Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

Joensuu

Joensuu

Posted
Posted

Just thought I'd point out this post (from Pompey Online). Think it clarifies why I prefer the slow langishing death to the quick liquidation option:

 

Typical the first time in ages I have not been near the PC, as it has been quiet on the Pompey front so to speak and this happens.

I love this club, but if it had folded in court, my stress levels now would be nil, and I would be looking forward to Plan B and the world cup. I have just had enough now!

It's painful to sit through this, I don't want the club to fold but I don't know how long I can cope with this.

I'm not Pompey born ( Born in Poole), but I have lived in the Pompey area since 1979 and this club to me is more than a Football Club.

Portsmouth FC may die but Pompey will not!!!!!!

[/Quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Saint

CB Saint

Posted
Posted

CVA question - If a CVA is agreed, what happens if the terms are not met at a later date(is AA liable for instance) I ask because the income side of the P & L seems based upon a huge amount of assumption (player transfers, gate receipts, future tv money) and may not materialise in the quantities previously thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gingeletiss

Gingeletiss

Posted
Posted (edited)
Because AA wants to run PFC as one of the biggest spending Championship clubs. Griffin have pointed out that this is absurd.

 

Ah!, but is he the only one?;)...taken from one of their boards.

 

Spoke with a friend today who knows someone ITK with Pompey – the source is a very, very good one.

 

Apparently Rob Lloyd is still interested in Pompey and is trying to buy the club on his own now. However, Lloyd is said to be concerned by what his financial investigations into the club have found relating to our less than admirable recent owners.

 

I am completely indifferent to Rob Lloyd and in many ways think he's a chancer, but just thought I'd share this. He may have good intentions and I can understand due diligence could have thrown up some skeletons.

 

You could argue too that it's an easy excuse for him to explain the delay or failure to go ahead with a buyout ie blame previous regimes.

Edited by Gingeletiss
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chez

Chez

Posted
Posted
CVA question - If a CVA is agreed, what happens if the terms are not met at a later date(is AA liable for instance) I ask because the income side of the P & L seems based upon a huge amount of assumption (player transfers, gate receipts, future tv money) and may not materialise in the quantities previously thought.

 

I was wondering the same thing. Surely a CVA agreement can not be based on selling assets for £30m when the whole world knows those assets are overstated and there is not the market demand anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
CVA question - If a CVA is agreed, what happens if the terms are not met at a later date(is AA liable for instance) I ask because the income side of the P & L seems based upon a huge amount of assumption (player transfers, gate receipts, future tv money) and may not materialise in the quantities previously thought.

The AA CVA is to pay 4p in the first year from the proceeds of player sales (20% of total received, I think), and 4p from the club profits in subsequent years. My reading of that is that the club's obligation to make the CVA payments to creditors is conditional on achieving the income from player sales and making profits in future.

 

I think that any breach of the terms of a CVA leads to immediate liquidation. There are no second chances. But AA has prepared the CVA with a get-out clause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Saint

CB Saint

Posted
Posted
The AA CVA is to pay 4p in the first year from the proceeds of player sales (20% of total received, I think), and 4p from the club profits in subsequent years. My reading of that is that the club's obligation to make the CVA payments to creditors is conditional on achieving the income from player sales and making profits in future.

 

I think that any breach of the terms of a CVA leads to immediate liquidation. There are no second chances. But AA has prepared the CVA with a get-out clause.

 

So in other words - here's 4p in the £ up front, Can't guarentee the rest.

 

Can't imagine why the revenue are not grabbing this deal with both hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Cat

The Cat

Posted
Posted

Are any bookies offering odds on relegation from the Championship next season yet?

 

Had a look but can only find promotion or outright winner odds.

 

It's got to be worth a punt as they way it looks now they'll either start with a big point deficit, or with a squad that would struggle in the Conference South. Or maybe even both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kingsbridge Saint

Kingsbridge Saint

Posted
Posted
Because AA wants to run PFC as one of the biggest spending Championship clubs. Griffin have pointed out that this is absurd.

 

This is how I see it - and is the reason for the difference between AA's figures and those of Griffin for the unsecured creditors. Basically AA is looking for approval for a CVA that will shaft the unsecured creditors all over again by giving them a pittance so Pompey can spend the money bankrolling the most expensive playing squad in the Championship. You're having a laff mush, as someone once said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
holepuncture

holepuncture

Posted
Posted
Comment 38 seems to sum up the situation in a nutshell.

 

What a finely put explanation of the circus going on down the road. I suspect the post was composed by one of our own on this thread, being so well informed.

 

Reading the Griffins document, HMRC are holding firm and refusing to be mugged off by the skates, regardless of the outcome of challenging the footy creditors rule in court.

 

If Griffins and HMRC get there way, the club will go on, it wont be toast, it will be bread slowly turning moldy.

 

Regardless of points deductions, liquidation investigations, arry and storrie due in court... consider this with me...

 

 

The final page of the document outlines playing staff expenditure at £2.5m p.a. or around £200k a month, for a proposed 25 man squad (2.5m / 25 players = £100 p.a or £2k a week)

 

This may suggest the club may not be able to afford the likes of John Utaka on £80k a week any more!

 

How much did Jermaine Wright earn at Saints?

 

 

Having studied football league finance in the past, I can confirm (circa 2006/7/8) the mean wage expenditure in the championship league falls between £9-10m p.a. which would give you a realistic chance of maintaining a mid-table side.

 

This mean figure includes managing and coaching staff, so you could discount the mean to around £7.5m in player wages, or three times more competitive than the moldy toast.

 

It is also worth noting nPc clubs have a couple more £m from broadcasting royalties to play with from this year on.

 

Remember when we were going broke, and were relegated, admin'ed etc...

 

Our wage bill at the time was £500k a month, £6m p.a. in which we were unable remain competitive, how the skates are gonna manage on £2.5m p.a is delightfully beyond me.

 

In summary

 

COY Griffins Insolvency Practitioners and HMRC

 

as for the skates... they are molding bread.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted

Has the FL confirmed that there will be no points penalty next year for Poopy?

 

I know they have no rule to cover teams dropping out of the prem in Admin but there rules for clubs in the FL are pretty straight forward. If a club goes into Admin after a certain date and relegation happened without the points penalty then the points would then be carried forward to the following season.

 

If FL clubs get treated in this way but a club from the prem gets treated differently would the likes of Luton, Leeds and Us have grounds to argue our deductions or Poopy's lack of deductions?

 

Why should a club from the prem not be treated the same as clubs in the FL?

 

All the reports suggest that Poopy would not get a deduction next year if the CVA is ageed but I havnt seen the FL state that is the case anywhere.

 

If we didnt have the - points we would have made it to the play off's which would have been worth a few quid, let alone the possability that we could then have been promoted by it.

 

If Poopy dont get a deduction even though they went into admin the same as we did after the cut off date I wonder if NC will bother raising it with the FL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
holepuncture

holepuncture

Posted
Posted

One part I am struggling to get my head around, is the involvement of Suliman Bin Trump?

 

I believe the al-mirage consortium was simply Chainrais smokescreen to clear off the stadium mortgage to secure his money laundering/screw the gadymacks position.

 

Sasha Gadymack has a history for bankrupting businesses, I wonder how confident he will feel in light of the Griffin + HMRC deal, and the gamble of taking on Her Majesty in a £32m punt, which could worst case scenario for hime cost him £55m (-23m all in)

 

But at what point did Dr Al-Fahim the great get tied into this bizarre far eastern mafia power struggle?

 

COYHMRC

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
One part I am struggling to get my head around, is the involvement of Suliman Bin Trump?

 

I believe the al-mirage consortium was simply Chainrais smokescreen to clear off the stadium mortgage to secure his money laundering/screw the gadymacks position.

 

Sasha Gadymack has a history for bankrupting businesses, I wonder how confident he will feel in light of the Griffin + HMRC deal, and the gamble of taking on Her Majesty in a £32m punt, which could worst case scenario for hime cost him £55m (-23m all in)

 

But at what point did Dr Al-Fahim the great get tied into this bizarre far eastern mafia power struggle?

 

COYHMRC

In reality I doubt if Gaydamak is overly worried. I would imagine that all of his (read their) assets in the UK are now "out of reach", including the land surrounding FP. These type of charges are notoriously difficult to prove. As I see it the worst case scenario is that he won't be able to spend his holidays in London.

 

As for the fake Sheikh, if you believe the conspiracy theorists and Storrieteller, he was brought in behind Storrie's back by Gaydamak to prevent Chainrai from getting his claws into the club.

 

Al-Fahim was brought in through the back door by Gaydamak, but Chainrai sneaked in through a skylight in the roof when nobody was looking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted
What date is the cut off date?

 

TBH I am not that sure what the date was this year but Poopy went into admin pretty close to the end of the season so I would be suprised if it was after the FL cut off date.

 

The FL still have not said one way or the other though so I think everyone is presuming there will be no deductions provided the CVA is agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jimmy_D

Jimmy_D

Posted
Posted

I thought if they couldn't agree a CVA the only course of action left would be to liquidate the company?

 

Leeds couldn't agree a CVA, but in that case the football club was an asset and got passed to another company (also owned by Bates) while the old company was liqudated.

 

In our case a CVA wasn't required because all the debts were paid off (and the old parent company still exists, although it isn't required any more)

 

In Pompey's case, the football club IS the company... I'm not sure they have the option of just not using a CVA...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guided Missile

Guided Missile

Posted
Posted
In reality I doubt if Gaydamak is overly worried. I would imagine that all of his (read their) assets in the UK are now "out of reach", including the land surrounding FP. These type of charges are notoriously difficult to prove. As I see it the worst case scenario is that he won't be able to spend his holidays in London.

I think Gaydamak should be worried. There is an interesting paragraph in Griffins modified CVA that addresses this very issue:

 

The case law is clear that a person cannot set their unsecured claim off against a claim the company might have against them. As far as I can tell there is no law as to whether the company could instead use the set off principle to reject a claim in an insolvency. Only the Administrators are in a position to know whether there is any claim at all and if so how much this could be.

 

 

In my opinion, what will happen if Griffins are appointed as administrators, is that they will seek to setoff the £54M in losses that Gaydamak was responsible for, whilst trading insolvently, against the £32M he is claiming. It will be up to Gaydamak to:

  1. Prove, in a UK court, that his debt is valid.
  2. Prove, in a UK court, that Pompey weren't trading whilst insolvent, while he controlled the club.

I think HMRC will definitely be having a pop at Chanrai and the legitimacy of his debt, but not until they have taken control via Griffins, of the administration/liquidation procedure and dealt with Gaydamak, first of all.

 

Divide and conquer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

I know there are a lot of pages here but when we discuss an article for three days and then someone puts up a link to it like they are the Sky newsteam breaking a massive story, are they being mischievously humorous or just too lazy to read the previous posts?

 

It happens every few pages - very odd!

 

And for anyone too lazy to read, we already know they are in admin, it's not going well, they cheated to the cup final and it all went pear-shaped.

BUT if you have news beyond the 2nd CVA proposal feel free to let us know, otherwise I think we are on top of it ta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gingeletiss

Gingeletiss

Posted
Posted
TBH I am not that sure what the date was this year but Poopy went into admin pretty close to the end of the season so I would be suprised if it was after the FL cut off date.

 

The FL still have not said one way or the other though so I think everyone is presuming there will be no deductions provided the CVA is agreed.

 

I'm not! I think, that if they are even in exsitance come the start of a new season, it will be one of a series of points deductions, as each Ex director falls foul of the legal system. If they survive, I think they will be lucky to escape with -20 odd points, but then I'm an optimist;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tony13579

tony13579

Posted
Posted
There is one flaw in Griffin plan. It's based on the assumption that allocating very minimal funds to playing side the fans will still turn up. Sorry, I forgot for a moment, they are the best fans in the world.

 

It dosent matter! The creditors is all that (should) matter to an administrator. The club only has to existst long enough to receive all the parachute payments and Sky money.

 

If PFC suvive beyond that it is a bonus to the remaining fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tamesaint

Tamesaint

Posted
Posted
£30m still needed from player sales - £3m would be impressive!

 

As others have pointed out, this is one of the flaws in the cunning plans of both AA and Griffen. £3 million is much closer to the net realisable figure once agent fees, sweeteners for players to leave & continued payment of wages for players who have been transferred have all been taken into account.

 

What will happen if they do not get £30 million from transfers and the world's "gratest" fans ™ fail to turn up to watch lower league football in their hordes??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NickG

NickG

Posted
Posted

I think they will struggle to get 10,000 crowds next season.

 

They keep saying no fire sale, but unless several teams are after same player how can they expect anything other than minimal fee? Particularly if the player has decided he wants to join the club offering low fee as will probably be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gaz

gaz

Posted
Posted

They couldn't fill their ground as a Prem club, they definitely won't as a CCC club.

 

have they managed to sell anyone yet?

 

The better question is, have they tried to sell anyone yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bridge too far

bridge too far

Posted
Posted

 

A couple of comforting bits in the BBC link:

 

"But following the meeting of the 72 clubs in Malta, League chiefs will review the punishments for administration to see if they need toughening up."

 

"And a loophole has been closed so that clubs that go into administration are hit with sporting sanctions even when the club is part of a group company" (they've learnt from our predicament last summer I guess).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joensuu

Joensuu

Posted
Posted

 

Like this bit:

 

"The Board of the Football League has now agreed to review the penalties levied on clubs that go into administration to see if they require strengthening"

 

Guess it be too late in the case of our fishy friends though :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted

 

A couple of comforting bits in the BBC link:

 

"But following the meeting of the 72 clubs in Malta, League chiefs will review the punishments for administration to see if they need toughening up."

 

"And a loophole has been closed so that clubs that go into administration are hit with sporting sanctions even when the club is part of a group company" (they've learnt from our predicament last summer I guess).

A loophole, of course, that wasn't closed before we (Lowe) tried to exploit it and then forced to accept the penalty anyway.

 

Some might label this 'blackmailed' rather than 'forced' but you wouldn't catch me making that accusation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bridge too far

bridge too far

Posted
Posted
A loophole, of course, that wasn't closed before we (Lowe) tried to exploit it and then forced to accept the penalty anyway.

 

Some might label this 'blackmailed' rather than 'forced' but you wouldn't catch me making that accusation.

 

Maybe we could press for a retrospective review of our case since the loophole was well and truly open last year :D

 

It's like being done for doing 40 in a 40 limit that has now been reduced to 30

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted

Hmm, so there is a possibility that PFC could have been shown to have been trading while insolvent in a Court of Law.

 

Interesting, where then does that place the PL for not noticing that and allowing them to continue to compete? (Oh and of course our old friends Vantis)

 

Where then does this place teams who lost out in competitions financially (by being knocked out) or missing out on a higher possible position and prize money in the PL due to playing against an illegal entrant in the League?

 

First indications of the real bag of worms that Lampitt is trying to keep a lid on methinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Under Weststand

Under Weststand

Posted
Posted

Looks like HMRC have played a blinder here, given Chainrai & his puppet administrator enough rope to hang themselves. Then along comes a proper insolvency expert & blows there 20p in the pound out of the water. Make Poopey actually pay for their cheating with the parachute money. And for the first time in a long time live within their means whatever that brings them & however many relegations :p. This is exactly what Android should have been doing getting as much money as he could for the people he is SUPPOSED to be representing not his puppet master. 15-point deduction is almost definitely coming now, probably another 2 for multiple administrations, & when Storry teller, saggy chops & Milan are all sent down then another penalty on the cards for fraudulent actions by former directors aka Luton. Bring it on!

 

 

The latest skate fan's plan. Refuse to pay anyone off, and take the point deduction instead.

 

http://www.fansonline.net/pompey-fans/article.php?id=210

 

You just have to laugh at the delusional few. Like the authorities & FL will just allow that to happen. :rolleyes:

 

What is that smell? Smells like something burning has someone left the toaster on to High.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
anothersaintinsouthsea

anothersaintinsouthsea

Posted
Posted
It dosent matter! The creditors is all that (should) matter to an administrator. The club only has to existst long enough to receive all the parachute payments and Sky money.

 

If PFC suvive beyond that it is a bonus to the remaining fans.

 

Exactly, AA's plan meant that they could be one of the higher spenders in the championship in an attempt to get promotion back to the Prem. That would only be attractive to creditors if the bonus from them on promotion was a considerably uplift on the 20p in the pound. AA's offer of a 5p bonus is **** take and the other plan shows that clearly.

 

Even if the skates get relegated into league 1 under the alternative plan the creditors will still be a lot better off than they would if the skates getting promotion under AA's plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...