Pompey Takeover Saga

[hutch]

First of all a big thank you to the posters who explain everything so that even dim people like me understand this whole saga.

 

Perhaps one of them could answer these maybe silly questions ?,

 

Will Fuglers have serious legal problems because of what Mark Jacobs did whilst employed by them ?

 

Could HMRC or the Police fraud lot take them to Court ?

 

.

For Tony's peace of mind, I'll have a go at answering this one.

 

I don't think anyone's suggesting that what has gone on w.r.t. the use of Fugler's client account is actually illegal. Not at this stage, anyway.

 

What is being suggested is that payments which are claimed to have happened may not actually have happened, and those which have actually happened may not support the case which has been presented by PCFC.

 

No worries there, Mate.

[redkeith]

On the News forum, they keep asking for more help from their MP, Han****.

 

I think that they sould skip Parliment and go straight to the House of Lords. Lord Ashdown would be the perfect spokesman for them against the 'persecution' by HRMC.

[Viking Warrior]

Is there any truth in the rumour the android has hired Gok to give notarf krap a makeover instead of a complete rebuild

[ericofarabia]

Android says there are 12 interested parties :confused: ....... looks like the new pastime in Skatesville is ........

 

[pedg]

Android says there are 12 interested parties :confused: ....... looks like the new pastime in Skatesville is ........

 

 

The new pompey nursery rhyme...

 

12 Interested parties

Wanting to buy pompey

12 Interested parties

Wanting to buy pompey

And if one interested party

Should fail to raise the the cash

There'll be 11 interested parties

Wanting to buy pompey

....

[Sevvy]

Billy Smart put in an offer but pulled out at the last minute when he realised there was 11 extra clowns running round the pitch.

[miserableoldgit]

Is there any truth in the rumour the android has hired Gok to give notarf krap a makeover instead of a complete rebuild

Surely it would be Nick Knowles and the "DIY SOS" team, although even they would struggle! Or better still the "Extreme Makeover"lot. You can tell what`s on TV when I get home from work, can`t you?!

[dronskisaint]

I wouldn't register to go on a Pompey messageboard. Would you register to go on a Saints' one?

 

Oh...

 

+1 - It would be like wearing one of their shirts...personally I'd feel unclean doing so.

 

Not to knock those that do - for sure it provides them with several Edinburgh Festivals full of pure comedy - or watching a snuff movie perhaps?

[rallyboy]

Storrie could present Cash in the Attic.

[krissyboy31]

Storrie could present Cash in the Attic.

 

More like Trash in the [bargain] basement!

[pedg]

Isn't the whole thing a glorified episode of 'Hustle'

[Weston Saint]

Was speaking to a Pompey supporting friend of mine at a bar before dinner in Gosport last night. He seemed to think Pompey would be ok so I relayed to him what we all know. Watched his jaw drop as I came out with issues on ownership, alleged money movements and secure creditor issues. He now thinks they are toast

[Bucks Saint]

Was speaking to a Pompey supporting friend of mine at a bar before dinner in Gosport last night. He seemed to think Pompey would be ok so I relayed to him what we all know. Watched his jaw drop as I came out with issues on ownership, alleged money movements and secure creditor issues. He now thinks they are toast

 

At the bar, before dinner? Some friend you are!

[Sevvy]

Was speaking to a Pompey supporting friend of mine at a bar before dinner in Gosport last night. He seemed to think Pompey would be ok so I relayed to him what we all know. Watched his jaw drop as I came out with issues on ownership, alleged money movements and secure creditor issues. He now thinks they are toast

 

 

I bet you enjoyed his reaction though

[Whitey Grandad]

Was speaking to a Pompey supporting friend of mine at a bar before dinner in Gosport last night. He seemed to think Pompey would be ok so I relayed to him what we all know. Watched his jaw drop as I came out with issues on ownership, alleged money movements and secure creditor issues. He now thinks they are toast

Who paid the bill?

[Gemmel]

Storrie could present Cash in the Attic.

 

 

Presenter; Well Peter let's have a look in your attic.

 

Storrie; Ok, this way

 

Presenter; There's lot of empty brown envelopes Peter, but were looking for something that we might be able to sell.

 

Storrie: I've got this.....

 

Presenter: What is it Peter?

 

Storrie: It's an original "TY" teddy bear

 

Presenter: And you think that might be worth something?

 

Storrie; Oh yes, espeacially given their association with pompey

 

Presenter: And how much do you think it is worth then Peter

 

Storrie: About 38 million pounds

 

Presenter; What on earth makes you think it's worth that much

 

Storrie; My 21 years experience.

 

Presenter; But aren't they like 5.99 in the local toyshop

 

Storrie; But we won the FA cup, I;ve been on the phone all night, nobody loves the club as much as me, lots of people want to buy us

 

Presenter; NURSE, NURSE

[torsaint]

Somebody earlier mentioned Lord Ashdown as an expert on HMRC. Lord Ashcroft would be a better bet!

[Weston Saint]

At the bar, before dinner? Some friend you are!

We had a good dinner though and we were both guests of another friend who paid.

[Foxy]

Who paid the bill?

 

Well, not the Pompey person, obviously

[Bucks Saint]

We had a good dinner though and we were both guests of another friend who paid.

 

Result!

[sidthesquid]

Well, not the Pompey person, obviously

 

He wouldn't have paid the VAT on it, anyway.

[Durleyfos]

Surely it would be Nick Knowles and the "DIY SOS" team, although even they would struggle! Or better still the "Extreme Makeover"lot. You can tell what`s on TV when I get home from work, can`t you?!

 

Surely 'Scrapheap Challenge' is taylor made for a Fratton Park makeover?

[mack rill]

Just by way of a quick summary,

 

It started off with a FAKE owner, Gayda Junior

 

Then came the FAKE Doctor, with his FAKE consortium of wealthy men

 

Then came the FAKE Sheikh, with another FAKE consortium of wealthy men

 

Then came the Saviour, with his FAKE loans

 

And they've ended up with a FAKE administrator

 

 

Has anybody else noticed a bit of a trend here, or is it just me being overly suspicious?

 

And they all work for the real Fake owner Arcadia Sn.

 

Hatch a question,,,,,, If i had to hitch up the horse and make a quick getaway to my summer retreat in Cossack land and my assets were frozen, if i got a mucker of mine to successfully sue me in court, Would the moneys be released from said frozen account.

[redkeith]

Somebody earlier mentioned Lord Ashdown as an expert on HMRC. Lord Ashcroft would be a better bet!

 

That's the one, sorry should have known that Paddy Ashdown wouldnt fiddle his taxes.

[Gingeletiss]

Now this poor sole (skate) has an interesting view on points deduction. He in fact feels that Poor smouth do not merit one, as they have not had an unfair advantage over other teams.

 

Yeh right!!!!!

 

 

mr_bishiuk Posted on 05/03/2010 08:13

The points deduction rule should be changed

Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message

The points deduction should only come into effect if the team have had an unfair advantage for the season that administration takes place.

 

In my view Portsmouth have done all they can to avoid administration once funding was withdrawn from the owner and banks theve sold any player not nailed down and replaced them with free's and loans (the club still have to turn a premier league team out).

 

The rule was brough in after Leicester went into administration basically sold no one and then went on to get promotion, this was totally unfair against other teams and a points deduction is fair. I would argue that Scummers also did eevrything they could do to avoid administration on their relegation.

 

but us getting a points deduction now damages the integrity of the league as one team has nothing to play for and the "best" league in the world shouldn't every team have something to play for?

[dronskisaint]

We had a good dinner though and we were both guests of another friend who paid.

 

Saved your friend some money by putting the skate off his food no doubt!

[EastleighSoulBoy]

And they all work for the real Fake owner Arcadia Sn.

 

Hatch a question,,,,,, If i had to hitch up the horse and make a quick getaway to my summer retreat in Cossack land and my assets were frozen, if i got a mucker of mine to successfully sue me in court, Would the moneys be released from said frozen account.

 

No, but hopefully some foolish institution will pay you your life's earnings against you continuing to work. After all, they are yours. It's just that you haven't received them as yet.

 

I have to admire your sense of humour fella! It will sustain you through what I feel are the difficult times to come.

[dubai_phil]

Now this poor sole (skate) has an interesting view on points deduction. He in fact feels that Poor smouth do not merit one, as they have not had an unfair advantage over other teams.

 

Yeh right!!!!!

 

 

mr_bishiuk Posted on 05/03/2010 08:13

The points deduction rule should be changed

Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message

The points deduction should only come into effect if the team have had an unfair advantage for the season that administration takes place.

 

In my view Portsmouth have done all they can to avoid administration once funding was withdrawn from the owner and banks theve sold any player not nailed down and replaced them with free's and loans (the club still have to turn a premier league team out).

 

The rule was brough in after Leicester went into administration basically sold no one and then went on to get promotion, this was totally unfair against other teams and a points deduction is fair. I would argue that Scummers also did eevrything they could do to avoid administration on their relegation.

 

but us getting a points deduction now damages the integrity of the league as one team has nothing to play for and the "best" league in the world shouldn't every team have something to play for?

 

 

OK.

 

So the new concept to not have the points added is "Because we tried very hard"

 

Dear Mr Blatter, when I was young I tried very hard to be a decent pub team footballer. Because I tried very hard you should now send me a World Cup Winners medal as I deserve it.

 

 

Now, let us look for a proper comparison shall we? Where can we find an example of a Football Based business that had a money problem?

 

Oh yes, look, not 30 miles away from Poorsmuff. A football club that ACTUALLY reduced it's running costs by 30% in the year up to admin. A football club that did not pay a Manager 950,000 a year. A football club who had to play their Academy team as they could not afford to pay their players.

 

Oh and a football team that despite ALL their troubles, still owed the Taxman around ONE MONTH's NI & VAT when they went bust.

 

A football club that didn't ignore a legal threat hanging over it. A club that did the RIGHT thing for the sake of 4,000 pounds so that it did not break the law.

 

And what happened to their "We tried very had we don't deserve a points reduction" appeal?

 

They moaned at me for having a dig at their intellectual grasp of the situation, but dear oh Lord.

 

Nice dig by Mack though.

Think you finally cottoned on to "That which cannot be said but everyone thinks has happened"

 

Once you start down that road the rest starts to make more sense. Welcome aboard, will be interesting to see how it all falls out when HMRC's net is landed

[rallyboy]

mack rill has returned to an interesting point a couple of us highlighted a few dozen pages back.

 

A court order on the back up of a cooked up case could be the only way of freeing up frozen accounts - thus allowing a couple of international criminals to split let's say, just as an example plucked out of the air, £17M?

They have the back up of doing a joint property development should their money-laundering vehicle of choice lose a wheel or two.

 

 

The only thing that might go wrong is if that vehicle didn't deliver the amounts agreed and it all got out of their control.

The paper trail would be quite simple to follow I would have thought.

 

 

 

 

The taxman has been quiet this week......maybe he's busy.

[Bucks Saint]

mack rill has returned to an interesting point a couple of us highlighted a few dozen pages back.

 

A court order on the back up of a cooked up case could be the only way of freeing up frozen accounts - thus allowing a couple of international criminals to split let's say, just as an example plucked out of the air, £17M?

They have the back up of doing a joint property development should their money-laundering vehicle of choice lose a wheel or two.

 

 

The only thing that might go wrong is if that vehicle didn't deliver the amounts agreed and it all got out of their control.

The paper trail would be quite simple to follow I would have thought.

 

 

 

 

The taxman has been quiet this week......maybe he's busy.

 

 

HMRC been in court twice already. They are busy making sure there is not a 4th time.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Benjamin Franklin once said that there are only two things certain in life.

 

Death & Taxes.

 

Well, Poopey have seemingly avoided one of them.

 

Could they possibly avoid the other?

 

I'd like NickH's opinion on this?

[saintjay77]

Now this poor sole (skate) has an interesting view on points deduction. He in fact feels that Poor smouth do not merit one, as they have not had an unfair advantage over other teams.

 

Yeh right!!!!!

 

 

mr_bishiuk Posted on 05/03/2010 08:13

The points deduction rule should be changed

Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message

The points deduction should only come into effect if the team have had an unfair advantage for the season that administration takes place.

 

In my view Portsmouth have done all they can to avoid administration once funding was withdrawn from the owner and banks theve sold any player not nailed down and replaced them with free's and loans (the club still have to turn a premier league team out).

 

The rule was brough in after Leicester went into administration basically sold no one and then went on to get promotion, this was totally unfair against other teams and a points deduction is fair. I would argue that Scummers also did eevrything they could do to avoid administration on their relegation.

 

but us getting a points deduction now damages the integrity of the league as one team has nothing to play for and the "best" league in the world shouldn't every team have something to play for?

 

Blimey he has a very selective outlook.

 

They had the chance to sell some of there better players to clear some of there debt but didnt

 

The players they sold, it seems they could have got more for them but didnt

 

And on top of that they bring in Tosic on a free and O'hara on loan to name but 2 so I dont get how they did everything they could to make there financial situation any better.

 

If anything they should be stung for more points for taking the P1$$.

 

We had a valid reason to contest the points deduction but if it had worked we would have looked like we took the P1$$ as we would have wriggled out of it on a technicality. At no point did we try and get out of it by saying we tried to sort things out by not buying anyone. lol

[saintjay77]

HMRC been in court twice already. They are busy making sure there is not a 4th time.

 

Any idea what HMRC actually want out of this?

 

I mean what would they consider to be a result on there part?

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Any idea what HMRC actually want out of this?

 

I mean what would they consider to be a result on there part?

 

Full, proper and correct payment?

 

And in future in a timely manner? I suspect that this is the issue they hope to convey to football in general.

[Gemmel]

Any idea what HMRC actually want out of this?

 

I mean what would they consider to be a result on there part?

 

Liquidation

[saint_stevo]

Android says there are 12 interested parties :confused: ....... looks like the new pastime in Skatesville is ........

 

 

Copyright.

 

Mr Lynam wants his tyre back

[saint_stevo]

Have they lost the 9pts yet btw?

[Joensuu]

Have they lost the 9pts yet btw?

 

No.

 

In four weeks time if Pompey have been deducted 9 points they can consider themselves to be very, very lucky.

[Bucks Saint]

Any idea what HMRC actually want out of this?

 

I mean what would they consider to be a result on there part?

 

 

I have dealt with them many times. There are cases where arguments along the lines of : "If you support our plan (Administration) you will get 75% of your money back and the business will continue and jobs will be saved, BUT if you dont (Winding Up) you will only get 30% back at most, and the business will cease, and jobs will be lost, and we will stop generating more tax and PAYE receipts for you in future, etc etc" cut no ice whatsoever.

 

Why? Because in those cases they usually involve a serial bad payer, who has broken many previous agreements to pay arrears, who has avoided all sensible courses of action, who has management that cannot be trusted / are incompetent and the business is doomed. So in these cases HMRC view putting them into Liquidation as the best way to stop the tax debt getting any worse - unlike a normal trade supplier, they cant just put them on stop!

 

Sound anything like the blue few's favourite dead horse?

[saintjay77]

Full, proper and correct payment?

 

And in future in a timely manner? I suspect that this is the issue they hope to convey to football in general.

 

yeah I know primarily they are after there money and to be raised higher up the queue in creditors but I am wondering what they will accept and be reasonably happy with?

 

If the judge rules the admin is OK and lets Poopy get on with it I would have thought HMRC will be even more hacked off.

 

So going throught he various different outcomes at what point would HMRC be coming out thinking they have a victory?

[pedg]

Any idea what HMRC actually want out of this?

 

I mean what would they consider to be a result on there part?

 

I think a while back someone with contacts inside HMRC said that several other clubs that were behind on their tax have come forward and paid up since they started this action against pompey so they can probably already consider it a result. There two remain fronts are obviously other clubs that are behind on their tax and pompey's. Getting pompey wound up may reduce what they would get from pompey in the longer term but the take no prisoners approach would probably prompt a few more non-payers into finding the money for HMRC.

[saintjay77]

I have dealt with them many times. There are cases where arguments along the lines of : "If you support our plan (Administration) you will get 75% of your money back and the business will continue and jobs will be saved, BUT if you dont (Winding Up) you will only get 30% back at most, and the business will cease, and jobs will be lost, and we will stop generating more tax and PAYE receipts for you in future, etc etc" cut no ice whatsoever.

 

Why? Because in those cases they usually involve a serial bad payer, who has broken many previous agreements to pay arrears, who has avoided all sensible courses of action, who has management that cannot be trusted / are incompetent and the business is doomed. So in these cases HMRC view putting them into Liquidation as the best way to stop the tax debt getting any worse - unlike a normal trade supplier, they cant just put them on stop!

 

Sound anything like the blue few's favourite dead horse?

 

So you think HMRC wont be happy unless Poopy is stopped?

 

I can guess that when HMRC want to play hard ball then there oposition is in trouble, but for something so high profile as a football club, backed by the Prem and the FA they may be happy to settle for more of a moral victory once they have shaken everything up a little.

 

To be raised up the pecking order in creditor status with football clubs and a warning to other clubs of what is possible should finances be mis-managed.

 

I didnt think its anything against poopy or its workers in particular but more against the system that gives them such a low priority.

 

If they are treating Poopy as just another company that continually cant pay there way then I guess it is a little more personal on there part.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

yeah I know primarily they are after there money and to be raised higher up the queue in creditors but I am wondering what they will accept and be reasonably happy with?

 

If the judge rules the admin is OK and lets Poopy get on with it I would have thought HMRC will be even more hacked off.

 

So going throught he various different outcomes at what point would HMRC be coming out thinking they have a victory?

 

I think Bucks Saint sums it up. Liquidation, to put an end to the lying, thieving, cheating and conniving.

[saintjay77]

I think a while back someone with contacts inside HMRC said that several other clubs that were behind on their tax have come forward and paid up since they started this action against pompey so they can probably already consider it a result. There two remain fronts are obviously other clubs that are behind on their tax and pompey's. Getting pompey wound up may reduce what they would get from pompey in the longer term but the take no prisoners approach would probably prompt a few more non-payers into finding the money for HMRC.

 

Thats what I am thinking. They are using the Poopy case to ram the message home to others who are behind or are at risk. But I was wondering at what point would they think the message has hit home? Would they feel the need to go the whole hog and get them liquidated or would they be happy with admin knowing that they have shown they are prepared to go all the way?

[sunrise]

I see this thread has more posts than the skates have fans that go to their cow shed.

 

Have they gone bust yet?

[pedg]

Thats what I am thinking. They are using the Poopy case to ram the message home to others who are behind or are at risk. But I was wondering at what point would they think the message has hit home? Would they feel the need to go the whole hog and get them liquidated or would they be happy with admin knowing that they have shown they are prepared to go all the way?

 

I suppose as well we have to consider the third interested parties which are the leagues with their football creditors first rule. An ideal result for HMRC would be for the leagues to change their rules, clubs to pay up on time and for pompey to survive to pay another day. However these may not be mutually compatible?

[Bucks Saint]

So you think HMRC wont be happy unless Poopy is stopped?

 

I can guess that when HMRC want to play hard ball then there oposition is in trouble, but for something so high profile as a football club, backed by the Prem and the FA they may be happy to settle for more of a moral victory once they have shaken everything up a little.

 

To be raised up the pecking order in creditor status with football clubs and a warning to other clubs of what is possible should finances be mis-managed.

 

I didnt think its anything against poopy or its workers in particular but more against the system that gives them such a low priority.

 

If they are treating Poopy as just another company that continually cant pay there way then I guess it is a little more personal on there part.

 

 

If the Court rules the Admin appointment is valid, and it should continue, then they will accept it but will probably insist on being on the Creditors Committee (a representative group of Creditors that gets to meet with the Administrator and be updated on all major decisions).

 

Otherwise they will press for WU IMHO. They do not issue WU Petitions as a threat or as a debt collection tool. They do so because they have decided that this is the right option. They dont get emotional about the type of business or who might be impacted. They have been to Court twice on this , raised some serious questions, not had any real answers, and each time seen the Court give PFC more time (and more time than HMRC asked them to be given too).

 

I dont think its personal against the staff etc - they dont get emotional as I have said - but I suspect they may be seriously hacked off by how this business is being run and the decisions that have been taken.

 

I also think HMRC are more "involved" on this one because there is no traditional bank debt here. If there was, like us with Barclays, they could usually rely on the Bank making sure that (1) the Administration was the right course of action, on a timely basis , and a valid appointment and (2) that the Administrator was someone sensible who they could work with. With no Bank involved, and no other Creditor checking these things, HMRC have to.

 

Bottom line - if the current Admin is not valid, then they will be even more determined to put an end to the shannigans. IMHO

Edited 5 March, 2010 by Bucks Saint

[sidthesquid]

I think all HMRC can possibly want & expect (and it's a government department, not a person) from this case is a) the money they are owed by the Skates and b) the prospect of any future money owed being paid on time. Anything else might be considered a bonus but that is not what it is about. If Poopey pay up and can prove that they can continue to pay on time, HMRC will go away, simple as that

[Joensuu]

Thats what I am thinking. They are using the Poopy case to ram the message home to others who are behind or are at risk. But I was wondering at what point would they think the message has hit home? Would they feel the need to go the whole hog and get them liquidated or would they be happy with admin knowing that they have shown they are prepared to go all the way?

 

Disagree. HMRC aren't 'making an example'. They are simply treating the skates as they would any other company. If you fall behind on your taxes, HMRC will pursue you. If you pay, or arrange payment, they will offer you some slack (not a lot!). If you try to wriggle, dispute the tax, or miss repayment schedules they will seek to wind up the company.

 

So what to HMRC want out of this? Either repayment in full, or for the company to cease trading.

[Foxstone]

So you think HMRC wont be happy unless Poopy is stopped?

 

I can guess that when HMRC want to play hard ball then there oposition is in trouble, but for something so high profile as a football club, backed by the Prem and the FA they may be happy to settle for more of a moral victory once they have shaken everything up a little.

To be raised up the pecking order in creditor status with football clubs and a warning to other clubs of what is possible should finances be mis-managed.

 

I didnt think its anything against poopy or its workers in particular but more against the system that gives them such a low priority.

 

If they are treating Poopy as just another company that continually cant pay there way then I guess it is a little more personal on there part.

 

 

I would say that The FA and the Prem pale into insignificance in the national league table of importance and power beside HMRC, and that HMRC will not give an inch to them unless it is warranted.