Pompey Takeover Saga

[Whitey Grandad]

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.

If I went to Cossack-land my assets would soon be frozen.

 

Interesting point though, about assets that have been frozen by the Law. I would guess that it would depend on the reason for them being frozen in the first place and a Court could conceivably order their release to settle outstanding debts. Any expert views out there?

[SOTONS EAST SIDE]

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.

I also think they want to send a message to other football clubs, that they wont go away, and they want their money or they will Liquidate you!!! pop lol Edited 5 March, 2010 by SOTONS EAST SIDE

[saintjay77]

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

 

Thanks Bucks,

 

So it sounds like the courts are treading carefully as being a very public case they wouldnt want to seem to be unfair. So by giving Poopy there extra time any rulling will be made based on Poopy having every chance possible.

 

What ever the outcome I guess the losing party will contest it in what ever way possible. If this was any other business would they have given this many chances?

[Whitey Grandad]

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

 

That would make sense. A Company should not have special legal status unless it is trading legally and paying its taxes.

[Dimond Geezer]

I wonder if someone with a bit more knowledge of these type of things can answer this for me.

 

My question is, what do HMRC get if pompey are wound up?

 

If the company is liquidated (although I think liquidised sounds better ), does HMRC get first dibs on the cash released by the sale of the assets, because if they don't would they not be better off writing off what is currently owed, with the prospect of getting the tax revenue on possible future earnings. Which is I guess would happen if they get out the otherside of administration.

 

Apologies if this has already been asked.

[Whitey Grandad]

I wonder if someone with a bit more knowledge of these type of things can answer this for me.

 

My question is, what do HMRC get if pompey are wound up?

 

If the company is liquidated (although I think liquidised sounds better ), does HMRC get first dibs on the cash released by the sale of the assets, because if they don't would they not be better off writing off what is currently owed, with the prospect of getting the tax revenue on possible future earnings. Which is I guess would happen if they get out the otherside of administration.

 

Apologies if this has already been asked.

They would get lots of other clubs (and businesses) paying what they owe. A high-profile club just cannot be allowed to continue trading, buying and selling players, taking money from the public, without paying over the VAT, PAYE, NI that the taxpayer is due.

[saintjay77]

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.

 

Sorry I didnt mean that the Prem and FA are above them but that its very likly that the Prem and FA will at some point jump in to help bail them out. Say they ditch the -9 points and Poopy somehow escape relegation. They are then secured more money next season which the Prem could set aside for HMRC or something.

 

Or if they are allowed to sell players outside the window in order to pay off the debts that are attached to the WUO.

 

While the Prem and FA wont stand up against HMRC they can and probably will bend there own rules so they dont have to deal with watching one of there clubs go bust. Either situation is not good for them but I would think they would rather not deal with having a club drop out of the league completly rendering there games and points lost and won meaningless.

[saintjay77]

I wonder if someone with a bit more knowledge of these type of things can answer this for me.

 

My question is, what do HMRC get if pompey are wound up?

 

If the company is liquidated (although I think liquidised sounds better ), does HMRC get first dibs on the cash released by the sale of the assets, because if they don't would they not be better off writing off what is currently owed, with the prospect of getting the tax revenue on possible future earnings. Which is I guess would happen if they get out the otherside of administration.

 

Apologies if this has already been asked.

 

From Poopy? not allot, As Bucks Saint said a few posts back they would probably only be up for around 30% of what they are owed if they are lucky.

 

But if they believe letting Poopy stay alive will only increase the debt and not realistically get them paid aything at all then 30% is better than yet another promise to pay F All.

[Bucks Saint]

I wonder if someone with a bit more knowledge of these type of things can answer this for me.

 

My question is, what do HMRC get if pompey are wound up?

 

If the company is liquidated (although I think liquidised sounds better ), does HMRC get first dibs on the cash released by the sale of the assets, because if they don't would they not be better off writing off what is currently owed, with the prospect of getting the tax revenue on possible future earnings. Which is I guess would happen if they get out the otherside of administration.

 

Apologies if this has already been asked.

 

In a normal (non football club) business, the answer is almost always that they will get less back of what they are owed now, and no future revenue. They dont get first dibs, they have the same priority as before, its just the business and its assets are worth a lot less. But I have already posted earlier why HMRC would consider this the right course of action sometimes.

 

But with the weird and wonderful Football priority creditor rule, I do wonder if there is another advantage (it has not happened before). It is well known that HMRC hate this rule. If a club is liquidated, it ceases trading immediately and so could never fulfill its fixures anyway. If that happens, then where is the incentive to comply with this archaic rule: the League say that you cannot have your place in the league next season if you dont comply.

 

Would HMRC finally challenge this rule if PFC ceased to trade? Hmmmm

[krissyboy31]

Sorry I didnt mean that the Prem and FA are above them but that its very likly that the Prem and FA will at some point jump in to help bail them out. Say they ditch the -9 points and Poopy somehow escape relegation. They are then secured more money next season which the Prem could set aside for HMRC or something.

 

Or if they are allowed to sell players outside the window in order to pay off the debts that are attached to the WUO.

 

While the Prem and FA wont stand up against HMRC they can and probably will bend there own rules so they dont have to deal with watching one of there clubs go bust. Either situation is not good for them but I would think they would rather not deal with having a club drop out of the league completly rendering there games and points lost and won meaningless.

 

I think people forget that 'The Premier League' is a conglomerate of 20 chairmen of football clubs that all have their own agendas. Certainly none of the bottom 6 or 7 are going to spite their own chances of survival, just to protect 'the brand'. Any worried about 'the brand' are more likely to vote against, bending over backwards to help one club because it ruins the integrity of their rule book and open's up the possibility that PCFC would continue to be their problem, next season.

[Doctoroncall]

In a normal (non football club) business, the answer is almost always that they will get less back of what they are owed now, and no future revenue. They dont get first dibs, they have the same priority as before, its just the business and its assets are worth a lot less. But I have already posted earlier why HMRC would consider this the right course of action sometimes.

 

But with the weird and wonderful Football priority creditor rule, I do wonder if there is another advantage (it has not happened before). It is well known that HMRC hate this rule. If a club is liquidated, it ceases trading immediately and so could never fulfill its fixures anyway. If that happens, then where is the incentive to comply with this archaic rule: the League say that you cannot have your place in the league next season if you dont comply.

 

Would HMRC finally challenge this rule if PFC ceased to trade? Hmmmm

 

I see what you mean, but it's not for the HMRC to change the rule.

 

They have contested the secured creditor status before and lost but I can see this course of action putting pressure on the football authorities to drop the football creditor status by going straight to a WU order as there is no advantage of Admin for them (as unsecured creditors) when clubs are seriously in debt.

[hutch]

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.

Now there's a thought.

 

I think you already know the answer to that.

[Third Division South Days]

Surely it's about time that EPL and FL monitored the clubs to ensure they operated within measurable budgets. Failure to do so would result in points reductions.

[tony13579]

I think the HMRC is right to peruse this case. There should be no special rules for football clubs or any other business. Extra care should be taken to make sure the business cannot be rescued.

 

However admin is only right if the business has a future. If the business is losing millions a month it has to be wound up to protect investors and the businesses that supply it.

 

If a business is so precious it cannot be allowed to disapear that money should be in the form of grants that would make it balance its books. Not by allowing it to sink other businesses

Edited 5 March, 2010 by tony13579
spelling

[Danish Saint]

I think the court are right to persue this case. There should be no special rules for fooball clubs or any other bussiness. Extra care should be taken to make sure the bussiness cannot be rescued.

 

However admin is only right if the bussness has a future. If the bussiness is losing millions a month it has to be wound up to protect investors and the bussinesses that supply it.

 

If a bissness is so precious it cannot be allowed to disapear that money should be in the form of grants that would make it ballance its books. Not by allowing it to sink other bussinesses

 

How many ways can you spell "business"?

[positivepete]

A couple more questions:

Are the players free agents if the club is liquidated? If so they may no longer be assets of the club to be sold by the liquidator if their contracts are null and void. There is a clause that if they are not paid they can exercise the right to void their current contract.

When did the ground change hands? I thought Sacha owned the ground prior to this season, and that he only sold it back to the club when the money was paid by the fake Sheik - via the money loaned by Chainrai?! Will PCFC claim that this money went straight from Falcondrome? Why were Barclays imposing condition on Miland Developments on September 17th 2009. What is their role in this?

[saintjay77]

I think people forget that 'The Premier League' is a conglomerate of 20 chairmen of football clubs that all have their own agendas. Certainly none of the bottom 6 or 7 are going to spite their own chances of survival, just to protect 'the brand'. Any worried about 'the brand' are more likely to vote against, bending over backwards to help one club because it ruins the integrity of their rule book and open's up the possibility that PCFC would continue to be their problem, next season.

 

Maybe not the Prem so much then but the FA are watching closely so im sure there is room for someone to step in and make things easier for the Blue Few.

 

But there are still plenty of questions to be asked on what happens should poopy disapear which would no doubt effect the decission of the Prem chairmen. If they go and its decided that only 2 teams go down then it would put the lower teams in just a little more danger than now. It would effect the teams that took points off poopy more as it may shorten the gap to teams above.

[hutch]

Interesting point though, about assets that have been frozen by the Law. I would guess that it would depend on the reason for them being frozen in the first place and a Court could conceivably order their release to settle outstanding debts. Any expert views out there?

It doesn't require an expert. These are facts (which I thought we all knew).

 

Chainrai received the equivalent of £17m from Daddy Gaydamak's frozen bank account in Israel, by Court Order, after winning a Court case against him there.

 

Shortly afterwards, and purely by chance, Chainrai lent £17m to a Company called Falcondrone, based in British Virgin Islands. The real identity of the beneficial owner of Falcondrone is unknown.

[Doctoroncall]

A couple more questions:

Are the players free agents if the club is liquidated?

 

correct.

 

When did the ground change hands?

 

S Gaydamak sold PCPF including FP. Ignoring Al Fahim and his botched take-over, Falcondrone (Al Mirage) are custodians of PCFC. Now there was a deal in place between Portpin (Baloo) and Falcondrone regarding a loan with Falcondrone's 90% shares in the club as security. This is now under scritiny and more should be known on the 15th March.

 

Why were Barclays imposing condition on Miland Developments on September 17th 2009. What is their role in this?

 

Miland (Gaydamak) own the surrounding property, they have a floating charge arrangement with Barclays.

[Channon's Sideburns]

Just a rumour...

 

I heard that Grant Bovey and Anthea Turner are one of the 12 parties interested in Pompey.

 

Now there is a slight problem with their proposal. Grant was made bankrupt yesterday with £50M debts..but...

 

In a ploy to push the deal through he has said he has great experience in managing debt and Anthea's offered to clean up the books.

 

-----

 

*boom-tishhhhhhhhh*

[dubai_phil]

For those thinking HMRC are being "Hard" on Poopey.

 

It is the LAW that says you MUST pay taxes. Evade taxation as an individual - you go to Jail.

 

It isn't about special cases, it's like speeding - You speed you are caught you are fined. you speed too much you lose your license.

 

Just bear in mind that the WUO was issued in DECEMBER.

 

It was issued in December because poopey were already a long way behind in paying Taxes - ie abiding by the Law. poopey did not set aside enough money in their Annual Operating Budget to pay wages AND taxes. They built a business plan on HOPE. We HOPE we can borrow more money.

 

They HOPED to avoid the weight of the Law.

 

HMRC told them they had to ay their taxes. HMRC and PCFC AGREED a payment plan, HMRC made efforts to AVOID this WUO process. PCFC decided to pay salaries instead of abiding by the Law. PCFC decided to pay Avram Grant 950,000 a year instead of using some of it to pay the taxes. PCFC decided NOT to reduce their COSTS by making staff redundant, staying in cheaper hotels, not chartering aircraft.

 

PCFC had EVERY chance up until December to WORK with HMRC to pay their taxes.

 

Even AFTER the WUO was issued up until the morning of the first court hearing they had EVERY opportunity to pay back some of the taxes and negotiate. They had an opportunity in January to sell players, to loan players and to reduce their costs - they made no effort until it was too late but actually ADDED players to the squad. They have no money to pay their LEGAL DUES - TAX but CHOSE to sign more players.

 

The ONLY time they tried to negotiate was at the door of the Court Room.

 

The Court case is not about Hardball. It is the fact that PCFC have lied about paying taxes - they made an agreement that they broke.

 

PCFC are a Business version of Lester Piggott. A serial Speeder who ignores THE LAW.

 

Enough of this "they are playing hardball" nonsense. PCFC have to all intents and purposes been "Taking The P1ss" since the start of this football season.

 

That is why they will pursue this. HMRC are now themselves ANGRY that they gave PCFC time. Why? Because in that TIME, all PCFC have done is "To increase the amount they owe". HMRC sure wish they'd done this in August, and they sure as heck do not see ANY change in attitude at the club and in many ways see no change in attitude from the Administrator. No more time needed as it will just add more debt.

Edited 5 March, 2010 by dubai_phil

[positivepete]

correct.

 

Thanks for that, so the assets of £38M or £21M for players may be £0 if they are liquidated, so less money for the creditors or the liquidators?

 

S Gaydamak sold PCPF including FP. Ignoring Al Fahim and his botched take-over, Falcondrone (Al Mirage) are custodians of PCFC. Now there was a deal in place between Portpin (Baloo) and Falcondrone regarding a loan with Falcondrone's 90% shares in the club as security. This is now under scritiny and more should be known on the 15th March.

 

 

 

Miland (Gaydamak) own the surrounding property, they have a floating charge arrangement with Barclays.

 

So is 17th September significant? And why would Barclays choose to take a floating charge over the land on that date, and for what purpose? Would Gaydamak have taken a loan to help his Dad, say (£17M) and used the land as security?

[GenevaSaint]

Surely it's about time that EPL and FL monitored the clubs to ensure they operated within measurable budgets. Failure to do so would result in points reductions.

 

From April this year there is going to be some sort of check in place on PL clubs finances. I'm not sure what they're going to do if another club potentially do a Pompey though.

[Micky]

For those thinking HMRC are being "Hard" on Poopey.

 

It is the LAW that says you MUST pay taxes. Evade taxation as an individual - you go to Jail.

 

It isn't about special cases, it's like speeding - You speed you are caught you are fined. you speed too much you lose your license.

 

Just bear in mind that the WUO was issued in DECEMBER.

 

It was issued in December because poopey were already a long way behind in paying Taxes - ie abiding by the Law. poopey did not set aside enough money in their Annual Operating Budget to pay wages AND taxes. They built a business plan on HOPE. We HOPE we can borrow more money.

 

They HOPED to avoid the weight of the Law.

 

HMRC told them they had to ay their taxes. HMRC and PCFC AGREED a payment plan, HMRC made efforts to AVOID this WUO process. PCFC decided to pay salaries instead of abiding by the Law. PCFC decided to pay Avram Grant 950,000 a year instead of using some of it to pay the taxes. PCFC decided NOT to reduce their COSTS by making staff redundant, staying in cheaper hotels, not chartering aircraft.

 

PCFC had EVERY chance up until December to WORK with HMRC to pay their taxes.

 

Even AFTER the WUO was issued up until the morning of the first court hearing they had EVERY opportunity to pay back some of the taxes and negotiate. They had an opportunity in January to sell players, to loan players and to reduce their costs - they made no effort until it was too late but actually ADDED players to the squad. They have no money to pay their LEGAL DUES - TAX but CHOSE to sign more players.

 

The ONLY time they tried to negotiate was at the door of the Court Room.

 

The Court case is not about Hardball. It is the fact that PCFC have lied about paying taxes - they made an agreement that they broke.

 

PCFC are a Business version of Lester Piggott. A serial Speeder who ignores THE LAW.

 

Enough of this "they are playing hardball" nonsense. PCFC have to all intents and purposes been "Taking The P1ss" since the start of this football season.

 

That is why they will pursue this. HMRC are now themselves ANGRY that they gave PCFC time. Why? Because in that TIME, all PCFC have done is "To increase the amount they owe". HMRC sure wish they'd done this in August, and they sure as heck do not see ANY change in attitude at the club and in many ways see no change in attitude from the Administrator. No more time needed as it will just add more debt.

 

Good post, it highlights many of the points that a lot of people seem not to have grasped. HMRC did not just wake up one morning, look at the books and see that PFC owed a large chunk of money and decided, off the cuff, to collect.

 

As you have detailed - where we (PFC - HMRC) are now is the culmination of meetings, events and agreements that have tried to rectify the outstanding amounts by agreeable means, those means have failed and bought no fruition to the Taxman.

 

HMRC have tried to go about their business reasonable, unfortunately PFC were unresponsive and now the courts are involved - there is no bullying here.

[charliemiller]

For those thinking HMRC are being "Hard" on Poopey.

 

It is the LAW that says you MUST pay taxes. Evade taxation as an individual - you go to Jail.

 

It isn't about special cases, it's like speeding - You speed you are caught you are fined. you speed too much you lose your license.

 

Just bear in mind that the WUO was issued in DECEMBER.

 

It was issued in December because poopey were already a long way behind in paying Taxes - ie abiding by the Law. poopey did not set aside enough money in their Annual Operating Budget to pay wages AND taxes. They built a business plan on HOPE. We HOPE we can borrow more money.

 

They HOPED to avoid the weight of the Law.

 

HMRC told them they had to ay their taxes. HMRC and PCFC AGREED a payment plan, HMRC made efforts to AVOID this WUO process. PCFC decided to pay salaries instead of abiding by the Law. PCFC decided to pay Avram Grant 950,000 a year instead of using some of it to pay the taxes. PCFC decided NOT to reduce their COSTS by making staff redundant, staying in cheaper hotels, not chartering aircraft.

 

PCFC had EVERY chance up until December to WORK with HMRC to pay their taxes.

 

Even AFTER the WUO was issued up until the morning of the first court hearing they had EVERY opportunity to pay back some of the taxes and negotiate. They had an opportunity in January to sell players, to loan players and to reduce their costs - they made no effort until it was too late but actually ADDED players to the squad. They have no money to pay their LEGAL DUES - TAX but CHOSE to sign more players.

 

The ONLY time they tried to negotiate was at the door of the Court Room.

 

The Court case is not about Hardball. It is the fact that PCFC have lied about paying taxes - they made an agreement that they broke.

 

PCFC are a Business version of Lester Piggott. A serial Speeder who ignores THE LAW.

 

Enough of this "they are playing hardball" nonsense. PCFC have to all intents and purposes been "Taking The P1ss" since the start of this football season.

 

That is why they will pursue this. HMRC are now themselves ANGRY that they gave PCFC time. Why? Because in that TIME, all PCFC have done is "To increase the amount they owe". HMRC sure wish they'd done this in August, and they sure as heck do not see ANY change in attitude at the club and in many ways see no change in attitude from the Administrator. No more time needed as it will just add more debt.

 

There are other motivations at work against pompey now...

 

1) HMRC do not like not UK Nationals extracting revenue or taxes . look how they are chasing Harry and Mandric over 250k !! . HMRC will not give this up and they will recieve total support from PL , FL and FA.

 

2) PL are embarrassed and very very cheesed off with what has occured . The damage pompey going bust has done to the Premiership Brand is immeasurable. Proposed factor financing has been withdrawn from other clubs because of this alone. PL will not save them now , quite the opposite they will endevour to prove this has been caused by one off gross incompetance or illegal activities.

[Gemmel]

For those thinking HMRC are being "Hard" on Poopey.

 

It is the LAW that says you MUST pay taxes. Evade taxation as an individual - you go to Jail.

 

It isn't about special cases, it's like speeding - You speed you are caught you are fined. you speed too much you lose your license.

 

Just bear in mind that the WUO was issued in DECEMBER.

 

It was issued in December because poopey were already a long way behind in paying Taxes - ie abiding by the Law. poopey did not set aside enough money in their Annual Operating Budget to pay wages AND taxes. They built a business plan on HOPE. We HOPE we can borrow more money.

 

They HOPED to avoid the weight of the Law.

 

HMRC told them they had to ay their taxes. HMRC and PCFC AGREED a payment plan, HMRC made efforts to AVOID this WUO process. PCFC decided to pay salaries instead of abiding by the Law. PCFC decided to pay Avram Grant 950,000 a year instead of using some of it to pay the taxes. PCFC decided NOT to reduce their COSTS by making staff redundant, staying in cheaper hotels, not chartering aircraft.

 

PCFC had EVERY chance up until December to WORK with HMRC to pay their taxes.

 

Even AFTER the WUO was issued up until the morning of the first court hearing they had EVERY opportunity to pay back some of the taxes and negotiate. They had an opportunity in January to sell players, to loan players and to reduce their costs - they made no effort until it was too late but actually ADDED players to the squad. They have no money to pay their LEGAL DUES - TAX but CHOSE to sign more players.

 

The ONLY time they tried to negotiate was at the door of the Court Room.

 

The Court case is not about Hardball. It is the fact that PCFC have lied about paying taxes - they made an agreement that they broke.

 

PCFC are a Business version of Lester Piggott. A serial Speeder who ignores THE LAW.

 

Enough of this "they are playing hardball" nonsense. PCFC have to all intents and purposes been "Taking The P1ss" since the start of this football season.

 

That is why they will pursue this. HMRC are now themselves ANGRY that they gave PCFC time. Why? Because in that TIME, all PCFC have done is "To increase the amount they owe". HMRC sure wish they'd done this in August, and they sure as heck do not see ANY change in attitude at the club and in many ways see no change in attitude from the Administrator. No more time needed as it will just add more debt.

 

 

And lets not forget that during that entire time, they where begging with the PL to lift the transfer embargo, how it wasn't fair etc etc. They owed millions, but wanted to spend a few million more.

 

What must the tax man have thought when storrie and jacobs where telling the world ,the embargo will be lifted in a couple of days and Avram can bring in his chosen players

[JackFrost]

From April this year there is going to be some sort of check in place on PL clubs finances. I'm not sure what they're going to do if another club potentially do a Pompey though.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if these checks are about as effective as their fit and proper persons test :wink:

[Doctoroncall]

Thanks for that, so the assets of £38M or £21M for players may be £0 if they are liquidated, so less money for the creditors or the liquidators?

 

Yes.

 

So is 17th September significant? And why would Barclays choose to take a floating charge over the land on that date, and for what purpose? Would Gaydamak have taken a loan to help his Dad, say (£17M) and used the land as security?

 

No idea about the significance of the 17th Sept. I have only seen a bit of info regarding the Barclays charge, but that arrangement would be solely with Miland (Gaydamak). I'm not sure the land would be valued as much as £17m although I see what you're trying to do ;-)

[Give it to Ron]

I'm assuming that solicitors are afforded more protection under our libel laws than the rest of us peasants?

 

Nope its slander according to this..... http://www.simkins.co.uk/ebulletins/lerSlandernotLibel.aspx also how would they afford it ;-)

[pedg]

See Pompey not the only club with murky ownership.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2010/mar/05/leeds-united-owenership-football-league

 

Interesting to note that:

 

The current system, therefore, is that Mawhinney himself and three senior League executives receive and scrutinise ownership information from a club.

 

So if (when) they went down they may have to reveal exactly who owns them to these people at least.

[Weston Saint]

In a normal (non football club) business, the answer is almost always that they will get less back of what they are owed now, and no future revenue. They dont get first dibs, they have the same priority as before, its just the business and its assets are worth a lot less. But I have already posted earlier why HMRC would consider this the right course of action sometimes.

 

But with the weird and wonderful Football priority creditor rule, I do wonder if there is another advantage (it has not happened before). It is well known that HMRC hate this rule. If a club is liquidated, it ceases trading immediately and so could never fulfill its fixures anyway. If that happens, then where is the incentive to comply with this archaic rule: the League say that you cannot have your place in the league next season if you dont comply.

 

Would HMRC finally challenge this rule if PFC ceased to trade? Hmmmm

As I understand it the football priority creditor rule will not apply if the club does go out of business.

 

Football is not a preferred creditor within the rules of insolvency. The FA make it so within their "trading agreement"

 

So football only gets the same % as HMRC. It is only when the club applies for it's "golden share" that the rule comes into force. The money to pay the remaining football debt is paid by the new owners.

 

As I understand it HMRC argued that such money could have been held back by the buyers rather than included in the purchase and that was unfair. The court ruled that any new owner was paying for the business and that any other money paid to obtain a "golden share" was a present and future trading payment.

 

That is what the HMRC are unhappy about but are unable to counter argue a strong enough case to get their way.

 

That has been my interpretation. Football priority creditor rule is a red herring.

[mcjwills]

Thanks for that, so the assets of £38M or £21M for players may be £0 if they are liquidated, so less money for the creditors or the liquidators?

 

Well with the club in Admin the HMRC are currently going to get next to Fook all, and if they Wind the club up they get next to Fook all, but send one hell of a message to all Football clubs dont f**k with us or we will really F**k you up big style.

[BigShadow]

As I understand it the football priority creditor rule will not apply if the club does go out of business.

 

Football is not a preferred creditor within the rules of insolvency. The FA make it so within their "trading agreement"

 

So football only gets the same % as HMRC. It is only when the club applies for it's "golden share" that the rule comes into force. The money to pay the remaining football debt is paid by the new owners.

 

As I understand it HMRC argued that such money could have been held back by the buyers rather than included in the purchase and that was unfair. The court ruled that any new owner was paying for the business and that any other money paid to obtain a "golden share" was a present and future trading payment.

 

That is what the HMRC are unhappy about but are unable to counter argue a strong enough case to get their way.

 

That has been my interpretation. Football priority creditor rule is a red herring.

 

Yep - that's my take on it too.

 

I also think the FA/PL should immediately implement the following rules:-

 

1) No club can be owned by a company that is based in a country that does not publicly publish its financial statements and ownership status.

 

2) Any player purchased on an installment plan may not be sold on to another club unless all outstanding installments are settled as part of the new deal.

 

 

This shady business of buying players, selling them on for a profit and then continuing to have instalments due on a player you no longer own is ridiculous.

[The Cat]

Another bit from Matt Scott in today's Guardian:

 

Balram Chainrai involved in debenture issues

 

As Balram Chainrai says he intends to commit an extra £15m to keep Portsmouth going until the end of the season, Digger wonders what is the value of a debenture he lodged with Companies House back in January. Clearly it did little to improve the financial health of a club that has subsequently filed for administration. But unlike the £17m fixed-charge loan Chainrai registered last October the floating-charge debenture ranks alongside preferred creditors and has empowered him to appoint the administrator. When the Leeds United shareholder Astor Investment Holdings did this in 2007 the debenture was worth only £1,000. The taxman, at the time owed almost £7m, had to sit and watch while Astor appointed the administrator of its choice. This time HM Revenue & Customs is owed £12.1m by Pompey and will surely want to know that Chainrai has not had his own pick of insolvency experts for a sum worth 0.008% of theirs.

[Weston Saint]

Another bit from Matt Scott in today's Guardian:

 

Balram Chainrai involved in debenture issues

 

As Balram Chainrai says he intends to commit an extra £15m to keep Portsmouth going until the end of the season, Digger wonders what is the value of a debenture he lodged with Companies House back in January. Clearly it did little to improve the financial health of a club that has subsequently filed for administration. But unlike the £17m fixed-charge loan Chainrai registered last October the floating-charge debenture ranks alongside preferred creditors and has empowered him to appoint the administrator. When the Leeds United shareholder Astor Investment Holdings did this in 2007 the debenture was worth only £1,000. The taxman, at the time owed almost £7m, had to sit and watch while Astor appointed the administrator of its choice. This time HM Revenue & Customs is owed £12.1m by Pompey and will surely want to know that Chainrai has not had his own pick of insolvency experts for a sum worth 0.008% of theirs.

I think Digger has forgotten that the debencher, if there was one, was after the Winding up Order was filed and served.

[krissyboy31]

Yep - that's my take on it too.

 

I also think the FA/PL should immediately implement the following rules:-

 

1) No club can be owned by a company that is based in a country that does not publicly publish its financial statements and ownership status.

 

2) Any player purchased on an installment plan may not be sold on to another club unless all outstanding installments are settled as part of the new deal.

 

This shady business of buying players, selling them on for a profit and then continuing to have instalments due on a player you no longer own is ridiculous.

 

TBH, I'm amazed that that is not already actually in the rule book.

[Chin Strain]

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

 

Funnily enough I had the same conversation with a Pompey supporting mate of mine at dinner last night. He drew out what I was saying about the charge on a napkin....understood what I was saying...but still tried to convince himself all was ok...

[Chin Strain]

There are other motivations at work against pompey now...

 

1) HMRC do not like not UK Nationals extracting revenue or taxes . look how they are chasing Harry and Mandric over 250k !! . HMRC will not give this up and they will recieve total support from PL , FL and FA.

 

2) PL are embarrassed and very very cheesed off with what has occured . The damage pompey going bust has done to the Premiership Brand is immeasurable. Proposed factor financing has been withdrawn from other clubs because of this alone. PL will not save them now , quite the opposite they will endevour to prove this has been caused by one off gross incompetance or illegal activities.

 

I think the PL are more interested in promoting their 'brand'. Sure they want shot of Pompey because it suits them, as they're an embarrassment. However, don't forget that the root cause of a lot of this aggravation in football at the moment is HMRC have the hump with the PL and FL going against the law of the land - i.e. football rules say you need to pay football creditors in full to avoid further points deductions. The law of the land says all creditors are equal. HMRC are sick and tired of this rule that means the PL retain Pompey's tv money and pass it out to other clubs, when the taxman is left holding the baby. Ultimately, HMRC has got it in for football....and quite rightly so.

[dubai_phil]

I think the PL are more interested in promoting their 'brand'. Sure they want shot of Pompey because it suits them, as they're an embarrassment. However, don't forget that the root cause of a lot of this aggravation in football at the moment is HMRC have the hump with the PL and FL going against the law of the land - i.e. football rules say you need to pay football creditors in full to avoid further points deductions. The law of the land says all creditors are equal. HMRC are sick and tired of this rule that means the PL retain Pompey's tv money and pass it out to other clubs, when the taxman is left holding the baby. Ultimately, HMRC has got it in for football....and quite rightly so.

 

I read that quote as implying the impact is a lot more than on "The Brand".

 

Proposed factor financing has been withdrawn from other clubs because of this alone. PL will not save them now

 

Now this is interesting, Factoring in Football is a way of bringing new secured funding into football. If the implication is that the Poorsmuff saga is impacting in the flow of revenue or funding systems, this is an entirely different issue from "Marketing Bullsh1t" or Branding.

 

Even the most imbecilic fan must surely have noticed that Banks are not lending as much money as they used to to ANYONE.

This strains all Football Clubs finances (remember what it did to us!). So if there are concerns about the impact on sources of finance for normal footballing business in this recession when Corporate & Sponsorship Revenues and Bank Overdrafts are being withdrawn, this is no longer about "Marketing" and The Brand.

 

This is a really different ball game.

[tony13579]

I heard on BBC south news there would be redundancies announced at portsmouth om monday.

[OldNick]

did anyone see the Burnley chairman on sky sports when talking about Pompey and said 'the football family and should be helped' Where was the football family for Leeds saints B'moiuth Chester etc..oh of course the PL football family

[dubai_phil]

did anyone see the Burnley chairman on sky sports when talking about Pompey and said 'the football family and should be helped' Where was the football family for Leeds saints B'moiuth Chester etc..oh of course the PL football family

 

 

It's actually quite heartening.

 

They are the Marketing Man's Soundbites. They are what you hear when some "Lovable Rogue Actor" passes away through neglect, self induced abuse or whatever. They read as they are meant to be read - condescending "Yeah like If Only.

 

Chester were outside the FL, Bournemouth are still just hanging on and Leeds well no one loves them and Saints well everyone tried to avoid us when Rupes was doing his political thing.

 

The football family should have helped them tell the truth about their financial position in the Summer

It should have told Storrie to carry out Due Dilligence on Al Fahim

It should have told them it is more important to pay your taxes than sign more players

[Faz]

It's actually quite heartening.

 

They are the Marketing Man's Soundbites. They are what you hear when some "Lovable Rogue Actor" passes away through neglect, self induced abuse or whatever. They read as they are meant to be read - condescending "Yeah like If Only.

 

Chester were outside the FL, Bournemouth are still just hanging on and Leeds well no one loves them and Saints well everyone tried to avoid us when Rupes was doing his political thing.

 

The football family should have helped them tell the truth about their financial position in the Summer

It should have told Storrie to carry out Due Dilligence on Al Fahim

It should have told them it is more important to pay your taxes than sign more players

 

And that, me old ex-patriot musher, is the killer. Even when they knew the game was up, they carried on as though nothing had changed. They were offering top dollar wages to no-mark players, money that could have been going towards easing the plight of their non-playing work-force.

 

For Story-Teller to try to excuse himself is mere whitewash tactics. Why has no-one asked why they only have football creditors, and no football debtors???? Someone, somewhere, sanctioned the sale of players at knockdown prices for cash. IMO. Someone who begs to be kept on because they know the game inside out. And I think we know what game he's talking about.

[rallyboy]

Do we know if the Few are going to play registered players in the cup tomorrow? Any late loanees added to the wagebill today? Any all-of-a-sudden' free agents mysteriously paid up their own contracts with other clubs this week?

 

Anyway Soooooper, super Kev, super Kevin Phillips.

If that little monkey pops up tomorrow with a 96th minute winner it would nail their season good and proper.

 

 

Mmmm, let's all remember the Nathan Dyer moment............get in there!

Sshhhhh!

Nice.

[CityRanger]

"For Story-Teller to try to excuse himself is mere whitewash tactics. Why has no-one asked why they only have football creditors, and no football debtors???? Someone, somewhere, sanctioned the sale of players at knockdown prices for cash. IMO. Someone who begs to be kept on because they know the game inside out. And I think we know what game he's talking about.

 

Great point.

[bridge too far]

Rumour on the skates' message board that StoryTeller is meeting with Richard Murdoch's son re a possible takeover

 

:

[Joey-deacons-left-nut]

Lol... Idiots.... Do they not know that he owns sky????

[bpsaint]

Rumour on the skates' message board that StoryTeller is meeting with Richard Murdoch's son re a possible takeover

 

:

 

 

Storrie can meet all the Richard Murdochs' he likes, its Rupert Murdoch he wants to be asking for money.

[pedg]

Storrie can meet all the Richard Murdochs' he likes, its Rupert Murdoch he wants to be asking for money.

 

Have to be as mad as this Murdoch to buy pompey

 

[buctootim]

Murdoch didnt get rich by buying no prospects businesses for an inflated price