Pompey Takeover Saga

[Wes Tender]

They really don't know when to get off, do they?

 

http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Watch-Cup-Final-At-The-Pyramids-898.aspx

 

Thinking of going along to the Pyramids to support Chelski...

[Matthew Le God]

They really don't know when to get off, do they?

 

http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Watch-Cup-Final-At-The-Pyramids-898.aspx

 

Not really a £2 booking fee if that £2 doesn't go towards costs in taking the order but instead a charity the club fee guilty about ripping off. Just making the fans give the charity money doesn't cover up the wrong that was done by the club itself.

[Faz]

One of the conditions that UEFA set is being upto date with your taxes by 31st December. At that time, PFC whre under a winfing up order from HRMC for 17 Miliion.

 

If it was a racehorse, AA's appeal would fall at the first hurdle.

 

If it was a racehorse, it would have been shot by now. Or toasted.

[teamsaint]

Ian Darke, The News: Perhaps he is forgetting Pompey sold all those expensive players and replaced them with loan signings and free transfers.

 

Who they brought in after they had lied to the PL about their financial situation. And even then, they brought them in while insolvent and unable to pay their wages. Imbecile.

 

Perhaps he forgot that the club have already been punished with relegation, a nine-point deduction and national humiliation.

 

They have only been punished by the nine point deduction, nothing else. Even without it they would have been relegated and the national humiliation is not a punishment of the club that penalises their misdemeanours. Cretin.

 

Perhaps he also forgot that Portsmouth Football Club is about rather more than the irresponsible spendthrifts who were just passing through and left the club on its knees

 

Correct. They're not just irresponsible spendthrifts; they're downright cheats and frauds. At the least grossly incompetent, at the other end some are crooks up on criminal charges. Prat.

 

it would be nice to compile a list of all these "loan signings " and free transfers, and see how much they cost.(or would have cost had they been paid for".

 

Its certainly not the chicken feed we have been led to believe.....

[View From The Top]

Oi oi, lolz

 

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/NewsAndFeatures/2010/FAStatement_280410

 

I love this one in particular:

 

 

 

Pwned.

 

That is quality owning.

[Gorgiesaint]

it would be nice to compile a list of all these "loan signings " and free transfers, and see how much they cost.(or would have cost had they been paid for".

 

Its certainly not the chicken feed we have been led to believe.....

 

Well, listed on the admin report are:

 

O'Hara £500k

Dindane £817k

Yebda £433k

 

There was also Owusu-Abeyie who cost them £250k, as Spartak confirmed they wanted £250k refund on the original £500k fee as they sold him. I would also have my doubts over Rocha & Tosic who amazingly got their contracts cancelled by their former clubs to join in - who knows how much that cost?

Edited 28 April, 2010 by Gorgiesaint
clarifying

[Viking Warrior]

Just home and looked at Sky text and I see even Michel Platini is having a go at the PL for allowing the Skates to have got into the state their in

but on page 6/7 he goes on to ask how a club with £50million losses winning the FA cup

 

And then refers to them getting players in with such a debt He then mentions in the end they cheat and win the cup and that situation is not right.

 

So either Michel Platini is reading some of our more esteemed posters writing on here or he has the same opinion us .

 

So I wonder what Androids and the portsmouth news comments will be re Michel Platinis comments.

[Weston Super Saint]

Just home and looked at Sky text and I see even Michel Platini is having a go at the PL for allowing the Skates to have got into the state their in

but on page 6/7 he goes on to ask how a club with £50million losses winning the FA cup

 

And then refers to them getting players in with such a debt He then mentions in the end they cheat and win the cup and that situation is not right.

 

So either Michel Platini is reading some of our more esteemed posters writing on here or he has the same opinion us .

 

So I wonder what Androids and the portsmouth news comments will be re Michel Platinis comments.

 

They have already stated that Michel Platini doesn't exist and is a figment of UEFAs imagination, and that these issues should really only be settled on the pitch.

 

Also, everyone who says anything derogatory about PCFC is just a Scummer anyway, so there.

 

Then they asked for some money.

[sidthesquid]

Just heard this on Sky Sports news & they are very critical of Android & cant understand why, when they told his lawyers 6 days before the news about this broke. Then Android comes out with a statement about hearing about it on the news LYING CHEATING ****! And with the rules as stated above they said Android is just unnecessarily giving the blue few unreasonable expectations that they can win any sort of appeal. And that he should concentrate on the 6th of May & his creditors meeting.

 

It's all about convincing the poor mark in Kuala Lumpar that he should invest in Poopey. Or possibly to keep convincing the Portsea mongs that they really do have a future. Either way it's aimed at the ill-informed/ignorant, not us shrewd cookies.

[Crab Lungs]

A skate recently said...:

 

Can't believe that so many of our lot wanted us to sign Bullard when he went to Hull. He might have bankrupted us.

 

:o:o

[Thedelldays]

A skate recently said...:

 

 

 

:o:o

luckily for them, they got away with that one..

 

 

[Crab Lungs]

luckily for them, they got away with that one..

 

 

 

Y'know, I was thinking exactly the same thing.

 

Perhaps Storrie had been pursuing that prudent approach all along...

[landford.saint]

Y'know, I was thinking exactly the same thing.

 

Perhaps Storrie had been pursuing that prudent approach all along...

 

Something you dont often see...... The words Storrie and prudent in the same sentence.

[Chez]

Well, listed on the admin report are:

 

O'Hara £500k

Dindane £817k

Yebda £433k

 

There was also Owusu-Abeyie who cost them £250k, as Spartak confirmed they wanted £250k refund on the original £500k fee as they sold him. I would also have my doubts over Rocha & Tosic who amazingly got their contracts cancelled by their former clubs to join in - who knows how much that cost?

 

Dark needs to take his blue tinted glasses off as they paid a fee for both Williamson and Boeteng. Well they agreed to anyway. I doubt Ben-Haim signed without a juicy big fat signing on fee too.

Edited 28 April, 2010 by Chez

[Gorgiesaint]

Dark needs to take his blue tinted glasses off as they paid a fee for both Williamson and Boeteng. Well they agreed to anyway. I doubt Ben-Haim signed without a juicy big fat signing on fee too.

 

Chez, those ones I listed were purely loans - thats at least £2m in loan fee's this season which is just crazy.

[rallyboy]

Add the vast agent fees and the odd payment to those involved in loan deals, stick the inflated wages and image rights fees on top and we are talking maybe £10M spent on that handful of 'cheap' loanees for six months.

[dubai_phil]

Parachute payments explained

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/7641526/Football-League-clubs-at-odds-with-each-other-over-Premier-League-payment-plan.html

 

I understand the issue of keeping PL clubs afloat, but this is very wrong, it will create even more imbalance in football.

 

The issue of "financial security" could be resloved far more easily by the PL making it compulsory that all player contracts have a cluaes that halves a playes salary if their club is relegated and which makes it compulsory that the player completes his contract at the reduced rate.

 

That then allows the extra money to be shared by all the FL clubs. But then that was Rupert's idea so no chance when football hates him AND is worried only about the money grabbing players

[tony13579]

Along with a number in the press now saying the ruling in 2004 was unfair, the web site THE LAWYER is also starting to question it :-

http://www.thelawyer.com/paying-by-the-rules/1003055.article

 

The football creditors rule

 

In an insolvency scenario the ‘football creditors’ rule provides that football creditors have to be paid in full, irrespective of the position of any other unsecured creditors

of the club, before the club is eligible to *participate again in league football.

 

The Football League and FA argue that the rule maintains competition. It is also argued that football clubs are a community of businesses that can only survive as a *collective, so that allowing one club to escape its liabilities to other clubs should not be allowed.

 

Nevertheless, there has been severe criticism that the rule operates unfairly (and some argue illegally) because it supersedes the order in which creditors are ranked by insolvency legislation. Critics ask: why should a club, or one of its players, either of which is an unsecured creditor of another club in administration, be more deserving of being paid than the club caterer or HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC)?

 

Certain examples illustrate the rule’s potentially distasteful effect. At Bradford City, which collapsed in 2002, 36 workers in club shops were sacked, while money was also owed to local authorities and to St John Ambulance. However, the highly paid players, including Benito Carbone (on £40,000 a week), had to be paid in full.

 

The Inland Revenue (now HMRC), in Inland Revenue Commissioners v *Wimbledon FC (2004), has challenged the operation of the football creditors rule in the Court of Appeal, but lost the case.

 

The football authorities argued that footbal clubs are a community of businesses, however we can see that much of the money is flowing to individuals and agents and image rights. Pompeys statment of outstanding debts may be the proof that HMRC needed

[angelman]

Dubai, I don't think halving wages is the answer. Halving £40k+ is still leaves wages far too high even with para payments. It comes back to chairmen not planning for the eventuality of relegation. They should not give big salaries/contracts if they are unsustainable if relegated.

[Wes Tender]

The football authorities argued that footbal clubs are a community of businesses, however we can see that much of the money is flowing to individuals and agents and image rights. Pompeys statment of outstanding debts may be the proof that HMRC needed

 

It totally amazes me how the football industry has managed to get a court of law to allow it to become some sort of special case, where effectively the law is applied differently to it. The precedent having been set, could other sports go down the same route? What would happen if a Rugby League club went into receivership, for example? And then the same thing for any other professional team sport. Surely there are other types of business that could also argue that they are a community of businesses?

 

But why should the super-wealthy players in football be treated any differently from the employees of any other business and the creditors of football clubs in administration any differently than creditors of any other business?

 

I firmly believe that this situation is illegal, but if a high court judge says not, then it is long overdue for the Government to pass legislation to make it clear that the hiererchy of debtors is to be the same regardless of the type of business. The situation with the Skates ought to have concentrated their minds, as this is a situation whereby the HMRC could lose several millions of taxpayers monies that could be spent on the Health Service, that money finding its way instead into the pockets of overpaid footballers and their agents, many of whom are Foreign nationals.

[sun of spain]

Have they finally got it,an extract from one of their forums ? Seems there's one or two clued up skates out there,the reasonable voice of Pompey is finally being heard.

 

Quote :

 

"We can't play in Europe because we didn't bother to fill out the paperwork. We have no-one to blame but the management of the club. No one else is responsible.

 

 

Added to that we are not even eligible to play as we are in Administration...

 

And once again, the Europa League is a loss leader as far as the club is concerned, you won't make any money out of it as a club unless you get to the final stages. Before then you're going to be spunking cash away....

 

 

Any anyway, us being in Europe would make a complete mockery of the spirit of the competition... it's not like we've legitimately got to the FA cup final is it? We've essentially cheated our way there, paying a half a million pound loan fee for instance for O'Hara whilst flicking the bird at Cancer charities... fcking despicable."

[CB Fry]

It totally amazes me how the football industry has managed to get a court of law to allow it to become some sort of special case, where effectively the law is applied differently to it. The precedent having been set, could other sports go down the same route? What would happen if a Rugby League club went into receivership, for example? And then the same thing for any other professional team sport. Surely there are other types of business that could also argue that they are a community of businesses?

 

But why should the super-wealthy players in football be treated any differently from the employees of any other business and the creditors of football clubs in administration any differently than creditors of any other business?

 

I firmly believe that this situation is illegal, but if a high court judge says not, then it is long overdue for the Government to pass legislation to make it clear that the hiererchy of debtors is to be the same regardless of the type of business. The situation with the Skates ought to have concentrated their minds, as this is a situation whereby the HMRC could lose several millions of taxpayers monies that could be spent on the Health Service, that money finding its way instead into the pockets of overpaid footballers and their agents, many of whom are Foreign nationals.

 

 

 

This is fair enough but you have to remember the rule isn't there to protect overpaid footballers, but to prevent cheating.

 

If the rule wasn't there, think what Pompey (or any other club) could get away with short term, signing swathes of players on massive contracts that they then welch on one year in.

 

The rule is there to stop clubs overspending and cheating by signing players they can't afford.

 

Of course in the context of Pompey it looks absurd but the spirit of the rule is correct - if you commit to paying a player x then you have to pay it, in full.

[Hatch]

I was glad to read last night that UEFA (well, Platini at least ) has finally officially recognised them as CHEATS.

[Crab Lungs]

Have they finally got it,an extract from one of their forums ? Seems there's one or two clued up skates out there,the reasonable voice of Pompey is finally being heard.

 

Quote :

 

"We can't play in Europe because we didn't bother to fill out the paperwork. We have no-one to blame but the management of the club. No one else is responsible.

 

 

Added to that we are not even eligible to play as we are in Administration...

 

And once again, the Europa League is a loss leader as far as the club is concerned, you won't make any money out of it as a club unless you get to the final stages. Before then you're going to be spunking cash away....

 

 

Any anyway, us being in Europe would make a complete mockery of the spirit of the competition... it's not like we've legitimately got to the FA cup final is it? We've essentially cheated our way there, paying a half a million pound loan fee for instance for O'Hara whilst flicking the bird at Cancer charities... fcking despicable."

 

That was... genuinely written by a Skate?

[Durleyfos]

This is fair enough but you have to remember the rule isn't there to protect overpaid footballers, but to prevent cheating.

 

If the rule wasn't there, think what Pompey (or any other club) could get away with short term, signing swathes of players on massive contracts that they then welch on one year in.

 

The rule is there to stop clubs overspending and cheating by signing players they can't afford.

 

Of course in the context of Pompey it looks absurd but the spirit of the rule is correct - if you commit to paying a player x then you have to pay it, in full.

 

That works well then...

 

That isn't aimed at you, CB Fry, BTW.

[Wes Tender]

This is fair enough but you have to remember the rule isn't there to protect overpaid footballers, but to prevent cheating.

 

If the rule wasn't there, think what Pompey (or any other club) could get away with short term, signing swathes of players on massive contracts that they then welch on one year in.

 

The rule is there to stop clubs overspending and cheating by signing players they can't afford.

 

Of course in the context of Pompey it looks absurd but the spirit of the rule is correct - if you commit to paying a player x then you have to pay it, in full.

You're giving reasons why the ruling bodies have introduced a rule to protect the footballing industry specifically. How does this square up with my question as to why the footballing industry should be allowed legal protection to their overpaid players and the parasitic leaches who are the agents, whereas other industries are not afforded the same rights?

 

You say it is there to prevent cheating and give the example of what might happen if a club signed players they couldn't afford and then welched on their contracts one year later. Well, of course, contract law would cover that, but no doubt you mean that the welching would be because the club then went into administration, presumably. But then the footballing governing bodies already make provision for that situation by points deductions, with increasing severity awarded to serial offenders. Ultimately they possess the doomsday sanction, the ability to prevent the club playing at all in any of their leagues if they wanted.

 

So I ask again; why is the football industry allowed to have a completely different set of rules to any other type of business? As I say, the governing bodies of the game are perfectly capable of setting up their own rules internally to prevent some clubs buying players they can't afford and paying them more than they can afford, by the simple expedient of placing a cap of a certain percentage of income that can be expended on players and their wages. Trading while insolvent is illegal, thus a further restraint. It could be counter-argued that if a club gets into serious debt, then players will be reluctant to sign for those clubs if there was not the guarantee in place that they would be paid as preferential creditors.

 

if you commit to paying a player x then you have to pay it, in full.

 

Whenever a company places an order with a supplier, or a commitment to pay a charity from funds raised for that charity, that is a binding contract in law too. Why should overpaid footballers and agents be paid in full and not these more deserving groups, as well as the HMRC? Other staff employed by the club effectively ought to have equal status to the players as employees of the club, so why should they not also be paid in full? What happens in the event of a club being liquidated? Presumably all of the employment contracts are null and void?

 

I remain to be convinced that there is anything special with the football industry that means that they should have one set of rules in the administration process and the rest of industry and commerce should have another.

[sidthesquid]

It totally amazes me how the football industry has managed to get a court of law to allow it to become some sort of special case, where effectively the law is applied differently to it. The precedent having been set, could other sports go down the same route? What would happen if a Rugby League club went into receivership, for example? And then the same thing for any other professional team sport. Surely there are other types of business that could also argue that they are a community of businesses?

 

But why should the super-wealthy players in football be treated any differently from the employees of any other business and the creditors of football clubs in administration any differently than creditors of any other business?

 

I firmly believe that this situation is illegal, but if a high court judge says not, then it is long overdue for the Government to pass legislation to make it clear that the hiererchy of debtors is to be the same regardless of the type of business. The situation with the Skates ought to have concentrated their minds, as this is a situation whereby the HMRC could lose several millions of taxpayers monies that could be spent on the Health Service, that money finding its way instead into the pockets of overpaid footballers and their agents, many of whom are Foreign nationals.

 

I might well be wrong but as I understand it, the 'football first' rule is not a legal ruling at all. Football clubs may choose NOT to repay any of its footballing debts before other creditors, but if they do so the FL/FA/PL can decide not to admit them to their leagues (ie their club, effectively). The spivs at Poopey could LEGALLY pay off their footballing debts at the same rate as all the other creditors, but then they wouldn't have a league to play in.

Also, remember the context of the original decision. Leicester had gone into admin mid-season, leaving a lot of debt to other clubs in unpaid transfer fees, then re-emerged debt free, bought more players and got promoted. And this was pre the huge wage and agent fee situation we are now in.

I totally agree that the situation has moved on, and maybe the rule needs to be about paying other clubs, not players and agents, but that would still allow clubs to sign players on false pretences. Tighter financial regulation by the football authorities is what is needed.

[buctootim]

I might well be wrong but as I understand it, the 'football first' rule is not a legal ruling at all. Football clubs may choose NOT to repay any of its footballing debts before other creditors, but if they do so the FL/FA/PL can decide not to admit them to their leagues (ie their club, effectively). The spivs at Poopey could LEGALLY pay off their footballing debts at the same rate as all the other creditors, but then they wouldn't have a league to play in.

 

Thats my understanding too. In that case I cant understand, since the administrator is duty bound to act in the best interest of all the creditors, how he can choose to pay off one set and give the finger to the rest - the majority.

[rallyboy]

If Bill's Bathrooms refused to pay plumbing suppliers and was chucked out of the Toilet Federation the taxman wouldn't care less, they just want their money in line with other creditors, anything else is an irrelevant internal dispute.

 

So could the taxman individually challenge each football club who choses to pay creditors at a different rate to protect their league status, instead of challenging the original Prem 'guideline'?

 

What the league imposes on it's members has no bearing on UK law and if a club leaves itself outside the league structure that's between them and the league, not the taxman's problem!

 

 

Football seems to be elevating itself to an unacceptable status and things have changed since their first defeat, and that's why the taxman will be all over this again very soon.

[CB Fry]

You're giving reasons why the ruling bodies have introduced a rule to protect the footballing industry specifically. How does this square up with my question as to why the footballing industry should be allowed legal protection to their overpaid players and the parasitic leaches who are the agents, whereas other industries are not afforded the same rights?

 

You say it is there to prevent cheating and give the example of what might happen if a club signed players they couldn't afford and then welched on their contracts one year later. Well, of course, contract law would cover that, but no doubt you mean that the welching would be because the club then went into administration, presumably. But then the footballing governing bodies already make provision for that situation by points deductions, with increasing severity awarded to serial offenders. Ultimately they possess the doomsday sanction, the ability to prevent the club playing at all in any of their leagues if they wanted.

 

So I ask again; why is the football industry allowed to have a completely different set of rules to any other type of business? As I say, the governing bodies of the game are perfectly capable of setting up their own rules internally to prevent some clubs buying players they can't afford and paying them more than they can afford, by the simple expedient of placing a cap of a certain percentage of income that can be expended on players and their wages. Trading while insolvent is illegal, thus a further restraint. It could be counter-argued that if a club gets into serious debt, then players will be reluctant to sign for those clubs if there was not the guarantee in place that they would be paid as preferential creditors.

 

 

 

Whenever a company places an order with a supplier, or a commitment to pay a charity from funds raised for that charity, that is a binding contract in law too. Why should overpaid footballers and agents be paid in full and not these more deserving groups, as well as the HMRC? Other staff employed by the club effectively ought to have equal status to the players as employees of the club, so why should they not also be paid in full? What happens in the event of a club being liquidated? Presumably all of the employment contracts are null and void?

 

I remain to be convinced that there is anything special with the football industry that means that they should have one set of rules in the administration process and the rest of industry and commerce should have another.

 

 

As in Sidthesquid's post above, the football debts rule is one of the rules "set up by the governing bodies of the game" that you refer to in your second paragraph. It's not a legal thing - this isn't government legislation that treats football differently to other businesses.

 

Legally, clubs could pay players 5p in the pound or whatever, but they'd probably find themselves kicked out of the league.

 

And at the end of the day, what you seem to be suggesting is "everyone gets treated the same" which would still mean St John Ambulance and the Pie Supplier still getting 5p in the pound, and the players the same. Mr Pie Man wouldn't gain much because the players would still be far bigger creditors than the Pie Man.

 

When businesses go under suppliers get stuffed - that's the same everywhere.

 

So football isn't being treat differently legally, it's just their internal rules and you seem to be happy for football to have internal rules.

 

You can complain about this system all you like, but the idea that Pompey would stroll off scott free by paying all their agents and players 5p in the pound would be far harder for me to stomach. Not sure why you think that would be better.

[CB Fry]

If Bill's Bathrooms refused to pay plumbing suppliers and was chucked out of the Toilet Federation the taxman wouldn't care less, they just want their money in line with other creditors, anything else is an irrelevant internal dispute.

 

So could the taxman individually challenge each football club who choses to pay creditors at a different rate to protect their league status, instead of challenging the original Prem 'guideline'?

 

What the league imposes on it's members has no bearing on UK law and if a club leaves itself outside the league structure that's between them and the league, not the taxman's problem!

 

 

Football seems to be elevating itself to an unacceptable status and things have changed since their first defeat, and that's why the taxman will be all over this again very soon.

 

 

And both these rules can coexist.

 

PL/FL says - pay all your football debts or you're out of the league.

 

Taxman says - pay your tax bill or we wind you up.

 

Both of these can coexist. It's not one or the other, it's both. Taxman doesn't really need to challenge the league's rules, it's easier for them to just drag individual clubs through the courts as they have been doing with regularity.

 

As you say, the Taxman doesn't care about League rules, and doesn't need to care. Not their problem. Pay your bill.

[aintforever]

Hopefully HRMC will do all they can to get Pompey shut down just to make an example.

 

If the FA Cup finalists go out of existence then the football authorities might take notice and make paying HRMC part of the football debt - as it should be.

[sidthesquid]

Thats my understanding too. In that case I cant understand, since the administrator is duty bound to act in the best interest of all the creditors, how he can choose to pay off one set and give the finger to the rest - the majority.

 

Because not paying the football debt means no club & no parachute payments, the single biggest figure on the plus side

[tony13579]

But this rule has encouraged football clubs to act more wrecklessly. To buy players they cant afford, the sellers have sold knowing they will be paid first on huge three installment plans, before St Johns and the schools who hired them training facilities. Would they have extended them this Mickey Mouse credit without that rule?

Is/should football realy be a special case? Should that extend to players, agents, etc

[CB Fry]

But this rule has encouraged football clubs to act more wrecklessly. To buy players they cant afford, the sellers have sold knowing they will be paid first on huge three installment plans, before St Johns and the schools who hired them training facilities. Would they have extended them this Mickey Mouse credit without that rule?

Is/should football realy be a special case? Should that extend to players, agents, etc

 

 

The rule hasn't encouraged clubs to act more recklessly, the climate around the football bubble has.

 

A rule that would encourage more reckless spending would be to treat football creditors the same as the others.

 

Massively overspend, whoops, admin, 5p in the pound all round, ten point deduction, back in the game.

 

Not sure how you work out that a rule saying you must honour every single penny of every football contract encourages more reckless spending.

 

The reckless spending is a beast of it's own making, not created by that rule.

[positivepete]

But this rule has encouraged football clubs to act more wrecklessly. To buy players they cant afford, the sellers have sold knowing they will be paid first on huge three installment plans, before St Johns and the schools who hired them training facilities. Would they have extended them this Mickey Mouse credit without that rule?

Is/should football realy be a special case? Should that extend to players, agents, etc

 

They will only be paid in full if a new investor comes into the club with new money. They cannot withhold current cash or income to pay above the agreed X pence in the pound to one subset of the creditors.

[scally]

As in Sidthesquid's post above, the football debts rule is one of the rules "set up by the governing bodies of the game" that you refer to in your second paragraph. It's not a legal thing - this isn't government legislation that treats football differently to other businesses.

 

Legally, clubs could pay players 5p in the pound or whatever, but they'd probably find themselves kicked out of the league.

 

And at the end of the day, what you seem to be suggesting is "everyone gets treated the same" which would still mean St John Ambulance and the Pie Supplier still getting 5p in the pound, and the players the same. Mr Pie Man wouldn't gain much because the players would still be far bigger creditors than the Pie Man.

 

When businesses go under suppliers get stuffed - that's the same everywhere.

 

So football isn't being treat differently legally, it's just their internal rules and you seem to be happy for football to have internal rules.

 

You can complain about this system all you like, but the idea that Pompey would stroll off scott free by paying all their agents and players 5p in the pound would be far harder for me to stomach. Not sure why you think that would be better.

 

I maybe missing something but surelly if the skates had 20 million of football debts that will be paid off, if the football debts were treated the same as all other debts then that 20 million would then be spread around the other creditors meaning Mr Jones the newsagent would get 20p in the pound as apposed to 5p. It might not be much more but at least that means everybody gets treated the same and Mr Jones the newsagent probably needs it alot more than the overpaid footballers and football clubs that have shed loads of cash coming in.

[standy]

I was glad to read last night that UEFA (well, Platini at least ) has finally officially recognised them as CHEATS.

 

I wrote to the FA yesterday to ask why they are still in the FA cup as their cheating ways have now been recognised.

 

I have not had a reply.

 

Does anyone else want to send a similar EMail to see if we can raise the profile of this point

[Gingeletiss]

This is a posted response by the group of Poor smouth fans, who are holding meetings with AA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you will be aware, a number of supporters groups have been meeting with the Administration team of UHY Hacker Young to discuss the clubs current insolvenct.

Following internal misgivings about the progress of the information we sent the following message to the Administration team. We have received an initial response but are waiting for a more complete statement about whether the team wish to consider the process.

 

Fans representatives would like to place on record their disappointment at the manner in which meetings with the administration team of UHY Hacker Young have been conducted to date.

 

Whilst we appreciate that the administrators are under no obligation to meet with supporters, the administration team stand to benefit as much as supporters from a full, frank and open dialogue. The general feeling among the group following the first two meetings was that the messages we were hearing from one member of the team were very different to the messages being relayed to the media by another.

It has also to be said that it was felt very little had been achieved by the administration team. Following the third meeting with two of the three co-administrators, even more questions have arisen over the transparency with which these meetings are being conducted.

 

Among our chief concerns are;

 

1.Supporter's representatives were told at the first two meetings with Mr Kiely that the overall debt was £78m. Three days after the second meeting Mr Andronikou published a debt figure £22m higher.

2.At the third meeting we were given a “definitive” break down of the debt, amounting to a total of £99.8m. Shortly afterwards again Mr Andronikou revealed a figure £22m higher to the media.

3.Following the initial meeting, a comment from Mr Kiely was excised from the minutes under the guise of making purely grammatical corrections. Although an apology was received, this change was transacted in a far from open and transparent manner.

4.At the third meeting the validity of Sasha Gaydamaks £32m loans to the club was raised. Mr Andronikou stated that all these loans were visible in the “last published independently audited accounts” and therefore beyond question. However, the recently issued Report to Creditors shows that £22.6m of these loans were not loans to Mr Gaydamak until August 2009, at least six months after the last independently audited accounts were issued. There is a further £2.5m tranche which is the subject of a subrogated right of security claim by Mr Gaydamak which did not arise until at least October 2009. Therefore, over £25m of the Gaydamak debt is NOT in the last independently audited accounts. This discrepancy is very difficult to accept.

5.Mr Andronikou claimed at the Thursday 8th April meeting that his team had seen the bank transactions and demonstrated that Portpins loans had come into the business and not left the business to any associates. However, he also subsequently revealed that he did not yet have access to the Fuglers accounts. As the club was operating from the Fuglers account at this time this raises the question of how the administration team could make this assertion?

6.Mr Andronikou said that significant copy fees were being paid to Fuglers for the bank records. As the club was paying Fuglers for banking services;

Why is the club paying again for copies of records it is surely entitled to?

What happened to the clubs copies of these records?

7.At the first meeting we asked Mr Kiely what the date was by which we had to exit administration to avoid a further points deduction. At the second meeting we asked this again and clearly Kiely had made no effort to ascertain this information. At the third meeting we asked again and were told “Must agree CVA by the time the fixtures for next season are published on 17th June” by Mr Andronikou. This is clearly incorrect and no such deadline exists for agreeing a CVA with regard to points deductions for season 2010/2011. We feel this speaks to a serious want of rigour as this information is freely available.

8.We asked at the first two meetings whether Mr Chainrais status as a secured creditor had been accepted by HMRC in line with HMRC barristers comments that this remained a matter likely to require adjudication at a later time. At the first two meetings Mr Kiely denied any knowledge of such a question mark over Mr Chainrais status. At the third meeting Mr Andronikou accepted that this query had been made but claimed it was simply a face-saving exercise by HMRC. We feel this demonstrates a clear lack of communication within the team and also fails to alleviate concerns over whether Chainrai really is a secured creditor.

9.At the first meeting we asked whether a meeting of creditors would be convened before the March 26th deadline we understood to have been imposed by the judge at our winding up hearing in March. We were told by Mr Kiely that no such deadline was specified in the consent order and promised a copy of the consent order would be sent immediately following the meeting. This has taken two months to produce, and at time of writing has still not arrived. At the second meeting we were given to understand the administrators could wait 10 weeks and again we asked for the consent order. At the third meeting Mr Andronikou specified a period of 12 weeks although he mentioned an informal meeting had been held sometime previously. In the Report to Creditors it transpires that the administrators are now claiming a meeting of creditors was held on March 25th. Please explain this discrepancy.

10.At the April 8th meeting we were given no intimation of the pending appointment of Mr Lampitt as CEO which was announced the following morning. We would not expect to be given the name of any candidate before one was appointed but it would certainly have been possible for the team to share with us that an appointment was imminent. As it was, we were not informed an appointment was even being sought. Again, this reflects poorly on the commitment to openness and transparency we were given by the administration team.

11.We were told that no-one would be given access to the data room without the members of their party being named and proof of funds shown to the administration teams satisfaction. The Lloyd group were given this access despite Andronikou claiming that he retained concerns over identities and proof of funds. Notwithstanding the weak proviso that “they were not allowed to take any information out”, this is completely inconsistent.

12.Mr Andronikou claimed that two groups initially provided proof of funds and these have now merged to form one and this gave him concern. He was absolutely unable to explain this discrepancy, as logic would suggest that two groups with proof of funds merging to form one group was a positive development. There is also great concern that Andronikou appears to be adopting a publicly negative attitude towards the Lloyd group, whilst asking them to observe a complete media silence.

13.Mr Andronikou explained that one part of the raison d'etre for Peter Storries continued employment by Portsmouth Football Club was his ability to advise on player sales. Again we were not informed that Icon Sports Management had been retained to perform this role, and this invites questions over openness and transparency.

14.Redundancy payments had not been made to the employees who left the club which is most regrettable.

15.We were told at the second meeting by Mr Kiely that no further redundancies were planned. At the third meeting Mr Andronikou more or less stated that further redundancies were inevitable. Again, this speaks to either a lack of communication between the team or a lack of candour to supporters representatives.

16.It took over two weeks to agree the minutes for this third meeting. We have received a request for the taking of minutes to be dispensed with as it is claimed that reading and agreeing them is too time consuming. This is unacceptable. The taking of minutes is a basic discipline for any business meeting, and it is felt by supporters representatives that the minutes have been critical in highlighting the many discrepancies outlined here.

 

 

The output from these meetings so far has been very disappointing in terms of both information gleaned and the administration teams ability to live up to the standards of openness and transparency they promised. Whilst we have every desire to work with the team to help ensure supporters are on board with the club and working with them during this difficult time it is imperative that the administration team raise their game substantially in these areas if the process is to continue.

[Gingeletiss]

The man who withheld the charity money, was..................

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Azougy-criticised-as-Pompey-fail.6258547.jp

[Gingeletiss]

You've gotta laugh.....haven't you?

 

GazaLaad

#1 27 Apr 2010 20:14 Complain | Prev | Next | Signed: April 2010 Portsmouth in europe.. ... Posts: 1

Trialist

How can Man City sign a keeper but Portsmouth cant play in the Euopa League?? What happened to rules are rules ??

 

If your a big team it appears rules donat always apply.

[suewhistle]

6.Mr Andronikou said that significant copy fees were being paid to Fuglers for the bank records. As the club was paying Fuglers for banking services;

Why is the club paying again for copies of records it is surely entitled to?

What happened to the clubs copies of these records?

 

 

We have received a request for the taking of minutes to be dispensed with as it is claimed that reading and agreeing them is too time consuming. This is unacceptable. The taking of minutes is a basic discipline for any business meeting, and it is felt by supporters representatives that the minutes have been critical in highlighting the many discrepancies outlined here.

 

It's the little things that are the most telling. Good questions at no. 6. Good point about minutes. The Pompey fans know they are being shafted, and not by the PL.

[stevegrant]

He does have a point there, to be fair.

 

Man City have SEVEN goalkeepers on professional contracts, six of whom are still at the club (Hart out on loan). Three are injured, which leaves three available. One is 23 years old, the other two are youngsters. I see no reason why they shouldn't be forced to play the 23-year-old - they presumably signed him because they felt he had enough ability, after all.

[Corporate Ho]

Point 4's the interesting one

[stevegrant]

The Pompey fans know they are being shafted, and not by the PL.

Well some of them do, anyway.

[Wes Tender]

As in Sidthesquid's post above, the football debts rule is one of the rules "set up by the governing bodies of the game" that you refer to in your second paragraph. It's not a legal thing - this isn't government legislation that treats football differently to other businesses.

 

No, I know that there has not been any government legislation passed to give football that advantage. But as I understand it, unless creditors have secured status, they should all be paid the same percentage. My gripe is with why footballers and agents should have this secured status that gives them preferential priority treatment. As I understand it, it has been tested in a court of law which rejected the appeal against it. So has a legal precedent been set that it cannot be appealed again unless there is a change of circumstances?

 

Legally, clubs could pay players 5p in the pound or whatever, but they'd probably find themselves kicked out of the league.

 

And at the end of the day, what you seem to be suggesting is "everyone gets treated the same" which would still mean St John Ambulance and the Pie Supplier still getting 5p in the pound, and the players the same. Mr Pie Man wouldn't gain much because the players would still be far bigger creditors than the Pie Man.

 

But if the players, agents and other football creditors got paid the same percentage, then the percentage each creditor received would rise, wouldn't it?

 

When businesses go under suppliers get stuffed - that's the same everywhere.

 

Except that in football the suppliers get stuffed more than in most other industries, because the wealthy agents and footballers have to be paid 100% of their debt, thus reducing what is left for the suppliers.

 

So football isn't being treat differently legally, it's just their internal rules and you seem to be happy for football to have internal rules.

 

Yes, of course any club or society can have internal rules for its members. Its only when those rules have wider implications on other bodies outside of the club/society that it becomes a problem.

 

You can complain about this system all you like, but the idea that Pompey would stroll off scott free by paying all their agents and players 5p in the pound would be far harder for me to stomach. Not sure why you think that would be better.

 

The figure of 5p in the pound came from you. The Android was muttering about 20/23p in the pound, a figure which would increase if the 100% payment towards the footballing debts was reduced. As I already pointed out, if players and agents were aware that without this protected status, they might have to take reduced settlement of monies owed to them, they might be a bit more circumspect as to whom they did business with. That in turn might concentrate the minds of people like Storrie to keep the club's expenditure within reasonable limits. Any normal business has no guarantee that they will receive all their debt back in the event of a client of theirs going into administration, so they are more careful about who they deal with and how high they allow the debt to go.

[View From The Top]

Point 4's the interesting one

 

Paid of Standard Bank and then laid the charge against PCFC Ltd?

[Kingsbridge Saint]

Because not paying the football debt means no club & no parachute payments, the single biggest figure on the plus side

 

And there, in a nutshell, is why the Revenue won't oppose the CVA. If they shut down Pompey, it's 48 Million down the Swannee (about 28 Million net of the football creditors). So the Revenue, and all the other creditors take a hit if Pompey are forced to fold, or fail to fulfil the obligations imposed by the football creditors rule.

 

The Revenue could be brave and make an example of them though to stop this abuse of the public purse from recurring. Although clearly there would be collateral damage to the other creditors.

 

Personally I think football finances generally are headed for a crash as the whole house of cards is totally unsustainable and if HMRC don't make a stand soon they are going to get shafted like this over and over and over again.

[CB Fry]

The figure of 5p in the pound came from you. The Android was muttering about 20/23p in the pound, a figure which would increase if the 100% payment towards the footballing debts was reduced. As I already pointed out, if players and agents were aware that without this protected status, they might have to take reduced settlement of monies owed to them, they might be a bit more circumspect as to whom they did business with. That in turn might concentrate the minds of people like Storrie to keep the club's expenditure within reasonable limits. Any normal business has no guarantee that they will receive all their debt back in the event of a client of theirs going into administration, so they are more careful about who they deal with and how high they allow the debt to go.

 

 

5p/20p/30p whatever is still a let off for the club.I don't want to see Pompey walking away from three quarters of their footballing debt scott-free and ready to go again next season. I want to see them pay back every penny they said they could pay. That's fair on all the other clubs.

 

Pompey have cheated and you want them off the hook.

 

I don't think clubs should be given an even blanker* cheque than they already have now and the chance to splash out even more safe in the knowledge that if it all goes pop they can squirm out of it anyway.

 

 

Players and clubs being "circumspect"? Do me a favour.

 

The rule that Storrie would have to pay every single penny of every single contract he signed with players didn't make him "circumspect", so how would the knowledge that he (or any chairman) would only have to pay a quarter of it make them more circumspect? Bonkers logic I'm afraid.

 

And football players and agents don't waste time being circumspect from what I can see. I can see them just asking for lots more in anticipation of getting 25% of it down the line. I can see them asking for more money up front so it's in the bank nice and early.

 

 

It's unfortunate for the other creditors - in an ideal world they should pay everyone back in full - but you can't have everything.

 

The rule as it is is better than the alternatives, which would make a free-for-all even worse.

 

 

What you have to remember is that Pompey would bite your hand off to pay the Pie-man and the players all 25% and say no more about it. They'd be laughing all the way to the bank and back up the CCC in no time scott free with pretty much no lessons learnt and no real punishment.

 

If that's what you really want just to get one over "greedy footballers" then fine.

Edited 29 April, 2010 by CB Fry
*blanker than a blank cheque. That's pretty blank.

[benjii]

One thing this has demonstrated is that if you want to play in Europe you need to pay your tax