Gorgiesaint Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Ok so what is the order of business now: Yesterdays vote was surely just an ok for AA to prepare & present the CVA, not an agreement to the CVA (which appears to have been reported). If that is the case then HMRC still has right to block the CVA. Given that the CVA should take about 14 days to produce and get to vote, HMRC still have 28 days to appeal it. I believe at this point, HMRC will be back in court to dicsuss the differences between the SOA produced at the original winding up petition and the debt now shown in CVA. Don't forget, when Leeds were coming out of administration they were in a position to get a CVA agreed. Despite that the FL still imposed a points deduction as HMRC took the whole matter to court and would have delayed the CVA implimentation until well into the new season - this is pretty similar to what I think will happen in this case. I would also be very surprised if the FL let the original business be liquidated and transfer the golden share to a new company without any penalty. They are far from being out of the woods yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Are the HMRC just being sneaky. Will they turn up on the day the CVA needs approving and block it either sending PCFC into liquidation or ensuring that they enter the CCC without the CVA and a guarentee of a points deduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromdayone Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 And now that AA who is supposed to be an Administrator, says there will be no firesale of players in the summer - excuse me but what about selling assets to repay debts?? And how can you keep staff on paying high weekly salaries with no income to support them? What the hell is going on here?? Here is why he doesn't need a firesale..... although cant see many agreeing!! http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Pompey-set-cap-on-player.6279823.jp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Here is why he doesn't need a firesale..... although cant see many agreeing!! http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Pompey-set-cap-on-player.6279823.jp I wish my work would offer me a 10k a week 'take it leave it' deal. 520k a year for finishing bottom of the CCC = good deal. I wonder if the 10k a week includes image rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Their squad is about to dissolve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Maybe I am being thick, or maybe it's the alcohol, but........ They are going to liquidate the owning company in 9 months time? This is half way through next season. Therefor..... In order to get their 'Golden Share' for next season surely they have to first pay off all outstanding football debts? 38m? Or take a points deduction? Or, if they are allowed to start the start the season, surely they will have a transfer embargo if they have football related debts (ala Bournmouth) which means not even being allowed to sign players on loan. Seeing as they will pretty much have to off-load most of their current squad, what kind of team would they field next season? How few of the phew will pay to watch such a team getting stuffed every week? How will they then be able to pay the agreed 20% in £? And then, given the mess they are in, I have no doubt any investigation into the former company would result in finding financial irregularities. Weren't Swindon once relegated a division (or 2?) for such things? In summary, even if their plan does come to fruition, they should still be royally screwed. Thoughts????? Exactly. Even funding 20% over five years is going to be a stretch for them. This recent spending spree will hurt them for years and years. That is not gettting away with it IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 If he thinks they can generate £25m revenue p.a, excluding the parachute payment, he is barking mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 If he thinks they can generate £25m revenue p.a, excluding the parachute payment, he is barking mad. We were only pulling in £14m once the parachute payments ran out, so god knows how they think they'll get £25m! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 We were only pulling in £14m once the parachute payments ran out, so god knows how they think they'll get £25m! Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ypbl Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Here is why he doesn't need a firesale..... although cant see many agreeing!! http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Pompey-set-cap-on-player.6279823.jp Exactly. There's nothing to stop a player refusing to take a pay cut or a transfer if they don't get a better offer. They will be stuck with the likes of Mullins if he doesn't want to move or generously offer to take a pay cut. Remember the problems we had trying to get rid of Rasiak and Saganowski... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danish Saint Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 With all their loanees returning, how many players have the actually got on contract? And how many of these are above 32? No firesale, because they havn't got a squad in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danish Saint Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 How many of their players are out of contract, and how many of those left, wants to play in the CC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 It will be interesting to see if Chanrai is still willing to buy the club after HRMC dumped the extra millions in fines on. With football creditors getting first dibs on the parachutes and there not being alot to make through player sales, there can't be much in it for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 'It's drastic action which needs to be taken, especially with just two of the current squad having clauses in their contract that, if relegated, their wages are reduced'. Excellent, well done Peter, your a genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Fan CaM Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 What a shambles that club really is. Dirty and smelly to the core. But it seems they just may get away with the biggest scandal in British footballing history. If they win the FA Cup I cannot imagine what the fallout might be given they really shouldn't be there in the first place. Disgusting cheats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Here is why he doesn't need a firesale..... although cant see many agreeing!! http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Pompey-set-cap-on-player.6279823.jp especially tough to get players to agree when they all know Utaka will still be on his mega contract, whatever that really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyinthesky Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 £10m pa players budget will enable the cheats to assemble a reasonable squad. Doncaster and Blackpool pay between £6-£8m and they have done OK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 I'm intrigued as to how he's arrived at a figure of £10m a year for the wage bill. Even that would be unsustainable for them in the Championship. With tickets priced at a maximum of £23 next season, that gives them potential revenue of about £10.5m from ticket sales. Clearly they'll get less than that because a) they won't sell out every week, b) they'll sell a number of season tickets which work out much cheaper than £23 per person per game and c) they'll sell a lot of child/concession tickets. They will only repeat the problems of the last couple of years but with slightly smaller figures, i.e. a wages/turnover ratio that is unsustainable, leading them into debt and administration again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latter day saint Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 wots the TV money like in the championship next year? would this be an important factor in there budget ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 wots the TV money like in the championship next year? would this be an important factor in there budget ?? Not much, about £2m a year, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommi Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 The planned solution to me is very much based upon incoming investment. I can't see any other way without that it would be sustainable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 (edited) I got the feeling AA was counting on the parachute payments as revenue Surely any money they make from players sales this summer and any guaranteed future income - i.e. the parachute payments - should be used to pay their debts Edited 7 May, 2010 by Rebel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Haven't the Premier League already said they'll divert parachute payments to footballing creditors before Pompey see any of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Haven't the Premier League already said they'll divert parachute payments to footballing creditors before Pompey see any of it? Yep - but that only accounts for roughly the first years parachute payment of £16 million I still think AA is counting that as revenue in his annual figure though. He's almost as bad as Storrie in the way the way he twists things around so much that the truth gets lost If the parachute payment is extended to 4 years it still gives them another £48 million of guaranteed revenue to play with though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Yep - but that only accounts for roughly the first years parachute payment of £16 million I still think AA is counting that as revenue in his annual figure though. He's almost as bad as Storrie in the way the way he twists things around so much that the truth gets lost If the parachute payment is extended to 4 years it still gives them another £48 million of guaranteed revenue to play with though £32m, assuming all of the first year's parachute payment is withheld by the Premier League to satisfy football creditors, and of course they won't be able to touch it until the 2011/12 season, by which time they'll probably have been relegated again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonManager Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 £32m, assuming all of the first year's parachute payment is withheld by the Premier League to satisfy football creditors, and of course they won't be able to touch it until the 2011/12 season, by which time they'll probably have been relegated again. They could, however, borrow against it, but then that would mean going against their core principal of never going into debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Haven't the Premier League already said they'll divert parachute payments to footballing creditors before Pompey see any of it? Yes. Late in the season 2011/2012 before they'd get what was left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastcowzer Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Oooooh how cunning but the League, if they want, will say "new company? no worries but if you want your golden share you'll have to start on -x points" Excuse my ignorance but if PCFC are liquidated they would cease to be, so how could they start up as another club, (e.g. PCFC(2010)ltd), and assume entry into the CCC. Surely as a new entity they would have to start at the bottom of the 'pyramid' system and work their way upward through promotions, hopefully in a legitimate manner though that's asking a lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Excuse my ignorance but if PCFC are liquidated they would cease to be, so how could they start up as another club, (e.g. PCFC(2010)ltd), and assume entry into the CCC. Surely as a new entity they would have to start at the bottom of the 'pyramid' system and work their way upward through promotions, hopefully in a legitimate manner though that's asking a lot Exactly the question I posed yesterday. Like yourself, I don't understand how they could do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Not right according to this... guardian report on CVA meeting I think I'll wait and see a direct quote from HMRC. The administrator said: "...the increase may be due to HMRC demanding revenue on image rights, which are usually paid to players' off-shore accounts. " We'll see, because I can't believe that they're not due a penalty or two from the taxman... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Exactly the question I posed yesterday. Like yourself, I don't understand how they could do that Well that was exactly what happened 10 years ago, Portsmouth Football Club became Portsmouth City Football Club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
standy Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Like most of us, I was initially horrified by the deal. However, haven't the HMRC now got the right to check through PCFC's books to look for irregularities. Surely this should give them all the ammo they need to disprove the inflated debt that AA has conjured up to try to reduce their vote to less than the magical 25% to block the CVA. I can see HMRC blocking the CVA and taking the matter back to court. Still toast ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuRomseySaint Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Well that was exactly what happened 10 years ago, Portsmouth Football Club became Portsmouth City Football Club. But I am pretty sure the penalties for liquidation and administration were not there then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 I can see HMRC blocking the CVA to set precedent.....what message does it leave for other clubs/business if they allow it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 But I am pretty sure the penalties for liquidation and administration were not there then? You are indeed correct. Rules have changed since then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 MK Dons went into Admin as Wimbledon, then were bought and taken out of Admin as MK Dons. I can't see a recent precedent to say that PFC2010 or whatever can come out of a liquidated club and resume where they left off. Wiki on MKD: ''Although there have been club relocations in the UK, there had never been such a relocation of a professional club within the English pyramid system, and this move attracted widespread criticism. Those who interpreted the League decision as American-style sports "franchises" gave Wimbledon the disparaging title "Franchise F.C.". At the behest of the Football Supporters Federation, the fans of other teams boycotted games against the club and crowds dwindled to non-League levels. On 5 June 2003, Wimbledon went into financial administration with debts of more than £20 million.[7] During the 2003–04 season, Wimbledon F.C. was run by the administrators and many of the team's players were sold. At the end of a dismal season, the club was relegated to League One. During the summer of 2003, the National Hockey Stadium in Milton Keynes was converted for use as a football stadium, and in September 2003, Wimbledon F.C. moved into the National Hockey Stadium. In June 2004, Inter MK Ltd, led by chairman Pete Winkelman, brought the club out of administration. Upon buying the club, Winkelman announced that he was changing the name of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes Dons F.C.. When the club formally emerged from administration under the new name and ownership on 1 July, Winkelman also announced that he was changing the club's blue and yellow kit to all-white, and introducing a new club badge. The new badge bore the letters 'MMIV', signifying that 2004 was a new start for the Milton Keynes Dons.'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 I can see HMRC blocking the CVA to set precedent.....what message does it leave for other clubs/business if they allow it? Yup, my hopes entirely. Hence the fine, doubling the debt and taking them into +25% of debt value territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint 76er Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Excuse my ignorance but if PCFC are liquidated they would cease to be, so how could they start up as another club, (e.g. PCFC(2010)ltd), and assume entry into the CCC. Surely as a new entity they would have to start at the bottom of the 'pyramid' system and work their way upward through promotions, hopefully in a legitimate manner though that's asking a lot Like all of us, I am trying to make sense of the liquidation in 9 months scenario, especially as that will come up mid way through next season. We know from our own experience that the FL don't like club ownership shifting from one company to another and in our case were quick to grab their 'golden share' back and refuse to hand it over until they got their way. Like Baldrick, the Android appears to have a cunning plan. He has seen the PL bend over backwards to help them out and turn a blind eye to the most blatant cheating, solely to get them through to the end of the season and complete their fixtures. Presumably he thinks he can pull the same trick on the FL and have them turn a blind eye in nine months out of desperation to get their fixtures completed as well. No doubt reasoning that they can't withdraw the GS half way through a season. Could be a nice little points penalty though and let's hope the FL are in as mean a mood as they were with us. I do worry they may be a little more user friendly without Mawhinney around unfortunately... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Don't forget, when Leeds were coming out of administration they were in a position to get a CVA agreed. Despite that the FL still imposed a points deduction as HMRC took the whole matter to court and would have delayed the CVA implimentation until well into the new season - this is pretty similar to what I think will happen in this case. I would also be very surprised if the FL let the original business be liquidated and transfer the golden share to a new company without any penalty. They are far from being out of the woods yet. I reckon this is close to the truth. Much as we would like to know now, HMRC play the long game. As the Leeds example shows, they can be quite sneaky with last minute appeals. The FL will also be mindful of Leeds, Luton, Saints etc and I think it inconceivable they won't penalise Pompey. Finally the revenue of the new club is going to be pitiful. Parachute payments diverted directly to football creditors by the FA (and/or already borrowed against anyway?!), a little bit of CCC (or maybe L1) TV revenue and the ticket sales from what, even in the Premiership against top sides with big away followings were less than our L1 crowds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Oh, and an additional thought: the BBC blogger yesterday was talking about an investigation. I'm sure everyone agrees that one is necessary, but as things move ahead, CVAs are drafted and debt figures change I'm sure HMRC will be having fun looking at the books and disputing the original SOA. Don't forget the legal cases against Saggy, Mandaric and Storrie: all interconnected, and I bet some bright spark who wants to make a name for themselves is itching to dive into the fictional world of Pompey's accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Yes. Late in the season 2011/2012 before they'd get what was left. True... lets look at it practically... If their CVA is agreed, Assuming that the debt is as stated at 138 mil then they will owe approximately: 17.5 mil to other clubs 4.5 mil to players 15 mil to Chanrai (secured) 20 mil over 4 years to unsecured creditors. (5 mil a year) So in year 1 in the CCC Income Parachute payment: 16 mil - all withheld to pay footballing debt. Revenue gate + commercial interests - say 10 mil TV revenue 3 mil FL revenue 2 mil Player sales ? 10 mil? Total: 25 mil Outgoings 5 mil a year in unsecured debt repayments 5 mil remaining footballing debt Leaves 15 mil for the year (so 10 mil wages possible ) if Chanrai waits until year two Year two - could be back in the prem and Charai paid in full from Prem TV money Or Year two in CCC (will saty up with a 10 mil team) Income Parchute payment 1 mil (15 mil straight to Chanrai) TV money 3mil FL MOney 2mil Gate + commercial 10 mil 16 mil for the year If not promoted /relegated Year 3 in CCC Parchute payment 8mil TV 3 mil FL 2 mil Gate /commercial 10 mil ....so they can and probably will: Have no further points deductions Have written off 80 mil in debt Have a significant financial advantage over over Championship teams and probably get promoted This is the utter corrupt immoral stinking truth ... the only spanners are: HMRC decides to veto CVA - liquidation and relegation etc FL decides to add points deductions in 9 months when PCFC is liquidated and assetts transferred FL decides on further points deductions if it is shown that ativities at PCFC were against the rules But personnally they look to have gotton away with it.... unbe********lievable.... they should be ashamed, yet they will be lording it up at Wembley.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Like most of us, I was initially horrified by the deal. However, haven't the HMRC now got the right to check through PCFC's books to look for irregularities. Surely this should give them all the ammo they need to disprove the inflated debt that AA has conjured up to try to reduce their vote to less than the magical 25% to block the CVA. I can see HMRC blocking the CVA and taking the matter back to court. Still toast ! It appears they are already in a position to block the CVA, but appear not to be willing to lose 20% of 34 million. The Football League will not allow them to start on 0 in the proposed circumstances, or their integrity and reputation for treating all clubs fairly will be completely shot to pieces. They have been very consistent with this in the past. I hope you're right. But if they have a CVA agreed upon in time, can the FL punish them for crimes committed in the PL? Hopefully it'll be case of the FL telling the skates: you take the X point punishment, or we won't accept you into our club. That attitude will anger those that need to agree the CVA. If you're owed money would you accept 20p in the £1 and then watch/agree the company continue with all its assets still in tact? I would be furious.....I'd insist that anything worth money was sold so that people owed £'s are paid to a maximum. It's called blackmail. AA could tell them that yes, we can flog everything of value, but if we do that we will liquidate and won't get the parachute money, and so instead of 20p in the £1 we are offering now you'll get 1p. I can see HMRC blocking the CVA to set precedent.....what message does it leave for other clubs/business if they allow it? It's one thing to sacrifice a few hundred thousand to send a message, which they've done in the past, and another to sacrifice 20% of 34 million. I think the alleged demand of liquidation of PCFC next year is their means of "sending a message", while still recovering about 40% of the original 18 million or so owed. Note that this liquidation could occur in the middle of next season, making it more difficult for the Fl to kick them out. The worst case for us haters of the cheats, is that they will start next season on 0 points, and only suffer a name change. CHEATING BASTARDS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Can't they just be wound up now? They've got the national debt of a third world country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Well that was exactly what happened 10 years ago, Portsmouth Football Club became Portsmouth City Football Club. And presumably what happened to Southampton Leisure Holdings when Markus took us over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Can't they just be wound up now? They've got the national debt of a third world country. Maybe the Germans and the IMF will bail them out and the markets will go into a tailspin again because just like those spendthrift Greeks they won't accept any austerity measures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 I can see HMRC blocking the CVA to set precedent.....what message does it leave for other clubs/business if they allow it? If they don't block it all clubs in danger will use the bank of HMRC and then the HMRC run the risk of losing more than £7m in the long run. HMRC can f look at the long game, and if they Block the CVA and force liquidation of the Skates all the other football clubs will think twice before not pay their dues. I think a loss of £7M may be a better long term option for them but unfortunately I am starting to believe as with NickH they will get away with it, no points deductions, why can not all additional monies from player sales for the full term of the CVA be paid to creditors, why cant all the parachute monies over the 4 years that is left after football debts (if any) be placed in the pot. Why should they benefit from this money in future when other are having to go without. Disgusting club, disgusting cheats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 Can't they just be wound up now? They've got the national debt of a third world country. The fact that they've been allowed to get this far into debt in the first place is a total disgrace. Remember just back to January when Storrie-teller insisted they needed no firesale of players as their financial troubles weren't that bad. Any non-corrupt administrator would have wound them up immediately as they are simply continuing to spend incredible sums of money that they clearly do not have. The whole scenario stinks, and I've heard inside stories from people very itk (that I just can't print on here for libel purposes) but which, if true in the slightest extreme, make it all a thousand times worse. I used to have a bit of sympathy to their fans for the plight they're in, but their blissful apportionment of blame to everyone bar themselves, and how they're being horribly victimised by the Premier League, just show them up for the clueless joke they really are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevvy Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 I still cant believe that the fraud squard are not nosing around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 (edited) A-ha!!! We might just be missing something obvious here & if this is right then HMRC are playing a blinder. Okay if they accept the CVA then they'll get 20% of £34m which is circa £7m.... or.... They reject the CVA, take the issue back to court to say that when the SOA was presented the debts to HMRC were circa £12m (? - not sure but use this figure for now). The debt is now £34m - up by £22m. So who has to pay this - step forward AA & UHY Hacker Young (as all additional debts accrued under admin are payable by the administrator) In the meantime PCFC are wound up as the CVA can't be agreed. This way HMRC end up with £22m instead of £7m and make an example of Pompey & a dodgy administrator. Could that be a possible scenario? Edited 7 May, 2010 by Gorgiesaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 7 May, 2010 Share Posted 7 May, 2010 A-ha!!! We might just be missing something obvious here & if this is right then HMRC are playing a blinder. Okay if they accept the CVA then they'll get 20% of £34m which is circa £7m.... or.... They reject the CVA, take the issue back to court to say that when the SOA was presented the debts to HMRC were circa £12m (? - not sure but use this figure for now). The debt is now £34m - up by £22m. So who has to pay this - step forward AA & UHY Hacker Young. Oh - you've just edited your post to say this. In the meantime PCFC are wound up as the CVA can't be agreed. This way HMRC end up with £22m instead of £7m and make an example of Pompey & a dodgy administrator. Could that be a possible scenario? You might be on to something here. Because I'm sure the way it works is that the Administrator is responsible for all debts accrued since the introduction of administration. Oh - you've just added this to your edited post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts