Clapham Saint Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 Could HMRC (or anyone else) challenge AA being appointed as liquidator, Clapham? The appointment would need to be approved by creditors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 Quote from the Android: You're fooling nobody, you cretinous oaf. Of course you have to sell players. Of course there are bargains to be had. Of course it is a buyers' market. You are a club in administration for crissakes. The very first Premiership club to go into administration. You have massive debts and no firm offers on the table to buy you apart from Chainrai. Because of your predicament, this poxy, scabby little club has made waves right up to FIFA level. There is nobody in World football who does not realise that Portsmouth is a rotting carcass just waiting for the vultures circling above to pick over its carcass. So don't pretend, Android, that you have any aces up your sleeve that will prevent other clubs making derisory offers for your players. You go naked into any negotiations over player sales. Not a pretty sight, but fully deserved. I like this quote from the news... http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/BenHaim-and-Boateng-first-out.6326297.jp But Andrew Andronikou has pledged nobody will be allowed to leave on the cheap. Ben-Haim is lined up for a free transfer to West Ham once Avram Grant is unveiled as their manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 Question about CVA and suppliers. If a CVA is agreed at 20p, I presume that 80p is written off by suppliers and off set against tax. Therefore the 20p is still outstanding, and as a debt owing, no doubt it is accruing interest by the supplier's bank, say at 4%. Might it not be better for some suppliers to off set 100p against tax and refuse to accept the CVA at 20p? Need someone good at accounts here......Say you are owed £50k. You write off 80% and are owed £10k under the CVA. Interest £10k @ 4% = £400 £7.5k @ 4% = £300 £5k @ 4% = £200 £2.5k @ 4% = £100 So you might end up with £1000 interest charges, or 10% of the 20p. I know the figure is probably a bit high, but I would have thought that it would be better to write off 100% against tax rather than take this ridiculous 20p over 5 years. Off course Gaydamak and HMRC are slightly different! Sorry to add a further question but surely to agee the CVA the creditors, including HMRC would have to agree that there is a realistic chance of the club/company continuing to trade at a level where the repayments were sustainable. Surely the fact that this is quite plainly not the case or certainly could not be guaranteed would be a valid reason for declining the CVA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 Sorry to add a further question but surely to agee the CVA the creditors, including HMRC would have to agree that there is a realistic chance of the club/company continuing to trade at a level where the repayments were sustainable. Surely the fact that this is quite plainly not the case or certainly could not be guaranteed would be a valid reason for declining the CVA? AA has provided a 5yr projections in the CVA document, which show the business is viable if the VA is accepted. This may yet be challenged, especially as the document says that the football creditors will be settled directly by the EPL from the parachute payments, yet the parachute payments are shown in the cashflow, as lump sums, and the payment to football creditors as level payments over the period if I read it correctly (difficult as I was reading it sideways - couldn't find any toilet paper to print it on). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigShadow Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 Sorry to add a further question but surely to agee the CVA the creditors, including HMRC would have to agree that there is a realistic chance of the club/company continuing to trade at a level where the repayments were sustainable. Surely the fact that this is quite plainly not the case or certainly could not be guaranteed would be a valid reason for declining the CVA? My thoughts exactly - its one giant leap of faith to think that a 5 year payment plan is worth taking the risk that they will be around to meet those obligations with their £10m p.a. wages and matchday income on sub 10k attendances. Don't forget Chainrai trying to get his money out too. Madness if the CVA gets through on that basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 I'm not so sure that a liquidator couldn't still collect the parachutes when they become payable over the next 4 years even if the Company is liquidated. If you owe money to a company which is then liquidated, you still owe the money to the liquidator. Pompey "earned" the parachutes by being relegated from the PL. They don't have to do anything more over the next 4 years to earn them. Pompey's only "assets" worth anything are the future cash flows from the parachute payments and player sales. The Administrator would obviously have to sell the squad pre-liquidation, as otherwise the registrations go to the League (or the FA). If that's right, the creditors (and HMRC) would be in a better position if they were liquidated. Ball park figures: £30m "secured" debt (Chainrai £15m + "Football debt" £15m) £100m unsecured debt £63m income (£48m parachutes + £15m for the squad) The first £30m (1st year parachutes + player sales) would pay off the "secured" creditors, leaving £33m over the following 3 years (33p in the £) for the unsecured creditors. That is, of course, only if they would still get the parachutes if they were liquidated, and if they haven't already had, and spent, some of it already. My ball park figures are very different from the liquidator's, but who's to say whether their's are any more correct than mine? One of them (Keilly I think) was quoted as saying that 20p in the £ will cost £16.5m, indicating that the unsecured creditors are roughly £82m (of which HMRC represent 43%), which therefore means that the liquidators are working on £53m secured creditors if their total is £135m. I wonder if HMRC will have something to say about that. They laid down a marker about later challenging secured creditor status during the WUP hearings. If they are liquidated does not the money go to all the clubs in the FL, so in effect if they are not liquidated for their cheat and ripping everyone off, they are effectively stealing from all Clubs in the Football League. CHEATS Nick They will still get away with it !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 If they are liquidated does not the money go to all the clubs in the FL, so in effect if they are not liquidated for their cheat and ripping everyone off, they are effectively stealing from all Clubs in the Football League. CHEATS Nick They will still get away with it !!!! If they are promoted back to the PL then the balance goes to the other clubs. They would be the first PL club ever to be liquidated , so who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_John Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 The full CVA document can be downloaded from UHY. http://www.uhy-uk.com/pages/posts/portsmouth-city-football-club--proposal-for-company-voluntary-arrangement-cva740.php then select "download a copy" http://www.uhy-uk.com/media/download/turnaround-and-recovery/PFC%20CVA%2028th%20May%20Final2.pdf p13 says the Football Creditors is £22.4M and unsecured Creditors is £83M = £105M Total Unsecured (page 16) The creditors meeting is June 17 at 11:00 (the same day the fixture lists comes out - ? are they trying to hide some "bad news" ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 I was just wondering whether the creditors would actually see any of the money from the player sales. 5% is already promised as commission to a sports management firm. Then there's the 10% for 'Arry ('coz he's 'Arry, innit, and that's the way it works). And 10% for Pete ('coz he has sooooooooo much experience of football). Then Mark will make half of what's left disappear to the Caribbean from a well-known City firm's Client account. Then Dan will put what's left into one of three paper cups on a folding picnic table in the car park at FP, and ask the creditors if they want to try and find it. All in a very transparent way. Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_John Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 Section 4.10 (page 18 of 102 or page 12 of document ) says "It is understood that seperate action is being initiated by HMRC against the FC Rule" That suggests a trip to the High Court which was estimated at 5 days when HMRC took the Leeds Administrator to court (and stopped the CVA being agreed in their case). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 Blimey - AA can't even spell (separate) properly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 (edited) It is dated yesterday, yet still... If the Club is allowed to take its place in next season’s Europa League competition, all profits generated from the Club’s participation will be distributed to creditors under the terms of these Proposals. Have they still not got the message that they needed to have things in order by December 2009 and there is nothing they can do about it? Edited 28 May, 2010 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 Interesting... 4.10 It is understood that a separate action is being initiated by HMRC against the FC Rule, it is therefore not intended that a challenge to the Football Creditor Rule will be undertaken by the future Liquidators of the original company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 (edited) Some huge assumptions in this proposal... The revenue stream reflects the recently decreased ticket prices and assumes, for the first two years, an average gate of 14,000 spectators per game. The projections assume minimal involvement in any of the cup competitions, Europa, League or FA Cup. The Club is in the process of selling six senior player registrations which it is anticipated will realise a sum of £17 million. There is no budget for the purchase of new players. Finally, the Club is showing that it will retain its position in the Championship. Edited 28 May, 2010 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Shearer Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 (edited) Hmm, anyone looked at the cashflow forecast? Seems like they have some good players on their books if they are going to sell £8m worth in August 2011. Jeez, looked at their charge out rates. They are making a mint there! Edited 28 May, 2010 by Johnny Shearer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Clarke Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 How are Premier League clubs going to cope with Blackpool's dire facilities? They really are a disgrace. Steve Wood, England If you want to talk about a disgrace, what about Portsmouth? Don't moan about Blackpool when you've got a team like Portsmouth who have spent six years in the Premier League, blown millions of pounds on players and still don't have a training base or a decent ground. At least Blackpool are trying to address that. lol nice one Claridge - totally going up in my estimations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 Blackpool are lucky they are not in the Scottish leagues as they have rules about grounds being up to standard and they can refuse promotions if the ground is not good enough. I think that includes capacity as well but could be wrong. I also think, to keep on topic that the skates were lucky that the PL didn't operate sanctions because of that very rough and decrepid Fratton Park . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ypbl Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 The full CVA document can be downloaded from UHY. http://www.uhy-uk.com/pages/posts/portsmouth-city-football-club--proposal-for-company-voluntary-arrangement-cva740.php then select "download a copy" http://www.uhy-uk.com/media/download/turnaround-and-recovery/PFC%20CVA%2028th%20May%20Final2.pdf p13 says the Football Creditors is £22.4M and unsecured Creditors is £83M = £105M Total Unsecured (page 16) The creditors meeting is June 17 at 11:00 (the same day the fixture lists comes out - ? are they trying to hide some "bad news" ) Taken from appendix 8 (page 63 onwards): The net salaries (before Employers NI etc.) per month are £495,000. Assuming a playing squad of 23 gives an average net salary per player per week of £4,967. As I can't see any allowance for signing on fees in the management accounts this salary will have to include these fees too (presumably paid monthly over the life of players' contracts). Just playing with some numbers, but say that 5 players are given net salaries at the £10,000 per week capped value this would leave the average net weekly salary for the remaining 18 players at only £3,568 per week. This is an even lower average than Championship footballers earnt way back in 2006, which according to the following article was £195,750 per annum, or £3,764 per week. Hope that helps to put the salary line into context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 Question about CVA and suppliers. If a CVA is agreed at 20p, I presume that 80p is written off by suppliers and off set against tax. Therefore the 20p is still outstanding, and as a debt owing, no doubt it is accruing interest by the supplier's bank, say at 4%. That brings up a good point: if they accept the 20% offer, not only do HMRC get ripped off directly from the 80% loss on the money owed to them, but also they'll lose even more from the reduction of taxes paid by the other ripped-off creditors! Just say no to the CVA, HMRC! CHEATING BASTARDS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 lol nice one Claridge - totally going up in my estimations. To his credit, he's been putting the boot into the Skates for a few months now - much to the Skates disdain. Of course, the deluded few pretty much resort to "Fack Orf, Claridge!" because he is actually saying the things they don't want to acknowledge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 What about if an owner buys another company not related to the football club and then that company sponsors the football club with millions of pounds ? :confused: The thought crossed my mind too. It seems very feasible, provided the owner is dishonest enough. So a club like P***** wouldn't hesitate, whereas an honest owner (ML?) is less likely to try it. The moral is, in football ... ... CHEATS PROSPER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amesbury Saint Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 That brings up a good point: if they accept the 20% offer, not only do HMRC get ripped off directly from the 80% loss on the money owed to them, but also they'll lose even more from the reduction of taxes paid by the other ripped-off creditors! Just say no to the CVA, HMRC! CHEATING BASTARDS I suspect they will take into account the overall potential loss to the treasurery when making their decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 I suspect they will take into account the overall potential loss to the treasurery when making their decision. I really hope that you are correct and I also hope that HMRC are really using their top brains in this situation. However I am not very confident that this is in fact the case as Pimpey so far seem to have been let off the hook time and time again :mad: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 "Pompey saga drags on" http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_6177294,00.html they are hoping to get a chief exec next week who will then hire the next manager ummm how? and what with? "There's no fire sale, We've had lots of agents ringing up trying to advise us that we can't pay their players their salaries so they'll move them for nothing. "That's not the position. We've got cashflow, we can pay their wages and we are going to sell them for their market value." again, how and what with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 "Pompey saga drags on" http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_6177294,00.html they are hoping to get a chief exec next week who will then hire the next manager ummm how? and what with? "There's no fire sale, We've had lots of agents ringing up trying to advise us that we can't pay their players their salaries so they'll move them for nothing. "That's not the position. We've got cashflow, we can pay their wages and we are going to sell them for their market value." again, how and what with? Just read that article myself and it smacks of desperation to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 To his credit, he's been putting the boot into the Skates for a few months now - much to the Skates disdain. Of course, the deluded few pretty much resort to "Fack Orf, Claridge!" because he is actually saying the things they don't want to acknowledge... That last bit does ring true. For just a moment, remove the rivalry. Some fans do realise exactly what is wrong down there because they have spoken to the likes of FMPR and Mero, guys who have read this thread and seen through the rivalry driven banter. It's the arrogance that prevents them from admitting the situation whereas the likes of Mero etc are more circumspect and realistic! Ok, enough of putting the rivalry to one side. Cheating DFSBs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 I really hope that you are correct and I also hope that HMRC are really using their top brains in this situation. However I am not very confident that this is in fact the case as Pimpey so far seem to have been let off the hook time and time again :mad: . Let's hope that HMRC are acquainted with the phrase 'Give them enough rope......' and putting it to good use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Just read that article myself and it smacks of desperation to me. The Android is fooling nobody. The agents clearly are not fooled and will be advising their players there to desert the sinking ship and other agents will be telling their players not to go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 If I was a creditor and saw the p##s take of 'if they go back up they will get another 5p in the £' whilst chanrai is likely to pocket tens of millions from such an event. AA is alos playing the 'Dont agree and the club goes card ' to the creditors, i suspect a high percentage are Skate fans. They will be torn and as my rother found out when he was a creditor of the Cherries, the other creditors would not do anything that would make the club go out of existance. Very cynical but clever at the same time. What are AA's charge out fees anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red and White Army Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 What are AA's charge out fees anyone know? They are in the creditors report. You clearly have not read it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Isn't AA earning something ridiculous like 60 grand a week? No wonder he wants to let it drag on and on lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 If I was a creditor and saw the p##s take of 'if they go back up they will get another 5p in the £' whilst chanrai is likely to pocket tens of millions from such an event. AA is alos playing the 'Dont agree and the club goes card ' to the creditors, i suspect a high percentage are Skate fans. They will be torn and as my rother found out when he was a creditor of the Cherries, the other creditors would not do anything that would make the club go out of existance. Very cynical but clever at the same time. What are AA's charge out fees anyone know? Hopefully those fan creditors will be able to see that the Skates are big enough to ensure that there always will be a Portsmouth FC, even if they have to restart in the lower leagues they will fight their way back up to league level. Say no to the CVA, stand your ground and then, only then once the crooks have been cleansed can the few decent skates truly get their club back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Hang on a minute: "The managerial position will be decided by the incoming chief executive," he said. Yesterday he said there was a shortlist of 8 and confirmed that Cotterill was on it. So who drew up the shortlist? Does this hint at the identity of the new CE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Hang on a minute: "The managerial position will be decided by the incoming chief executive," he said. Yesterday he said there was a shortlist of 8 and confirmed that Cotterill was on it. So who drew up the shortlist? Does this hint at the identity of the new CE? I think we know who the new CE is, it's Pa Clampitt. The interestings questions are what is he there for and who put him there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Does this hint at the identity of the new CE? The new CEO has been public knowledge for the past 8 weeks. It is David Lampitt - Head of integrity at the FA. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/apr/09/portsmouth-fa-david-lampitt-chief-executive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Too big to fail? A theory I've been starting to think about is whether there is MORE to this mess than even we could have imagined. It makes no commercial sense or even Footballing sense to run around allowing what appears to be a very dirty mess to continue. The lack of bleating from "Figures in Authority" about how unfair the CVA would be and how it sends a clear message to all clubs to gamble on success has not been seen. So why? Could it be that there are skeletons in the closets that could create even MORE harm if they were to become public? Could this actually not be a save the club but a cover-up? Suspicions of Gaydamark supplying Uranium Ore to IRAN? Jeez, how much of his "son's" reign did people actually know about? Could there be links that could harm FIFA, UEFA, and even National Governments? May be wildly off track, but the way this is being played out, the appointment of a senior FA member, the retention of Storrie (to keep him quiet?), all start to point to a possibly even BIGGER conspiracy theory. Are they being kept on life support so that the Laundry men have enough time to track down ALL the nasty little skeletons, emails and phone records? Hmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 The new CEO has been public knowledge for the past 8 weeks. It is David Lampitt - Head of integrity at the FA. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/apr/09/portsmouth-fa-david-lampitt-chief-executive Yeah I know all that. That doesn't stop Chanrai reversing the decision once he's got a CVA to put his own pet poodle in charge. Let's face it, AA won't have much future as an insolvency practitioner after this one. Or am I just being overly cynical and suspicious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Yeah I know all that. That doesn't stop Chanrai reversing the decision once he's got a CVA to put his own pet poodle in charge. Let's face it, AA won't have much future as an insolvency practitioner after this one. Or am I just being overly cynical and suspicious? I don't think he'll have a choice, assuming he wants to keep a football club going Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintkiptanui Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Too big to fail? A theory I've been starting to think about is whether there is MORE to this mess than even we could have imagined. It makes no commercial sense or even Footballing sense to run around allowing what appears to be a very dirty mess to continue. The lack of bleating from "Figures in Authority" about how unfair the CVA would be and how it sends a clear message to all clubs to gamble on success has not been seen. So why? Could it be that there are skeletons in the closets that could create even MORE harm if they were to become public? Could this actually not be a save the club but a cover-up? Suspicions of Gaydamark supplying Uranium Ore to IRAN? Jeez, how much of his "son's" reign did people actually know about? Could there be links that could harm FIFA, UEFA, and even National Governments? May be wildly off track, but the way this is being played out, the appointment of a senior FA member, the retention of Storrie (to keep him quiet?), all start to point to a possibly even BIGGER conspiracy theory. Are they being kept on life support so that the Laundry men have enough time to track down ALL the nasty little skeletons, emails and phone records? HmmmmStop it Billy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Stop it Billy. Oh, OK then, thanks for settling those worries. Phew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Yeah I know all that. That doesn't stop Chanrai reversing the decision once he's got a CVA to put his own pet poodle in charge. Let's face it, AA won't have much future as an insolvency practitioner after this one. Or am I just being overly cynical and suspicious? Maybe the FA have told Pompey that David Lampitt has to remain as CEO until otherwise instructed, no matter who the owner is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 I think we know who the new CE is, it's Pa Clampitt. The interestings questions are what is he there for and who put him there. How about 'who is paying him'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintkiptanui Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Oh, OK then, thanks for settling those worries. PhewWhen I read this thread I get annoyed by it all, when I don't read this thread I couldn't give a toss so therefore this thread is bad. As long as we are above them in a few years all will be well, no point worrying about the injustices of the world, we'd all spend our lives in Bradford murdering sex workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 I can't believe that over 26,000 posts have been made about that anonymous club down the road. I realise I have just added to it myself, and therefore the total has gone up again. I mean, what are we geting our knickers in a twist for... or is this just some kind of remote-post association thread now..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintkiptanui Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 I can't believe that over 26,000 posts have been made about that anonymous club down the road. I realise I have just added to it myself, and therefore the total has gone up again. I mean, what are we geting our knickers in a twist for... or is this just some kind of remote-post association thread now..?Exactly Kenneth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintkiptanui Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 The only thing that annoys me is that no-one else gets it, when people get it this thread should die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 Too big to fail? A theory I've been starting to think about is whether there is MORE to this mess than even we could have imagined. It makes no commercial sense or even Footballing sense to run around allowing what appears to be a very dirty mess to continue. The lack of bleating from "Figures in Authority" about how unfair the CVA would be and how it sends a clear message to all clubs to gamble on success has not been seen. So why? Could it be that there are skeletons in the closets that could create even MORE harm if they were to become public? Could this actually not be a save the club but a cover-up? Suspicions of Gaydamark supplying Uranium Ore to IRAN? Jeez, how much of his "son's" reign did people actually know about? Could there be links that could harm FIFA, UEFA, and even National Governments? May be wildly off track, but the way this is being played out, the appointment of a senior FA member, the retention of Storrie (to keep him quiet?), all start to point to a possibly even BIGGER conspiracy theory. Are they being kept on life support so that the Laundry men have enough time to track down ALL the nasty little skeletons, emails and phone records? Hmmmm It's not in English football's interests to procrastinate and cover things up. I'm sure they realise that...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 It's not in English football's interests to procrastinate and cover things up. I'm sure they realise that...... It might be the reason that English football cant afford it to come to light. Forget not, that Dave Richards was part of introducing Al Fahim to Pompey. Do you think if somebody with all the trappings of these posts (it could be with many other FA's worldwide, politicians,underworld) is going to give it up lightly when they can still have some influence to make things smoother by not making waves. The PL think of nothing but their world integrity, saving that will be paramount above anything IMo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 I think some may be missing the point if I understand the document properly. An Administrator has less power that a Liquidator when it comes to investigating what has been going on. So, the Administrator gets on with trying to get the business on a decent footing and has agreed to it being a new company in 9 months liquidating the old at that time. The creditors 20% is safe (relatively speaking because it is over 5 years and the new company could fail in that period) BUT, and here is the important part, the old company goes into liquidation giving powers to the liquidator to investigate what went on and if the directors etc are complicit they can be prosecuted and or made to pay money to the liquidator which he passes on to the creditors as that is outside of any CVA The CVA will be agreed. Pompey will start without a points penalty, will limp through the next few seasons and even suffer further relegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintkiptanui Posted 29 May, 2010 Share Posted 29 May, 2010 I think some may be missing the point if I understand the document properly. An Administrator has less power that a Liquidator when it comes to investigating what has been going on. So, the Administrator gets on with trying to get the business on a decent footing and has agreed to it being a new company in 9 months liquidating the old at that time. The creditors 20% is safe (relatively speaking because it is over 5 years and the new company could fail in that period) BUT, and here is the important part, the old company goes into liquidation giving powers to the liquidator to investigate what went on and if the directors etc are complicit they can be prosecuted and or made to pay money to the liquidator which he passes on to the creditors as that is outside of any CVA The CVA will be agreed. Pompey will start without a points penalty, will limp through the next few seasons and even suffer further relegation.I love the way you know this as a fact, you know as much as me, which is jack poo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts