Pompey Takeover Saga

[Viking Warrior]

Its clear to me that the skates do not do due dilligence on the staff they employ at the top

 

'Daniel Azougy was asked for the money but he said no.'

 

Mr Azougy, who has previously been convicted in court of fraud, according to reports in the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz and the London-based Jewish Chronicle, was at the club for several months before it went into administration.

 

The News was unable to contact Mr Azougy for comment yesterday.

 

 

You would have thought they would have been more dilligent to appoint someone who has been convicted of fraud

 

Is AA a man of total integrity or is it a case he believes he is god and can act above the law?

[Viking Warrior]

I belive the Skates should be allowed to play in the Europa cup if the following is true

 

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....

 

So let them play and get deeper in to the mire. If the HMRC cannot close them down then I think the European laws will and Uefa would sink them forever

[Corporate Ho]

Its clear to me that the skates do not do due dilligence on the staff they employ at the top

 

'Daniel Azougy was asked for the money but he said no.'

 

Mr Azougy, who has previously been convicted in court of fraud, according to reports in the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz and the London-based Jewish Chronicle, was at the club for several months before it went into administration.

 

The News was unable to contact Mr Azougy for comment yesterday.

 

 

You would have thought they would have been more dilligent to appoint someone who has been convicted of fraud

 

Is AA a man of total integrity or is it a case he believes he is god and can act above the law?

 

Welcome back to planet Earth, Buck Rogers

[Chez]

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.

 

like when we put a 23 year old Blayney on the bench behind the loaned in after the deadline Kasey Keller.

[Chez]

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

 

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

 

absolute perfect fall guy for all their problems. If only he had bene there a little longer every single thing that ever went wrong would have been his fault. AA said on the Quay that no single person was responsible for the non payment to the charities. Not sure why he didn't at least hint at Azougy.

[Crab Lungs]

absolute perfect fall guy for all their problems. If only he had bene there a little longer every single thing that ever went wrong would have been his fault. AA said on the Quay that no single person was responsible for the non payment to the charities. Not sure why he didn't at least hint at Azougy.

 

I was about to say the same thing...

[Doctoroncall]

...My gripe is with why footballers and agents should have this secured status that gives them preferential priority treatment...

 

As far as I know, football related creditors are unsecured not secured, it's only the rules of the league that means they need to be paid in full for entry into a league, otherwise sanctions will be put in place including non expulsion.

 

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

 

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

 

Does anyone know when the funds were raised for the two charities? I'm just thinking that if the cheque was paraded at the start of the season it can be clearly shown up to be a sham to deflect the bad publicity and Azougy was carrying on with the policy of non payment of monies owed.

Edited 29 April, 2010 by Doctoroncall

[Sylvia Saint]

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.

 

 

AA's response....

 

AA's Response:

 

"I am disappointed with the contents of your email. I will be in

Portsmouth during thursday to saturday if you want to meet I will be

pleased to correct you on the contents of your email and set the record

straight.

 

I take offence to your comment that we need to up our game. I do not accept anything you have said as constructive.

 

Quite clearly the meetings with your various Group's have become counter

productive. They were offered in good faith to create a dialogue

between the supporters of the Club and the Administration team.

 

In light of your current email and that the information you are taking

away from the meetings is so far away from the mark, we are going to

have to reconsider the necessity of any future meetings.

[stevegrant]

AA's response....

 

AA's Response:

 

"I am disappointed with the contents of your email. I will be in

Portsmouth during thursday to saturday if you want to meet I will be

pleased to correct you on the contents of your email and set the record

straight.

 

I take offence to your comment that we need to up our game. I do not accept anything you have said as constructive.

 

Quite clearly the meetings with your various Group's have become counter

productive. They were offered in good faith to create a dialogue

between the supporters of the Club and the Administration team.

 

In light of your current email and that the information you are taking

away from the meetings is so far away from the mark, we are going to

have to reconsider the necessity of any future meetings.

Who'd have thought it, as soon as the fans finally start asking the right questions, he goes on the defensive and (probably) won't talk to them again.

[Gemmel]

Point 4's the interesting one

 

Indeed. The rest (At best) highlight inaccuracies, confusion, poor administration skills etc. At worse, they might suggest something more sinister, but that one is more tangible and relevant to the whole debt and process etc.

 

One thing that I can't get my head around is the court ordered "SOA"..... The one that showed 78 million pounds worth of debt, the one that the judge based her decision on for a "stay of execution" and the very same one that is now at complete odds, with the administrators figures and which clearly highlights that either storie and his co executives or aa and his administrators are lying.

 

There doesn't seem to be anything about this in the press, but unless i am missing something is this not the most significant piece of evdience that something is / has gone wrong (legally)

[View From The Top]

As far as I know, football related creditors are unsecured not secured, it's only the rules of the league that means they need to be paid in full for entry into a league.

 

This is correct.

 

The debt is unsecured as per the document published by AA.

 

However, league rules state that all footballing debts have to be paid in full.

[Gorgiesaint]

Does anyone know when the funds were raised for the two charities? I'm just thinking that if the cheque was paraded at the start of the season it can be clearly shown up to be a sham to deflect the bad publicity and Azougy was carrying on with the policy of non payment of monies owed.

 

My recollection of the original piece on the Portsmouth forum was that the presentation was done at the end of last season, which certainly rules out Azougy from taking full blame for the fiasco.

 

Here we go...

 

http://fansonline.net/portsmouth/mb/view.php?id=262928

 

Before the start of the 2008/09 season Portsmouth Football Club agreed to donate £1 from every replica shirt sold (either from club shops or online) to the Tom Prince Cancer Trust. The club invited Clint and Adele Prince to a home game at the end last season to be presented on the pitch with a cheque for £4,500, this turned out to be a complete sham as they never received a penny.

[Kingsland Red]

The 5p/20p/23p in the £1 will only be paid if there is a buyer for the purchase of the club.

I still believe, for the reasons noted in the previous 498 pages, that no buyer will be forthcoming of sound mind and able to satisfy any fit and proper test.

 

It's Catch 22, anyone of sound mind, fit and proper would not spend c£50m to buy a club with no assets - ground or players.

[Viking Warrior]

Corp Ho

 

Do I take it Buck Rodgers was a bit of a Cowboy then?

[Whitey Grandad]

Corp Ho

 

Do I take it Buck Rodgers was a bit of a Cowboy then?

Don't you mean this fellow:

[saintjay77]

Don't you mean this fellow:

 

Oh if only I still had Photoshop on my PC, im sure there are a few faces that would look great on that pic. lol

Edited 29 April, 2010 by saintjay77

[rallyboy]

how could Azougy be responsible for anything?

He was never a shadow director, he was purely there in an advisory capacity, he wasn't required to pass any fapp test as he had no power in his part-time, voluntary, consultant role.

 

Unless that version of events is now doing a u-turn along with so many of the others?....

 

If they are going to tell fibs they really need to try and get some continuity and remember what they said last time they were asked.

 

It's not been a criminal masterclass thus far.

Reminds me of that Keystone Cops silent movie when they did arms-dealing, charity-theft, money-laundering, relegation and fraud in quick succession - with hilarious consequences.

 

And it's nice to see the original inspiration for Brokeback Mountain, walk in any saloon looking like that and you'd be in trouble.

[Fowllyd]

One thing that I can't get my head around is the court ordered "SOA"..... The one that showed 78 million pounds worth of debt, the one that the judge based her decision on for a "stay of execution" and the very same one that is now at complete odds, with the administrators figures and which clearly highlights that either storie and his co executives or aa and his administrators are lying.

 

There doesn't seem to be anything about this in the press, but unless i am missing something is this not the most significant piece of evdience that something is / has gone wrong (legally)

 

I share your puzzlement on the SOA and the apparent lack of comment on the discrepancies between it and subsequent figures being given for Pompey's level of debt. But the stay of execution wasn't based on the SOA; rather, the registrar ordered it to be produced at the initial winding-up hearing. Shortly before the second hearing (at which PFC would almost certainly have been wound up) Chainrai put the business into administration.

 

I'm not sure what legal status the SOA now has, if any.

[Corporate Ho]

Who'd have thought it, as soon as the fans finally start asking the right questions, he goes on the defensive and (probably) won't talk to them again.

 

To be fair Granty, the questions have been asked but the guys decided to be polite and not raise too many issues with his answers as they thought it would be best to keep the dialogue going rather than antagonise him. But you can only go so far and that's the stage we've reached now.

 

Indeed. The rest (At best) highlight inaccuracies, confusion, poor administration skills etc. At worse, they might suggest something more sinister, but that one is more tangible and relevant to the whole debt and process etc.

 

One thing that I can't get my head around is the court ordered "SOA"..... The one that showed 78 million pounds worth of debt, the one that the judge based her decision on for a "stay of execution" and the very same one that is now at complete odds, with the administrators figures and which clearly highlights that either storie and his co executives or aa and his administrators are lying.

 

There doesn't seem to be anything about this in the press, but unless i am missing something is this not the most significant piece of evdience that something is / has gone wrong (legally)

 

And that's weird isn't it? Which is what we've been saying on POL all along. Weird that apart from one Sunday Times article no-one's mentioned Andronikou's dodgy past, or challenged his independent status. I also think it's very odd that no-one in the press is mentioning that almost 50% of Pompey's "debts" are to current or former owners including Fahim and Faraj. Or got an estate agent to independently value the land around Fratton that Gaydamak is apparently owed £30m+ for!

 

how could Azougy be responsible for anything?

He was never a shadow director, he was purely there in an advisory capacity, he wasn't required to pass any fapp test as he had no power in his part-time, voluntary, consultant role.

 

Unless that version of events is now doing a u-turn along with so many of the others?....

 

If they are going to tell fibs they really need to try and get some continuity and remember what they said last time they were asked.

 

It's not been a criminal masterclass thus far.

Reminds me of that Keystone Cops silent movie when they did arms-dealing, charity-theft, money-laundering, relegation and fraud in quick succession - with hilarious consequences.

 

And it's nice to see the original inspiration for Brokeback Mountain, walk in any saloon looking like that and you'd be in trouble.

 

FFS fella, Pompey fans asked the PL to investigate this guys role in the club last year. And what did they do? Nothing.

 

BBC are allegedly in possession of a memo from Chainrai instructing PFC officials that they now answer to Azougy. Dated Sep/ Oct last year! That's way before he "took over" from Faraj. I'm wondering why they're sitting on it. Because that document would prove that the whole thing was a planned scam from start to finish by Chainrai and that PFC have been the victim of a con trick that has cost us millions.

[stevegrant]

New parachute payment proposal REJECTED by the Football League.

[Thedelldays]

did or does Al-Faraj actually exist..?

[tony13579]

One thing that I can't get my head around is the court ordered "SOA"..... The one that showed 78 million pounds worth of debt, the one that the judge based her decision on for a "stay of execution" and the very same one that is now at complete odds, with the administrators figures and which clearly highlights that either storie and his co executives or aa and his administrators are lying.

 

one set of figures had out standing unpaid bills on that date and the other had all unpaid bills and debts including the future installments due.

[The Kraken]

New parachute payment proposal REJECTED by the Football League.

 

Pompey aside, I think this is great news for football.

[Gingeletiss]

I'm not sure what legal status the SOA now has, if any.

 

 

The court asked for this, it was submitted to the court, it therefore, is now a legal document.

[Gemmel]

one set of figures had out standing unpaid bills on that date and the other had all unpaid bills and debts including the future installments due.

 

Sorry mate, I dont think that's quite right. It was a full overview of their financial position and commitments. It would have had to take into consideration all contractual liabilities.

[Saint J 77]

New parachute payment proposal REJECTED by the Football League.

 

Best news of the day

[Matthew Le God]

New parachute payment proposal REJECTED by the Football League.

 

But do they actually need the Football League's agreement for it to go through?

 

Or as its the Premier League's money can they do as they wish and the FL are just expressing their concerns and can have no impact on proceedings?

[holepuncture]

New parachute payment proposal REJECTED by the Football League.

 

That has cost the skates £16m, or means that a new buyer is going to need to chuck another £16m into the hole...

 

We were unlucky in our relegation year from the PL, as the next year parachutes nearly doubled, however I am willing to accept it as fate as it all turned out rosy eventually!

 

Tick tock for the few, not looking good for them at all in this shameful demonstration of deceit. No interest in buying (basically) nothing from anyone.

 

The Icon Sports Management skate-player-firesale will begin in a couple of weeks, to raise as much wonga to (ironically) pay off football related debts...

 

Fratton Park is valued as an asset... Surely it can only be perceived as a LIABILITY?!

 

Ali Al Faraj is on linked-in, not that that is difficult to do http://sa.linkedin.com/pub/ali-al-faraj/14/10b/a82 Although I am convinced he doesn't actually exist and was set up as Chanrais front to do one on the Gadymack contingent

 

I remember people talking of an 'Arab vs Israeli power struggle' being played on the pitch at Fratton many hundreds of pages ago, I believe this is starting to become clearer now...

 

Chanrai is taking on Arcadi & Son at a game of Chess, overseen by chess enthusiast Al Fahim... Storrie, Grant, Astro, the fans, cancer charities etc are all pawns in a ruthless battle of corruption, deceit and gangland rule...

 

Il be glad when its all over, some one whack this stinking dying flapping skate disaster story over the head so business on the south coast can return to normal... Come on HMRC, You can beat this sh1t!

[hypochondriac]

New parachute payment proposal REJECTED by the Football League.

 

Get in! Pompey are screwed now.

[buctootim]

New parachute payment proposal REJECTED by the Football League.

 

Not according to the Times. Just asked for more detail

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article7112021.ece

[Crab Lungs]

But do they actually need the Football League's agreement for it to go through?

 

Or as its the Premier League's money can they do as they wish and the FL are just expressing their concerns and can have no impact on proceedings?

 

I too am also confirmed that the PL will take a 'sod you' attitude as well, regardless

[Frank's cousin]

And that's weird isn't it? Which is what we've been saying on POL all along. Weird that apart from one Sunday Times article no-one's mentioned Andronikou's dodgy past, or challenged his independent status. I also think it's very odd that no-one in the press is mentioning that almost 50% of Pompey's "debts" are to current or former owners including Fahim and Faraj. Or got an estate agent to independently value the land around Fratton that Gaydamak is apparently owed £30m+ for!.

 

Question:

 

Were you under the impression that the monies provided by previous owners were 'gifts' a la Abramovic to cover the spending or 'investment in the squad, or were these always considered loans... I dont know enough about the history so this is speculation, but is there any possibilty that these initial 'gifts' were converted to secured loans at a Later stage?

 

Even so the issue is that the club spent MORE than the combined sum of these loans + revenue on these player purchases and contracts... and biuut who is to blame? Redknapp for not 'getting involved in finance' (despite the fact he would have known about the contracts and its not rocket science to work out max revenues), Storrie for going along with it, or the successive owners for making promises on cash 'gifts' they did not keep - inwhich case its back to Storrie for not seeing the cash before committing to these contracts and again Storrie for allowing this to happen if they were indeed only loans, when the spending was in excess of these anyway....??

[Saints foreva]

Nothing on Sky Sports about new parachute payment proposal being rejected. . .

[buctootim]

Good article explaining new parachute plan here.

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

[hypochondriac]

Even if the talks have been delayed, it's less money that any owners can count on as guaranteed. It makes a HUGE difference for them but if they don't know if they are going to get it for a while, who is going to buy them?

[hypochondriac]

Apparently they now have until June to reach a consensus. No one will buy pompey until before then if they don't know if they are going to get the 16 million or not. How can they give a CVA proposal until after then if they don't know how much parachute money they are going to get?

[sun of spain]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sylvia Saint View Post

AA's response....

 

AA's Response:

 

"I am disappointed with the contents of your email. I will be in

Portsmouth during thursday to saturday if you want to meet I will be

pleased to correct you on the contents of your email and set the record

straight.

 

I take offence to your comment that we need to up our game. I do not accept anything you have said as constructive.

 

Quite clearly the meetings with your various Group's have become counter

productive. They were offered in good faith to create a dialogue

between the supporters of the Club and the Administration team.

 

In light of your current email and that the information you are taking

away from the meetings is so far away from the mark, we are going to

have to reconsider the necessity of any future meetings.

 

 

Who'd have thought it, as soon as the fans finally start asking the right questions, he goes on the defensive and (probably) won't talk to them again.

 

 

 

And so we seem to have a re-run,of what happened with AA at Swindon.:roll:

 

As soon as the fans there started asking difficult questions,he cut them loose and refused to talk to them.

 

The guy is playing a dangerous game,all eyes will certainly be on him.:-({|=

[slickmick]

 

BBC are allegedly in possession of a memo from Chainrai instructing PFC officials that they now answer to Azougy. Dated Sep/ Oct last year! That's way before he "took over" from Faraj. I'm wondering why they're sitting on it. Because that document would prove that the whole thing was a planned scam from start to finish by Chainrai and that PFC have been the victim of a con trick that has cost us millions.

 

 

That answers your own question.

[dubai_phil]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sylvia Saint View Post

AA's response....

 

AA's Response:

 

"I am disappointed with the contents of your email. I will be in

Portsmouth during thursday to saturday if you want to meet I will be

pleased to correct you on the contents of your email and set the record

straight.

 

I take offence to your comment that we need to up our game. I do not accept anything you have said as constructive.

 

Quite clearly the meetings with your various Group's have become counter

productive. They were offered in good faith to create a dialogue

between the supporters of the Club and the Administration team.

 

In light of your current email and that the information you are taking

away from the meetings is so far away from the mark, we are going to

have to reconsider the necessity of any future meetings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And so we seem to have a re-run,of what happened with AA at Swindon.:roll:

 

As soon as the fans there started asking difficult questions,he cut them loose and refused to talk to them.

 

The guy is playing a dangerous game,all eyes will certainly be on him.:-({|=

 

 

The difference this time is that HMRC have already petitioned to court their concerns regarding the appointment of AA. I think we can all rest assured that they think it was dodgy, have accepted the court's decision that it seems ok and will be looking for ANY firm evidence to the contrary. I'll bet they have a clerical assistant reading this, following all the web links and compiling a large set of data for their teams to research.

 

It will need just one mistake for them to return all guns blazing to fry the bigger fish of the Footballing Debts, one mistake, one contradictory statement and AA will be fish bait.

 

From all I am told, most of the IP indusrty are probably helping out as well as the man is held is a high level of absolutely NO esteem by his peers

[dubai_phil]

Wow 76 posts to go to the magical 25,000 mark.

 

Will it be a roaring piece of new news or another numpty plank comment...

 

Exciting times ahead!

[Ponty]

I say B.

[Matthew Le God]

Nearly 1 million views and page 500 as well.

 

Wait for one landmark in a Pompey thread and three come along at once.

[Gingeletiss]

It appears, that the cheating referees are to blame for Poor smouth not getting into Europe via the 'fairplay', and that Burnley might;)

 

 

scumslayer Posted on 29/04/2010 19:12

Even Burnley have a chance to play in Europe

Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message

If The Sun get their finger out their arse and keep an eye on this one, they could blow a lid on the "refereeing" that we are put through every week.

 

What do they have to lose? Liverpool hate them anyway.

[benjii]

Corpy, me ol' mucker, me ol' ****er, mushty.

 

You seem to be suggesting above that Gaydamak is owed his £30m as a result of some sort of land deal. I don't think that is right. I think he is owed the £30m due to loans put into the club during his ownership and also as indemnity for paying off Barclays (a guarantor is legally entitled to an indemnity from a prime debtor).

 

I was under the impression that he acquired the land around Krap Hole from Mandaric some time ago and that legally it is entirely distinct from PFC and not related to any debts.

 

My understanding is that he is owed £30m by PFC and that he owns a load of surrounding land; the two things are not connected at all legally. They are only connected pragmatically in as much as Gaydamak can stymie redevelopment of Krap Hole unless someone can come to a deal with him. The less he gets for his £30m debt, the more he is going to want for the land.

 

Now, I may be wrong, as with everything Skate-related, there is a murky cloud over the whole thing but I would be interested to hear why you think the debt and the land are related.

[NickG]

still can't see how they will agree to any offer from AA that is self financing

[Wes Tender]

Corpy, me ol' mucker, me ol' ****er, mushty.

 

You seem to be suggesting above that Gaydamak is owed his £30m as a result of some sort of land deal. I don't think that is right. I think he is owed the £30m due to loans put into the club during his ownership and also as indemnity for paying off Barclays (a guarantor is legally entitled to an indemnity from a prime debtor).

 

I was under the impression that he acquired the land around Krap Hole from Mandaric some time ago and that legally it is entirely distinct from PFC and not related to any debts.

 

My understanding is that he is owed £30m by PFC and that he owns a load of surrounding land; the two things are not connected at all legally. They are only connected pragmatically in as much as Gaydamak can stymie redevelopment of Krap Hole unless someone can come to a deal with him. The less he gets for his £30m debt, the more he is going to want for the land.

 

Now, I may be wrong, as with everything Skate-related, there is a murky cloud over the whole thing but I would be interested to hear why you think the debt and the land are related.

 

This is very much the impression that I had too from reading chapter and verse about it somewhere some time ago.

[Crab Lungs]

It appears, that the cheating referees are to blame for Poor smouth not getting into Europe via the 'fairplay', and that Burnley might;)

 

 

scumslayer Posted on 29/04/2010 19:12

Even Burnley have a chance to play in Europe

Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message

If The Sun get their finger out their arse and keep an eye on this one, they could blow a lid on the "refereeing" that we are put through every week.

 

What do they have to lose? Liverpool hate them anyway.

 

Ahhhh, that makes sense... Yes, it's the refs fault. Of course.

[Minsk]

New parachute payment proposal REJECTED by the Football League.

 

Unfortunately, not totally rejected. Merely put on hold for now. However, we can be proud of one thing; apparently it was the League 1 and 2 chairmen who stood firm against it. Most CCC clubs are for it as the proposal gives them a gauranteed £2.3m per season (up from between £0.75-£1.4m).

 

No surprise that greed is also rife in the CCC and not just the prem. There is no way that this can be good for anyone except teams being relegated to the CCC. It will effectively mean more and more them yo-yoing from prem to CCC with very few other teams being able to ever get to the top flight.

 

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/cc_championship/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/10/04/29/SOCCER_Football_League.html

[swannymere]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sylvia Saint View Post

AA's response....

 

AA's Response:

 

"I am disappointed with the contents of your email. I will be in

Portsmouth during thursday to saturday if you want to meet I will be

pleased to correct you on the contents of your email and set the record

straight.

 

I take offence to your comment that we need to up our game. I do not accept anything you have said as constructive.

 

Quite clearly the meetings with your various Group's have become counter

productive. They were offered in good faith to create a dialogue

between the supporters of the Club and the Administration team.

 

In light of your current email and that the information you are taking

away from the meetings is so far away from the mark, we are going to

have to reconsider the necessity of any future meetings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And so we seem to have a re-run,of what happened with AA at Swindon.:roll:

 

As soon as the fans there started asking difficult questions,he cut them loose and refused to talk to them.

 

The guy is playing a dangerous game,all eyes will certainly be on him.:-({|=

 

The strange thing is why have the footballing authorities and the HMRC allowing this to continue? Surely they have enough evidence to a) wind them up b) throw them out of the league and/or cup I honestly think the FA dropped a bollock by not kicking them out after they beat us, they obviously didn't think they'd get this far and its too late to do anything now! Spineless the lot of them.

[swannymere]

Oooooo, nearly on page 500