next hearing, despite what HMRC say. I expect PCFC to make their contingent application for a Court-appointed administrator (and ask for that Court-apointed administrator to be Andy & Co.), before the hearing. The running order on the day would then be:

 

1. Consideration of the propriety of Andy's appointment

2. Consideration for contingent application to appoint administrators (Andy)

3. Winding up petition

 

Based on what we know so far, I would expect HMRC to win on 1. It will then move on to 2.

 

In my experience, Courts do tend to lean towards the "poor little guy" who has unfortunately found himself in difficulty, but is trying to do the decent thing to get out of it. So I think there is a strong possibility that the Court will appoint administrators, but it won't be Andy & Co.

 

On that basis the WUP will remain stayed.

 

 

 

I dont know if HMRC will be succeed with their desire to get a WU Order. But your summary above misses one key point: If HMRC win on Point 1, then it must have been shown that the debt against which Andy has been appointed is not valid (either because it was not new money, or because it is not even owed by PFC).

 

If that happens, the Court CANNOT just appoint another Administrator. Even if the Court feels that Administration is the best course of action, it can only appoint someone if there is an Application by a PFC Creditor (that is valid). If this particular debt / claim is not valid, then an Administrator could only be appointed if another Creditor steps forward immediately, with a valid debt and valid application.

 

I am personally amazed that Andy and Co have taken this appointment without being certain, in advance, that it is valid. And then to have been summoned to Court and faced serious questions and yet still not been able to demonstrate that it is valid is almost unheard of.

[Bucks Saint]

Exactly!!

 

They're in admin... havn't seen a single effort to cut cost from the administrator. I really can't tell the difference now from last week..

 

They're supposed to be in admin, but nothing has been done to reduce expenditure.

 

Stalling for more time? The tune's no different, as in TV-money and parachute payments.

 

Given that his appointment has been challenged in the High Court, and he has not yet been able to prove anything, I do wonder if he is holding off taking any substantial actions on the basis that he might get sued for any such actions, if he does not win on 15 March, i.e. he will have taken actions as an Administrator and then shown to have had no such power.

 

Maybe if he had a bullet proof indemnity he could carry on but who is going to provide that funding? ho hum....

[Guided Missile]

Agree as no point them risking going to court if they can't prove andy android correctly appointed and risk everything on the day. I guess it depends on whether asking to have the court appoint an administrator will be a straight yes/no question or could it go through several rounds of negotiation before one is appointed? (how about this?, no, how about this then?, ... etc) as if that's the latter case then the sooner they ask the more chance they have of reaching a deal before the court case.

I think it's worth remembering who has taken PCFC to court. There were two complainants, HMRC and Grosvenor, I believe. I don't think PCFC can decide they don't want to play this particular game, nor try and impose some form of alternative administration on the two other parties. The court has been asked to consider winding the company up, end of...

 

The main purpose of the hearing is to "lift the shadow" over the current administration and the only thing that PCFC can do is provide the evidence asked for by the court. HMRC will be presenting their findings based on the Fuglers client account and then it's over to the judge. PCFC have run out of room to maneouvre, IMO and it is out of there hands. If they are telling the truth and the evidence supports them, they will have no problem. If there is a suggestion that their owners have sought to gain an unfair advantage over the creditors by falsifying a charge with Companies House, then it will be a case of liquidate and persue the guilty...

[hutch]

I was aware of your earlier point, Bucks, when I posted that.

 

But, at the hearing, Counsel for Pompey:

 

"

Mr Barker said if the appointment of the administrators is invalid there will be a contingent application for a court-appointed administration

"

 

and I was following that line.

[Cincy USA]

I think £30m would get more me smoke and mirrors at Poundland?

[Bucks Saint]

I was aware of your earlier point, Bucks, when I posted that.

 

But, at the hearing, Counsel for Pompey:

 

"

Mr Barker said if the appointment of the administrators is invalid there will be a contingent application for a court-appointed administration

"

 

and I was following that line.

 

Ok, cheers, good point. We wait to see who the next make-believe creditor might be!

[Kingsland Red]

Since the lottery started I have always had the same 6 numbers.

On the basis that one day they will be the winning numbers, can I apply for Camelot to pay out my winnings.

I think not Mr Andy the Bubble.

[mack rill]

It also fits a bath/sink to keep the water in.

 

Will it stop our liquid assets from leaking out;)

[Guided Missile]

I was aware of your earlier point, Bucks, when I posted that.

 

But, at the hearing, Counsel for Pompey:

"

Mr Barker said if the appointment of the administrators is invalid there will be a contingent application for a court-appointed administration

"

and I was following that line.

If the appointment of the administrators is invalid, it is because Chanrai/Portpin are not creditors. So....as soon as the court appointed receiver takes a look at the situation, he will ask, "Is there enough funds for PCFC to continue as a going concern?" The £15M that Chanrai is supposed to be putting into the pot will do a Lord Lucan. What shareholder, in there right mind, would spunk £15M, knowing that they are not a secured creditor and stand little prospect of getting any of it back, unless a total mug buyer is found for a club, with an unknown points deduction coming to it?

 

The only possible deal for PCFC is one that is good for the money launderers and that ain't going to happen. HMRC is on their case...

[hutch]

I think it's worth remembering who has taken PCFC to court. There were two complainants, HMRC and Grosvenor, I believe. I don't think PCFC can decide they don't want to play this particular game, nor try and impose some form of alternative administration on the two other parties. The court has been asked to consider winding the company up, end of...

 

The main purpose of the hearing is to "lift the shadow" over the current administration and the only thing that PCFC can do is provide the evidence asked for by the court. HMRC will be presenting their findings based on the Fuglers client account and then it's over to the judge. PCFC have run out of room to maneouvre, IMO and it is out of there hands. If they are telling the truth and the evidence supports them, they will have no problem. If there is a suggestion that their owners have sought to gain an unfair advantage over the creditors by falsifying a charge with Companies House, then it will be a case of liquidate and persue the guilty...

There are a couple of points there, Guided, where we do differ.

 

PCFC can play the game and lift the shadow, by accepting that there might, however unreasonable, be some unwarranted doubt hanging over Andy & Co's. original appointment, accepting the challenge, and proceeding to ask the Court to make the appointment instead of Baloo. They have already said this is in their plans, in a round about sort of way.

 

And, as I understand it, the scrutiny of Fuglers accounts, AT THIS STAGE, is focussed only on whether Baloo is a bona fide creditor or not, and therefore entitled to appoint an administrator. More will, no doubt, follow.

[dronskisaint]

This is fascinating - I really appreciate the informed perspective on this.

 

A couple of questions occur

 

If the Chanrai 'loan' is seen not to be fit to add him to the list of preferred creditors does this elevate the HMRC debt to a sufficient percentage to make their own call for an administrator or will they rely on the court to do so?

 

My limited experience of administration would lead me to ask if the administrator fee is geared around getting the best price (ostensibly for the creditors) as he would be on a percentage of an amount realised over & above his own fee - or - does he get paid based around the workload that relates to the case?

 

Once again thanks for the insight.

[andysstuff]

Of course if they do beat Brum Saturday, presumably some well negotiated win bonuses will start kicking in. didn't I see they lost £3M+ last time they won the cup.

 

In all honesty the Andy must be praying they lose it!

[dronskisaint]

Will it stop our liquid assets from leaking out;)

 

No - we'll keep taking the p*ss:)

[Joensuu]

Wonder what would happen if Pompey somehow get granted more time from the court, while at the same time their team manage to scrape through to the FA cup final... before being liquidated. Would the other finalists get a bye?

[Wes Tender]

So Mr. Astrologicalfees reckons that there is a possibility that the FA might sanction the Skates being able to sell players outside of the transfer window and then loan them back until the end of the season.

 

Correct me if I'm mistaken in my reasoning about the fly in the ointment. As I understand it, FA rules dictate that if a club takes a player on loan, he cannot participate in the FA Cup if he has already played matches in that season's competitiion previously. Therefore, half of their squad would be ineligible to continue in the competition, even if they did manage to get past Birmingham.

 

Personally, I'd think that the whole thing would stink like rotten fish if they were allowed to have the rules bent in their favour like this anyway. It must be a consideration that they were able to strengthen their team by effectively trading whilst insolvent and therefore gained an advantage over teams who were much more circumspect about keeping their expenditure on players within proper financial constraints.

 

We have a statement from Admin Andy saying that he doesn't want to go down the route of selling players, as that will devalue the chances of the team fighting against relegation. As has been pointed out, the purchase of players and the payment of high wages for them when they couldn't afford it, has already given them an advantage over other teams (us included) that they shouldn't have had.

 

Admin Andy has proposed that the Premier League might allow them to sell players and loan them back.

 

Has anybody any thoughts on what I have speculated is a possible problem; that effectively those players, once they are loaned back, would be cup-tied and therefore not able to play in the FA Cup? I know that this would be a precedent and the rules do not therefore allow for it, but under the current rules there is not any distinction that covers the loaned player having been at the same club prior to him being sold, is there?

[badgerx16]

Might be a simplistic perspective but, if Android's appointment is invaildated on the 15th, and on the ( I maybe on dodgy ground here ) understanding that the 'appointment' was made on the Friday to head off the winding up hearing on the Monday, can we simply not take the position the we would otherwise had on the original court date, and go straight for the jugular ?

[krissyboy31]

I see the Android is meeting the PFA to assure Gordon Taylor that the players will continue to be paid and on time. Taylor makes me sick TBH. He was on yesterday saying don't blame the players, short career blah blah! Aaron Ramsay injury blah blah!

 

The PFA should be abolished and a new association, that looks after the everyone in the football industry, from Tea Lady to middle management, to make sure that EVERYBODY gets paid and on time. And in these circumstances get their redundancy and pensions secured, instead of just the multi-millionaire players.

 

The might also take some responsibility to their members in making sure that if they sign for clubs on these bloated contracts, they are aware of the club's ability to pay for them.

Edited 4 March, 2010 by krissyboy31

[Weston Saint]

We have a statement from Admin Andy saying that he doesn't want to go down the route of selling players, as that will devalue the chances of the team fighting against relegation. As has been pointed out, the purchase of players and the payment of high wages for them when they couldn't afford it, has already given them an advantage over other teams (us included) that they shouldn't have had.

 

Admin Andy has proposed that the Premier League might allow them to sell players and loan them back.

 

Has anybody any thoughts on what I have speculated is a possible problem; that effectively those players, once they are loaned back, would be cup-tied and therefore not able to play in the FA Cup? I know that this would be a precedent and the rules do not therefore allow for it, but under the current rules there is not any distinction that covers the loaned player having been at the same club prior to him being sold, is there?

The idea of "cup tied" is so you do not play in the competition for 2 teams. If they played for Pompey, were sold, and loaned back they will only still have played for Pompey.

 

So no, they would not be cup tied

[Mister Neil]

Since the lottery started I have always had the same 6 numbers.

On the basis that one day they will be the winning numbers, can I apply for Camelot to pay out my winnings.

I think not Mr Andy the Bubble.

 

 

A while ago on the telly, someone with a brain the size of a small planet explained that each lottery draw was a unique event and the odds of winning remained the same for every draw. Simply put it meant that it didn't matter what 6 numbers you chose, whether they were the same or different every week, the chance of winning was a constant. Therefore (and I am truly sorry about this) you are not likely to win (ever!). The most reliable way to make money from the lottery is to take your stake money and invest it in a good savings account and not play the lotto - the only downside to this is you definitely won't get rich.

[Guided Missile]

PCFC can play the game and lift the shadow, by accepting that there might, however unreasonable, be some unwarranted doubt hanging over Andy & Co's. original appointment, accepting the challenge, and proceeding to ask the Court to make the appointment instead of Baloo. They have already said this is in their plans, in a round about sort of way.

The game they are trying to play, is their game, not the one HMRC are playing. It's not really about who is the administrator but whether Chanrai/Portpin are secured creditors and rank ahead of HMRC, IMO. Any play by PCFC to avoid that question being answered by letting the administrator to fall on his sword, will fail. That question and the general ownership, creditor and movement of funds "mysteries" need solving in court...

Edited 4 March, 2010 by Guided Missile

[Saint Keith]

Might be a simplistic perspective but, if Android's appointment is invaildated on the 15th, and on the ( I maybe on dodgy ground here ) understanding that the 'appointment' was made on the Friday to head off the winding up hearing on the Monday, can we simply not take the position the we would otherwise had on the original court date, and go straight for the jugular ?

 

yes, they can. whether the judge will allow them to do so is another matter

[badgerx16]

How would the EPL decide on forwarding them any money ? If it's a particular majority of the clubs I can't see Burnley, ( debt £0 ), or Stoke ( debt @ £2.3m ), wanting to help the phew with a bail out, nor Wolves or Hull who have previously come out and said they were outbid for transfers by Poopey spending cash they didn't have.

As far as I can see, there is nothing in the current rules to cover this, so surely it requires ALL clubs to agree it ?

[slickmick]

In Janet and John language, for those like myself who struggle to understand how the procedure works, wouldn't Sol Cambell be better off if he was the one that put them into administration ? i.e: there would have been no need for the Chainrai case to exist.

[dubai_phil]

Interesting silence for the past few days from Balou and his spokesperson.

 

Interesting absence from the scene of Jacobs

 

As for the what could happen debate. Does anyone really think that the words "There is a Shadow...." simply mean the process of appointment of Hacker?

 

Hutch's points list - 1) The process is a problem leads to PCFC asking the court to appoint an administrator - who is Hacker?

 

Simply cannot see that. Hackers would have been shown to have not carried out full Due Dilligence of the situation - they took on an "improper" admin? Cannot see HMRC or the Court allowing them to continue, and that is without any of the perceived links between Chanrai & Hacker that we have spotted.

 

It would need to be a new Court Appointed Adminstrator and the first question they will ask is How will I get paid? One of the reasons "Chanrai's links" got the job is because Chanrai had provided an "underwriting" ie a blank cheque guarantee (ie the paper and not the money. He was never going to PAY he simply put up the guarantee.

 

The only way that a new Admin can happen is the EPL play ball. So again playing Billy Big Bollix and threatening the PL won't work, the deal would have to be agreed in advance.

Admin #2 - "I need the cash up front"

PL "Not until you STFU"

Admin #2 - "yes sir no problem sir how can I help sir"

 

And let's remember in all of this, PCFC presented evidence to Court about their finances that has ALSO been challenged

[Guided Missile]

The failure of Chanrai/Portpin to appoint Vantis, says everything you need to know about the administration...

[georgeg]

So they can only sell 17.000 home tickets for the FA Cup QF and yet they've sold less than 16,500? They really are superb fans.

 

the best fans in the country apparently!

certainly the best (by a million miles) at bullsh*t

 

why dont they advertise a riot after the game - that would move tickets

[dubai_phil]

The failure of Chanrai/Portpin to appoint Vantis, says everything you need to know about the administration...

 

The care that everyone is taking to avoid making any allegation reminds me of Francis Urquhart in House of Cards.

 

'You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment'

 

Vantis said it themselves in words of one syllable as eloquently as we have been trying to all week!

[Channon's Sideburns]

 

And, as I understand it, the scrutiny of Fuglers accounts, AT THIS STAGE, is focussed only on whether Baloo is a bona fide creditor or not, and therefore entitled to appoint an administrator. More will, no doubt, follow.

 

Hutch, one of the points I made earlier in the thread was a post made by Matt Slater of the BBC, when he was posting on his Twitter feed from the courts.

 

There was a post made which stated quite clearly - HMRC are interested in several millions transferred TO Chinarai in February.

 

I feel that was one of the reasons they were after Fuglers Client Account. I also believe this little nugget is an additional clue just why Jacob left Fuglers. Just my assumption, but why would a 'successful' partner in a 'successful' law firm leave so quickly....?

 

Why would you give that up to join a potless, rapidly declining football club? Only if you were a fan. Which he isn't.

Edited 4 March, 2010 by Channon's Sideburns

[benjii]

Wonder what would happen if Pompey somehow get granted more time from the court, while at the same time their team manage to scrape through to the FA cup final... before being liquidated. Would the other finalists get a bye?

 

It is a serious possibility that they will reach the semi-final then be wound up.

 

The FA's inaction and silence over this has been remarkable IMO.

 

If a sporting sanction is appropriate as a consequence of financial mismanagement then there should be one in every competition - not just the leagues.

[Bucks Saint]

The failure of Chanrai/Portpin to appoint Vantis, says everything you need to know about the administration...

 

Spot on

[krissyboy31]

The failure of Chanrai/Portpin to appoint Vantis, says everything you need to know about the administration...

 

Exactly what I thought and I believe Trevor Watkins, when summarising for SSN said something very similar (in lawyer speak).

[benjii]

In Janet and John language, for those like myself who struggle to understand how the procedure works, wouldn't Sol Cambell be better off if he was the one that put them into administration ? i.e: there would have been no need for the Chainrai case to exist.

 

No - and he couldn't anyway until he has proven the debt is due. Pompey dispute that it is.

 

HTH

[Bucks Saint]

In Janet and John language, for those like myself who struggle to understand how the procedure works, wouldn't Sol Cambell be better off if he was the one that put them into administration ? i.e: there would have been no need for the Chainrai case to exist.

 

No. His position is no different if he had petitioned or not. He has the same priority of claim. Actually the best outcome for him was if PFC refinanced without going into insolvency but its way too late (as well as never going to happen) for that

[sun of spain]

Interesting bit on a Pompey forum,about the possibility of being thrown out of the FA Cup. Not sure if it could happen,but surely rules are rules ! :confused:

 

 

 

The rules say that we could be chucked out of the Cup ...

 

I think there's been a post on this before, my apologies if I am repeating it, but here is chapter and verse:

 

(f) If any Club when applying to enter the Competition, or at any time during the course of the competition becomes subject to any of the following insolvency events:

 

(i) a manager, receiver or administrative receiver appointed in respect of that Club or any part of its undertaking or assets;

(ii) an administration order made in respect of that Club;

(iii) a winding up order made in respect of that Club; or

(iv) entering into any arrangement with its creditors or some part of them in respect of the payment of its debts or part of them as a company voluntary arrangement under the Insolvency Act 1986 or Scheme of Arrangement under the Companies Act 1985.

 

Pompey obviously fall foul of part ii - what action the Professional Board takes though is the question.

 

It seems unlikely, only 2 days before the next round, but there it is.

[benjii]

He can't petition anyway as it's a disputed debt. Insolvency proceedings would be an abuse of process. Breach of contract is his claim and he must make it out.

[Weston Saint]

I have seen nothing which suggests the court have granted HMRC's wish to examine Fuglars client account relating to PFC transactions.

 

IF Chainrai was paid £2m out of that account in February is that in breach of the WUO against PFC?

 

If the answer is yes Fuglars & Chainrai needs to get themselves off the hook. How do they do that? By saying it was not money from PFC but from Falcondrone.

 

But then they will have admitted that the loan was to Falcondrone (which is what Ms Robbins said in her statement of affairs document) and that takes away Chainrai's secured creditor status.

[Crab Lungs]

I have seen nothing which suggests the court have granted HMRC's wish to examine Fuglars client account relating to PFC transactions.

 

IF Chainrai was paid £2m out of that account in February is that in breach of the WUO against PFC?

 

If the answer is yes Fuglars & Chainrai needs to get themselves off the hook. How do they do that? By saying it was not money from PFC but from Falcondrone.

 

But then they will have admitted that the loan was to Falcondrone (which is what Ms Robbins said in her statement of affairs document) and that takes away Chainrai's secured creditor status.

 

Check mate? So they're screwed?

[Foxstone]

The care that everyone is taking to avoid making any allegation reminds me of Francis Urquhart in House of Cards.

 

'You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment'

 

Vantis said it themselves in words of one syllable as eloquently as we have been trying to all week!

 

Is "Dysfunctional" two syllables ?

[slickmick]

He can't petition anyway as it's a disputed debt. Insolvency proceedings would be an abuse of process. Breach of contract is his claim and he must make it out.

 

 

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up.

[John D]

Exactly what I thought and I believe Trevor Watkins, when summarising for SSN said something very similar (in lawyer speak).

 

sorry must have missed this - what is the relevance of who appointed Vantis

[pedg]

Saw the thumbnail of the front page of the portsmouth news on their website and had to chuckle. Do you think the person who wrote the headline for the bottom story knew what was going to be above it???

 

[Gingeletiss]

Might be a simplistic perspective but, if Android's appointment is invaildated on the 15th, and on the ( I maybe on dodgy ground here ) understanding that the 'appointment' was made on the Friday to head off the winding up hearing on the Monday, can we simply not take the position the we would otherwise had on the original court date, and go straight for the jugular ?

 

IMO....yes, the WO is only 'stayed', not dismissed.

[Channon's Sideburns]

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

4:00 AM Mar 2nd via txt

 

HMRC asks 4 another hearing on 8/3 for club 2 provide evidence of loans/payments between club & Chainrai, evidence of charges & funding

3:51 AM Mar 2nd via txt

 

HMRC wants 2 c Fuglers accounts (used by Jacob as club bank). It says 'we know millions went out to Chainrai in Feb'

3:44 AM Mar 2nd via txt

 

HMRC is questioning timing of Chainrai's 'charge' (securing his debt) on PFC. It came on 7/1, after WUP started on 23/12. Bit iffy

3:15 AM Mar 2nd via txt

 

2nd headline: HMRC challenging value of Fratton Park. Is it Chainrai's £10m (competing 18/2/11!) or book value of £7.8m?

3:11 AM Mar 2nd via txt

 

1st big headline: last week Storrie revalued squad from £21m to £38m, contrary 2 normal practice but based on his 21yr experience!

 

-----

 

For Weston Saint to review - these are the comments cut and pasted directly from Matt Slater's Twitter feed - http://www.twitter.com/bbc_matt

 

Don't worry about the times shown, they're based on US time I believe.

 

Yes, I appreciate we have no evidence that these accounts have been released, but I can't see that the Courts would allow anyone to gloss over this info.

[Joensuu]

Some details (stolen from POL, who have in-turn stolen them from a Swindon fan).

 

Now I know we were already aware that Swindon didn't think a lot of AA, but here are some details about why not:

 

I'd ask him about his time at Swindon, where he supervised a CVA that included:

 

*late payments

*missed payments

*flagrant breaches of the terms of the CVA in each of the five years it was running

*repeatedly ignored creditors requests for information/creditors meeting

*When the final payment was missed and there was obviously no way of paying it he finally had to call a creditors' meeting after a vote of the creditors to hold one. He then cancelled it a few days later because he said the club had been sold even though it hadn't

* Why is Swindon STILL listed as being in CVA two years after the current owners discharged all the obligations under its terms? (Hint: because someone - not the club - hasn't completed the "minor paperwork" required to formally discharge the CVA)

*How did he allow a business under his supervision, which had as part of it's terms of its CVA that they HAD to make tax/NI/PAYE payments as they fell due to fall so behind on these payments that HMRC issued a winding up order in year 2 of the CVA?

* Once that was resolved, how did he then allow the business to AGAIN fall so far behind on its payments that by the end of the CVA the business owed HMRC an additional £2.8m?

* Is it part of his standard practice when supervising a CVA to publicly insult the customers of the business (supporters), the local council (one of the major creditors) and the creditors generally?

* Why did he repeatedly tell creditors/local media that deals had been done to sell the club when those deals were nowhere near completion? (He did this three times and they all collapsed)

* Why did he wrongly claim that Swindon did not need to make a final bullet payment of £900,000 because that was dependent on the ground redevelopment when the CVA document said no such thing?

* Why did he continue to repeat this falsehood to the local media when he'd been forced to admit it was not the case at a fans' forum in Feb 2007 by a supporter who read out the relevant section of the CVA to prove he'd just made this up?

* Why were mysterious extra invoices

 

That's just for starters. To sum it up, those of you putting faith in his "success" at Swindon should start to worry. Swindon was eventually saved by our current owners, despite, not because of, Mr Andronikou.

 

If I were you lot, I'd hope and pray HMRC succeed in appointing their own administrator

[Weston Saint]

He's now whining about being picked on by HMRC

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Pompey-administrator-slams-HMRC.6122599.jp

 

'It took me by complete surprise. I was busy getting on with the job in hand then come 4pm on Monday and Mr Revenue man and his briefcase wants his five minutes in court.

 

'Well, he got more than five minutes - their submissions lasted an hour-and-a-half, ours lasted a fraction of that. Enough said.'

 

Yes, they had lots of evidence and questions and you had one dubious promise. Enough said indeed.

This quite amused me.

 

First HMRC Counsel, an very experienced and highly regarded QC in this field asks questions about the clubs solvency at the original hearing and is proved to be right in doing so from the SOA. Now he is asking for evidence that Chainrai is a secure creditor.

 

QC's of this level do not usually ask questions unless they are pretty sure of the answer. He will have looked at every part of the SoA and the fact that the party who produced it were then sidelined.

 

I would say he has some certainty where his questioning in leading.

 

Mr Administrator is a bit of a media whore isn't he.

[Channon's Sideburns]

One other thing, how would HMRC 'know' millions went to Chinarai...????

 

Finance Director...sorry Manager as part of her 'evidence'??

[Viking Warrior]

As for Mr. Astrologicalfees

 

should the skates be wary of greeks bearing gifts!

 

or was it a case you don't look a gift horse in the mouth!

[Guided Missile]

See above...

Edited 4 March, 2010 by Guided Missile

[dubai_phil]

Is "Dysfunctional" two syllables ?

 

ah crook, sorry krap

 

 

 

 

:cool: