Pompey Takeover Saga

[Smirking_Saint]

So, just to summarise the last 12 months...

 

Football Club runs up debts

 

Football Club Owner seeks way of reducing debt

 

Football Club Owner puts Football Club into administration

 

Football Club Owner reduces debt by 80%

 

Football Club starts afresh ready for another unfunded push into Premier League

 

If only I'd known running a company was this easy when I saw the careers advisor in 1985

 

When you read it like this it outlines just how f*cking disgusting this case really is. I wonder how many honest business' they have severely dented.

[rallyboy]

is it just me or once again, do the figures not add up?

 

The taxman + Hart + Udinese + any others didn't even make up 19% of the vote?.....and surely it had to be 75% approved not 25% declined so any missing ones were lost votes for them.

AA couldn't contact some agents and the chairman of a football club he owes money to, but he managed to contact thousands of other annoyed businesses, and get their overwhelming support for 4p in the pound a year?..........no, I don't think so.

 

And if Gaydamak has just lost £25M he will whack up the price of the future ground development land, and any rent he is charging for the ground the offices stand on - so he still holds an ace.

 

I just don't buy AA's version of events, it defies logic and some of the facts.

[OldNick]

You really do have a smug "I told you so" attitude. You even empathize this with your final sentence. Surprised you're not even smart enough to keep the "I told you so" type comments out of the "I am not saying I told you so" post.

Lol, perhaps you see it as that way. It is not my intention but I suppose it may come over like that. More like we are all feeling sore that Pompey at this time are getting away with it and taking things badly.

Surprisingly, I still believe that there may be a chance of a sting in the tail and the HRMC may well contest this, but it is the last chance for them to stop a travesty happening. Im sure we will get some sickly posts from Ho crowing on here.

The whole chapter smacks of a cover up to me, and as Dubai has also posted I have a feeling there are too many people in important places who have had a slice of the pie and are desperate for it never to be found out.

How come Lampitt was parachuted in from a safe job to one that in theory would be gone a few weeks later, and PS left at his post for so many weeks???

[OldNick]

is it just me or once again, do the figures not add up?

 

The taxman + Hart + Udinese + any others didn't even make up 19% of the vote?.....and surely it had to be 75% approved not 25% declined so any missing ones were lost votes for them.

AA couldn't contact some agents and the chairman of a football club he owes money to, but he managed to contact thousands of other annoyed businesses, and get their overwhelming support for 4p in the pound a year?..........no, I don't think so.

 

And if Gaydamak has just lost £25M he will whack up the price of the future ground development land, and any rent he is charging for the ground the offices stand on - so he still holds an ace.

 

I just don't buy AA's version of events, it defies logic and some of the facts.

i think any non votes are seen as an acceptance of his plan. I wonder how many forms could go missing,or are they sent recorded delivery.

[Wes Tender]

If they are football creditors i can only assume they have no voting power as they get their full 'pound in the pound' as apposed to the 20% of debt repayment every other 'mug' that voted in favour will recieve.

 

Whether they have voting powers or not, I don't know. But surely Hart and Udinese are also football creditors, so why did they both vote against the CVA if they will get 100% payment? Andronikou, who is truly as loathsome and dispicable a specimen as one is likely to meet in these affairs, is scathing about Hart's vote against the CVA and says that Udinese were uncontactable, inferring that if he had managed to contact them, they might have voted differently. I wonder what Andronikou's position would be if he were owed £450,000 by a former employer in administration? Of course, we all know that an individual so principled, so honest and full of integrity as he is, would forego that payment willingly. NOT.

[Gingeletiss]

]is it just me or once again' date=' do the figures not add up?[/b']

 

The taxman + Hart + Udinese + any others didn't even make up 19% of the vote?.....and surely it had to be 75% approved not 25% declined so any missing ones were lost votes for them.

AA couldn't contact some agents and the chairman of a football club he owes money to, but he managed to contact thousands of other annoyed businesses, and get their overwhelming support for 4p in the pound a year?..........no, I don't think so.

 

And if Gaydamak has just lost £25M he will whack up the price of the future ground development land, and any rent he is charging for the ground the offices stand on - so he still holds an ace.

 

I just don't buy AA's version of events, it defies logic and some of the facts.

 

No, it's not just you. Touched on here, but also my first thought when I heard the result yesterday, is, what happened to Griffins? It was my understanding, that they represented some middle ranking creditors, what way did they vote?....smell!, you bet your life it does!

[saintjay77]

No, it's not just you. Touched on here, but also my first thought when I heard the result yesterday, is, what happened to Griffins? It was my understanding, that they represented some middle ranking creditors, what way did they vote?....smell!, you bet your life it does!

 

I thought the same. HMRC had there vote percentage reduced, some didnt vote and as such there votes counted as for the CVA, who ever got Griffin in did so for either no reason or there vote wasnt counted at all.

 

Not allot makes sense from their whole administration so I suppose we shouldn't be suprised if it continues the same way??

[OldNick]

Whether they have voting powers or not, I don't know. But surely Hart and Udinese are also football creditors, so why did they both vote against the CVA if they will get 100% payment? Andronikou, who is truly as loathsome and dispicable a specimen as one is likely to meet in these affairs, is scathing about Hart's vote against the CVA and says that Udinese were uncontactable, inferring that if he had managed to contact them, they might have voted differently. I wonder what Andronikou's position would be if he were owed £450,000 by a former employer in administration? Of course, we all know that an individual so principled, so honest and full of integrity as he is, would forego that payment willingly. NOT.

Did AA say that Udinese were not contactable!!!!!!! I bet had they been the casting vote to save his plan he would have got on a plane and made sure they were.

It seems the fans on here are the only ones concerned at the whole wepisode, and next season we will hear about how wonderful it is that Pompey have been saved by those in the media...get the sick bag

[Master Bates]

Sorry if already posted, with love from Dog:

 

http://www.goalymoly.com/football-news/inside-knowledge-harry-redknapp-going-down44886

[Sevvy]

Traing ground owned by King Edwards School, the 40k they were owed was only a projection of costs and not the actual costs owed, as far as i know they have been paid that is why they are still able to use the traing ground if they hadn't been paid they would have been kicked out.

[OldNick]

Sorry if already posted, with love from Dog:

 

http://www.goalymoly.com/football-news/inside-knowledge-harry-redknapp-going-down44886

That would be good news.

[OldNick]

Traing ground owned by King Edwards School, the 40k they were owed was only a projection of costs and not the actual costs owed, as far as i know they have been paid that is why they are still able to use the traing ground if they hadn't been paid they would have been kicked out.

How much was it put down as on the creditors report. if it was only projected but was put in a a full debt and this ha[ppened many times over, it would put another doubt in on AA's figures

[Saint_John]

Can I just point out that HMRC can now question everything in the CVA now.

 

If the Andriod had not massaged the figures yesterday then HMRC could only vote for or against the cva. However because of his dismissal of part of HMRC claim WHEN the case goes back to the High Court for the appeal, HMRC can add ANY NUMBER OF ISSUES they have with the CVA to their appeal.

 

If you go back to the Leeds case, HMRC originally only appealled against Yorkshire Radio and another creditor. However when the case was due to be heard in Leeds Crown Court they then ADDED the ISSUE OF THE FOOTBALL CREDITORS RULE.

http://www.thefootballnetwork.net/main/s277/st127940.htm?print=1

So Leeds had a 75% approved CVA in place and the return of the Golden Share should have been a formality at the next scheduled monthly meeting of the Football league.

 

 

Up step 'Her Majesties Revenue and Customs' (HMRC) that were one of the creditors owed money by Leeds....HMRC raised an issue with two of the Creditors that voted in favour of the CVA. One of which was Yorkshire Radio.

 

HMRC felt they should not have been allowed to vote but the Administrators (KPMG) (it was not Leeds Utd being taken to Court but the Administrators) were more than happy to defend the issue in court .....HMRC then added the issue of the Footballing debts being given priority to the issue to be discussed. In effect, the HMRC were taking KPMG to Court to dispute Football League rules! Leeds Utd (Bates and Co.) were not under scrutiny but these matters meant the club were not able to exit administration.

 

What these means in the case of CHEATS FC is that when HMRC appeal the fact that their share of the vote was reduced WITHOUT REASON AT the CVA MEETING, they can then ADD ON any number of other issues. They could add the issue of FOOTBALL CREDITORS being paid 100% and link it to the outcome of the writ/court case against the football authorities, they could question Gay-gunrunner loans, they can question the business being run while insolvent, thus increasing the debt. etc. Everything in the cva can be questioned, not just the percentage of the vote given to HMRC.

 

Remember also this case is unlikey to get to court until Sept by which time Andriod cva said that they will have sold over £13M of players (page 64 of 102 - £6,750,000 in July and £6,855,341 in August). That could be a viewed as good test of the CVA in the Judges eyes.

[OldNick]

Can I just point out that HMRC can now question everything in the CVA now.

 

If the Andriod had not massaged the figures yesterday then HMRC could only vote for or against the cva. However because of his dismissal of part of HMRC claim WHEN the case goes back to the High Court for the appeal, HMRC can add ANY NUMBER OF ISSUES they have with the CVA to their appeal.

 

If you go back to the Leeds case, HMRC originally only appealled against Yorkshire Radio and another creditor. However when the case was due to be heard in Leeds Crown Court they then ADDED the ISSUE OF THE FOOTBALL CREDITORS RULE.

http://www.thefootballnetwork.net/main/s277/st127940.htm?print=1

 

What these means in the case of CHEATS FC is that when HMRC appeal the fact that their share of the vote was reduced WITHOUT REASON AT the CVA MEETING, they can then ADD ON any number of other issues. They could add the issue of FOOTBALL CREDITORS being paid 100% and link it to the outcome of the writ/court case against the football authorities, they could question Gay-gunrunner loans, they can question the business being run while insolvent, thus increasing the debt. etc. Everything in the cva can be questioned, not just the percentage of the vote given to HMRC.

 

Remember also this case is unlikey to get to court until Sept by which time Andriod cva said that they will have sold over £13M of players (page 64 of 102 - £6,750,000 in July and £6,855,341 in August). That could be a viewed as good test of the CVA in the Judges eyes.

If so the HMRC as others pointed out,have played a blinder Edited 18 June, 2010 by OldNick
more haves than a WAGs night out

[rpb]

Didn't HMRC at one time say that they would agree to the CVC on the proviso that Pompey was wound up and reformed as a new business within nine months? Is the latter still happening considering HMRC didn't support the CVC?

 

If Pompey do 'start again' as a new company, does that mean they will escape any possible penalties?

 

Am I turning into nickh?

Edited 18 June, 2010 by rpb
poor spelling

[Gorgiesaint]

Didn't HMRC at one time say that they would agree to the CVC on the proviso that Pompey was wound up and reformed as a new business within nine months? Is the latter still happening considering HMRC didn't support the CVC?

 

If Pompey do 'start again' as a new company, does that mean they will escape any possible penalties?

 

Am I turning into nickh?

 

There was a vote that was required to allow AA to prepare & present his CVA. That was when HMRC negotiated the liquidation of the original company - but they only supported the preparation of the CVA.

 

So no, luckily , you are not turning into nickh!!

[hutch]

From The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/17/portsmouth-creditors-accept-deal]

 

A statement released by the Revenue said: "HMRC notes that the result of today's vote was to accept the CVA proposals. HMRC stands by the full amount of its claim. We will now carefully consider our position following the decision to reduce the amount of our claim for voting purposes.

 

"HMRC believes the so‑called football creditors rule is unfair, unlawful and unacceptable. It cannot be right for millions of pounds worth of assets and income of Portsmouth FC to be earmarked for payment of football debts in full while other creditors – including the public purse –

have been offered

a mere 20p in the pound over five years."

I think the clue is in the words used by HMRC in their statement. If they accepted that the CVA was a done deal, they would have said something like "... will receive a mere 20p ...", not "have been offered".

 

In their view the CVA is still only an offer. They want more, and there's only one way to get it (well 2 actually, but I can't see them helping to get Pompey back to the PL for another 5p).

[fromdayone]

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Mandaric-at-magistrates.6370239.jp

 

When is someone going to have the balls to actually hear the case and make a judgement??

Sick and tired of all this procrastination.

[Matthew Le God]

3 minute interview with AA...

 

http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,26691,16428,00.html

[saintjay77]

Didn't HMRC at one time say that they would agree to the CVC on the proviso that Pompey was wound up and reformed as a new business within nine months? Is the latter still happening considering HMRC didn't support the CVC?

 

If Pompey do 'start again' as a new company, does that mean they will escape any possible penalties?

 

Am I turning into nickh?

 

I think HMRC just agreed that the Administrator could go ahead with its proposed Suggested CVA. Not that it would agree to it when it was submited.

 

But unless it is contested and thrown out then the latter will still happen. Well if AA is still running the show it might not happen when he says it will but I think Legally it should still happen.

 

If HMRC take things back to court and win I suppose the worst that could happen would be for Poopy to be wound up and those responsable get some serious finger wagging and an introduction to Bubby at the nearest Prison.

[Elmore]

I really don't think HMRC will challenge - I have no faith in them.

"Whether HMRC mounts a legal challenge remains to be seen, though it is thought to be unlikely"

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/17/portsmouth-creditors-accept-deal

[Wes Tender]

Did AA say that Udinese were not contactable!!!!!!! I bet had they been the casting vote to save his plan he would have got on a plane and made sure they were.

It seems the fans on here are the only ones concerned at the whole wepisode, and next season we will hear about how wonderful it is that Pompey have been saved by those in the media...get the sick bag

 

Yep. Here it is:-

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Hart-rejected-CVA-proposals.6370300.jp

 

One wonders why that chairman was not contactable. It rather smacks to me as if he just cold-shouldered the slimey arrogant tosser Adronikou. I imagine that he had quite enough of dealing with the Cowboy outfit that is Pompey.

 

But it begs the answer to the question I asked, as to whether they would have been paid anyway as football creditors.

 

The whole thing is murky and is perhaps further complicated by the court cases that are pending.

 

The News say that had the CVA not been approved, the club would face liquidation. This isn't strictly correct, is it? If THIS CVA had not been accepted, then another would have to have been produced and then another presumably. If no CVA was acceptable, then the club might face liquidation. And so before the CVA has been passed in the courts, the Skates have appointed a chief executive and he has appointed a new manager. This all seems a bit premature to me, as it presumes that any new owner, however unlikely that might be, would naturally wish to make their own appointments. Furthermore, it begs enquiry as to what clauses might be in their contracts covering the eventuality of them ceasing to exist or being demoted down the divisions.

[Matthew Le God]

11 minute video of the Steve Cotterill press conference...

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/New-Pompey-boss-Steve-Cotterill.6371325.jp

 

(the paper needs to get a better camera)

 

Strange he was given a three year deal and not a rolling contract or one/two year deal. A new owner might come in and decide they don't want Cotterill and have to pay him off. Also if the CVA appeal goes through they are also stuck with Cotterill on a 3 year deal.

Edited 18 June, 2010 by Matthew Le God

[saintjay77]

3 minute interview with AA...

 

http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,26691,16428,00.html

 

Maybe I have been watching too much "Lie to me" but the way he shifts his eyes away when on important statements makes me think he is a lieing scum bag of the lowest kind!

[OldNick]

Am I turning into nickh?

you wish

[Wes Tender]

I really don't think HMRC will challenge - I have no faith in them.

"Whether HMRC mounts a legal challenge remains to be seen, though it is thought to be unlikely"

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/17/portsmouth-creditors-accept-deal

 

Who thinks that a challenge by HMRC is unlikely? The Guardian? Andronikou? Until I read from trusted source that HMRC reports a challenge as unlikely, I will believe entirely the opposite.

[saintjay77]

Yep. Here it is:-

 

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/frattonlatest/Hart-rejected-CVA-proposals.6370300.jp

 

One wonders why that chairman was not contactable. It rather smacks to me as if he just cold-shouldered the slimey arrogant tosser Adronikou. I imagine that he had quite enough of dealing with the Cowboy outfit that is Pompey.

 

But it begs the answer to the question I asked, as to whether they would have been paid anyway as football creditors.

 

The whole thing is murky and is perhaps further complicated by the court cases that are pending.

 

The News say that had the CVA not been approved, the club would face liquidation. This isn't strictly correct, is it? If THIS CVA had not been accepted, then another would have to have been produced and then another presumably. If no CVA was acceptable, then the club might face liquidation. And so before the CVA has been passed in the courts, the Skates have appointed a chief executive and he has appointed a new manager. This all seems a bit premature to me, as it presumes that any new owner, however unlikely that might be, would naturally wish to make their own appointments. Furthermore, it begs enquiry as to what clauses might be in their contracts covering the eventuality of them ceasing to exist or being demoted down the divisions.

 

Steve Cotterel got a 3 year contract too!!!! So if the unthinkable happens and someone comes to thier rescue and buys up whats left they will be deciding if they want to pay off his 3 year contract to get there own man in or sit tight and see if he is the right man for the job? I thought in this type of situation its normal for clubs to appoint people on temp or short term rolling contracts till they are clear on where they are?

[Wes Tender]

Maybe I have been watching too much "Lie to me" but the way he shifts his eyes away when on important statements makes me think he is a lieing scum bag of the lowest kind!

 

Agreed. I have made copious studies of body language over many years and certainly wouldn't buy a second car from him. I'd also count my fingers after shaking his hand on any deal.

[Saint_lambden]

Agreed. I have made copious studies of body language over many years and certainly wouldn't buy a second car from him. I'd also count my fingers after shaking his hand on any deal.

 

Is it me or when he talks in the interview he blinks about 5 million times a second?

[Matthew Le God]

Is it me or when he talks in the interview he blinks about 5 million times a second?

 

It is is just a tick he has.

[Gingeletiss]

It is is just a tick he has.

 

Does he have a brother called 'arry?

[suewhistle]

From The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/17/portsmouth-creditors-accept-deal]

 

A statement released by the Revenue said: "HMRC notes that the result of today's vote was to accept the CVA proposals. HMRC stands by the full amount of its claim. We will now carefully consider our position following the decision to reduce the amount of our claim for voting purposes.

 

"HMRC believes the so‑called football creditors rule is unfair, unlawful and unacceptable. It cannot be right for millions of pounds worth of assets and income of Portsmouth FC to be earmarked for payment of football debts in full while other creditors – including the public purse –

have been offered

a mere 20p in the pound over five years."

I think the clue is in the words used by HMRC in their statement. If they accepted that the CVA was a done deal, they would have said something like "... will receive a mere 20p ...", not "have been offered".

 

In their view the CVA is still only an offer. They want more, and there's only one way to get it (well 2 actually, but I can't see them helping to get Pompey back to the PL for another 5p).

 

My interpretation is that they are fully aware that what AA offers and what people actually receive are two vastly different things..

[Gingeletiss]

On one of the Poopy sites, a few questions they put to PCFC, and the answers.

 

 

1. What is the current position regarding former board members at Fratton Park and any ongoing roles they may have at the club?

 

Former chief executive Peter Storrie was retained by the Administrators as a consultant for the club. He is assisting with player sales but is no longer at the club or involved in its day-to-day management. We understand there are concerns about the involvement of past directors and the new CEO is working to ensure the Club has an appropriate management structure going forward.

 

 

2. Will there be an investigation into past transactions at the club?

 

The Administrators are currently investigating the conduct of the directors and the affairs of the company. In addition, the liquidator of the company will also investigate once the club is put into liquidation.

 

3. What will happen to future revenue streams like parachute payments, income from player sales and television rights?

 

These income streams all form part of the business plan to take the Club forward. The funds will be used to meet the club’s ongoing obligations including, for example, the CVA payments to creditors, the payment of football creditors, as well as the day-to-day running costs of the Club.

 

 

4. What is the process of selling the club once it comes out of the CVA?

If the CVA is approved the joint administrators would seek to transfer the business and assets of the club into a new company.

 

The new company would then trade as the football club in the Championship and would be obliged to pay contributions to meet the requirements of the CVA.

 

 

5. If Balram Chainrai chose to take his money out of the business how would this happen?

 

Any new owner is required to provide proof of funding to the Football League before the membership of the League is transferred. Mr Chainrai is owed money by the company and there are a number of ways that this could be returned to him, for example through repayment out of working capital, payment from proceeds of any future sale of the club, or the amounts could be repaid as part of a refinancing of the debt.

 

6. Why did David Lampitt take this particular job?

 

David considers his appointment a personal and professional challenge. During seven years at the FA he oversaw key areas of work including the promotion of good governance at football clubs. As such the role at Pompey gives him the opportunity to put his experiences into practice as he seeks to rebuild the club on sound financial and moral footings.

 

David has said that his decision to take on the challenge was also influenced by the fact that he sees the club as having some of the key building blocks for the rebuilding process in that it has a fantastic supporter base which has shown remarkable character in extremely testing circumstances, and a loyal and dedicated staff. He has said that restoring trust between the fans and those running the club is a key foundation on which the new Pompey needs to be built.

 

 

7. Will the tax charges against the former Portsmouth owner Milan Mandaric and other ex-employees impact on the club?

 

It is unlikely that the outcome of these charges will have any implications for the club, either in a legal or footballing context. We would very much hope that the club under new ownership and management will be able to move forward from past events on a new footing.

 

8. What other appointments onto the board are likely?

 

It is too early to say. These decisions would be made by the new company whose creation is proposed if the CVA is approved.

 

9. What is the position regarding the appointment of a manager and the signing of new players?

 

We are in advanced discussions in relation to the managerial appointment; potential new signings have been identified and the recruitment process is also underway.

 

10. Considering the club’s precarious financial position, who is paying David Lampitt’s salary?

David’s salary is a normal trading cost borne by the administration of the club. David was brought in to assist the Administrators with the day-to-day running of the Club.

 

11. Andrew Andronikou says selling the club to Balram Chainrai is ‘Plan B’ if no one-else steps in. Given that the club can remain in administration for the duration of next season, will the club only sell to Chanrai as a last resort if the search for a buyer fails to unearth anyone else?

 

Keeping the club in administration for a lengthy period of time is not an ideal scenario for a number of practical reasons, not least cost. The priority is to find a new owner as soon as possible to provide the club with the stability it needs to move forward.

[Gemmel]

The other element of HMRC's position is the small detail of a legal challenge of the football creditors rule (Starts today I think) ....if they win that chanarai will poo his pants

[Gingeletiss]

More telling stuff in the Poopey Screws.........

 

 

CHAINRAI HELPS OUT

 

Small creditors and charities will be paid back in full by Balram Chainrai.

 

The businessman, who put the club in to administration, will fully repay creditors owed £2,500 and under. All charities owed money will also be fully compensated.

 

It will take 'two to three weeks', according to the club's administrator.

 

Meanwhile, Andrew Andronikou refused to reveal who provided £6m to fund Pompey's administration. The mystery money was given to the club under no obligation for it to be repaid.

 

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

 

If Pompey get through the next 28 days without an appeal to the CVA being lodged, creditors will receive a minimum of 20p back for every pound they are owed over a five-year period.

 

For the first nine months, creditors will receive a share of a £3m repayment pot.

 

At the end of the nine-month period, the existing company will change hands in to a new firm, keeping the name Portsmouth City Football Club Ltd.

 

The old company will be liquidated and its assets sold to the new company.

All revenue streams will be diverted to the new company, which will be responsible for paying creditors the remaining £16.5m from its net profits over the remaining four years and three months.

 

If Pompey are promoted back in to the Premier League in the next five years, creditors will receive an extra 5p in the pound.

 

Mr Andronikou and his team will be the liquidators for the old company and will have the power to investigate what caused Pompey's crisis.

[Gingeletiss]

And this...........

my_pfc_dream Posted on 17/06/2010 11:35

IT'S NOT OVER YET!!!

Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message

 

From a source close to the club!

 

"CVA under threat. HMRC claim that it can only be approved if the club owes HMRC £21m but they claim to have paperwork proving that we owe £35 m. If AA declares the CVA approved HMRC will challenge it in court and officially lodge an appeal to have the club liquidated."

[Weston Super Saint]

More telling stuff in the Poopey Screws.........

 

 

 

Mr Andronikou and his team will be the liquidators for the old company and will have the power to investigate what caused Pompey's crisis.

 

Oh well, nothing to see there then....

[hutch]

More telling stuff in the Poopey Screws.........

 

 

Meanwhile, Andrew Andronikou refused to reveal who provided £6m to fund Pompey's administration. The mystery money was given to the club under no obligation for it to be repaid.

The UHY CVA plan shows it being paid back with £3.6m interest. Makes complete sense to me. A company that operates by not paying ANY of the debts that it has to pay to others would obviously pay the ones that it doesn't have to pay.

[saintjay77]

On one of the Poopy sites, a few questions they put to PCFC, and the answers.

 

 

2. Will there be an investigation into past transactions at the club?

 

The Administrators are currently investigating the conduct of the directors and the affairs of the company. In addition, the liquidator of the company will also investigate once the club is put into liquidation.

 

More telling stuff in the Poopey Screws.........

 

 

Mr Andronikou and his team will be the liquidators for the old company and will have the power to investigate what caused Pompey's crisis.

 

If he cant find anything in the investigation while being the administrators how the hell does anyone expect him to find anything while being the liquidator? Wouldnt it make sence to have someone else liquidate the club to make sure there was no wrong doing from the administrator?

 

Maybe Clapham Saint can add something. Is it normal for the administrator to also be the liquidator and does that process generally result in anything else happening or is it a waste of time?

[OldNick]

If he cant find anything in the investigation while being the administrators how the hell does anyone expect him to find anything while being the liquidator? Wouldnt it make sence to have someone else liquidate the club to make sure there was no wrong doing from the administrator?

 

Maybe Clapham Saint can add something. Is it normal for the administrator to also be the liquidator and does that process generally result in anything else happening or is it a waste of time?

It does seem a nonsense that especially in this case that if the administrator finds unethical work ,the business will have penalties. Therefore it is not in his interest to find anything wrong

[Weston Super Saint]

It does seem a nonsense that especially in this case that if the administrator finds unethical work ,the business will have penalties. Therefore it is not in his interest to find anything wrong

 

He won't find anything.

 

In fact quite the contrary, no doubt he will be commending the previous owners on their exemplary management.

 

Fortunately, HMRC played another master stroke insisting that the company be liquidated as part of the CVA, as when this announcement is made by AA they will be legally entitled to pick the bones

 

Sadly, nick, you appear to only have an eye for the short term, whereas HMRC have always been in the game for the long run to get their pound of flesh. Every month or so they seem to produce another ace out of the pack and give AA a few more inches of rope for his noose.

[OldNick]

 

Sadly, nick, you appear to only have an eye for the short term, whereas HMRC have always been in the game for the long run to get their pound of flesh. Every month or so they seem to produce another ace out of the pack and give AA a few more inches of rope for his noose.

Perhaps, but what is longterm in this case? We have been going on this road for months if not more than a year

[Islander]

Just a thought - many people have been questioning the percenatges owed and quite rightly, but who actually counted the votes? It was stated that very few creditors attended the meeting so presumably the majority of votes were sent by post. I do hope none were lost....

Simple adding up doesn't seem to be one of AA's skills so I hope there was someone overseeing this process.

[saintjay77]

He won't find anything.

 

In fact quite the contrary, no doubt he will be commending the previous owners on their exemplary management.

 

Fortunately, HMRC played another master stroke insisting that the company be liquidated as part of the CVA, as when this announcement is made by AA they will be legally entitled to pick the bones

 

Sadly, nick, you appear to only have an eye for the short term, whereas HMRC have always been in the game for the long run to get their pound of flesh. Every month or so they seem to produce another ace out of the pack and give AA a few more inches of rope for his noose.

 

But if he doesnt find anything in the administration investigation he is hardly going to stich himself up by finding something he missed in the liquidation investigation. How do HMRC pick the bones then? Wont AA just sweep anything he missed under the carpet declaring there is nothing to see? How does HMRC or anyone else for that matter challenge what he doesn't find?

[OldNick]

Just a thought - many people have been questioning the percenatges owed and quite rightly, but who actually counted the votes? It was stated that very few creditors attended the meeting so presumably the majority of votes were sent by post. I do hope none were lost....

Simple adding up doesn't seem to be one of AA's skills so I hope there was someone overseeing this process.

and the local postie is no doubt a pompey fan, so loads of the forms will no doubt be thrown in a hedge somewhere Lol

[pedg]

Just a thought - many people have been questioning the percenatges owed and quite rightly, but who actually counted the votes? It was stated that very few creditors attended the meeting so presumably the majority of votes were sent by post. I do hope none were lost....

Simple adding up doesn't seem to be one of AA's skills so I hope there was someone overseeing this process.

 

Although AA quoted the number 'for' actually given that not voting is the equivalent of voting for his task should have been fairly easy as it really just involved counting the votes against and subtracting the percentage these related to from 100. When he says 80 odd percent voted for what he actually means is that 20% voted against and the remaining 80 either voted for or did not vote.

 

As he has named who voted against you would think that if someone else voted against but was not mentioned that they would have chirped up by now?

[Petersfield Saint]

But if he doesnt find anything in the administration investigation he is hardly going to stich himself up by finding something he missed in the liquidation investigation. How do HMRC pick the bones then? Wont AA just sweep anything he missed under the carpet declaring there is nothing to see? How does HMRC or anyone else for that matter challenge what he doesn't find?

 

A question I would very much like the answer to!!

[GenevaSaint]

Although AA quoted the number 'for' actually given that not voting is the equivalent of voting for his task should have been fairly easy as it really just involved counting the votes against and subtracting the percentage these related to from 100. When he says 80 odd percent voted for what he actually means is that 20% voted against and the remaining 80 either voted for or did not vote.

 

As he has named who voted against you would think that if someone else voted against but was not mentioned that they would have chirped up by now?

 

Abstentiions/non votes shouldn't really count as a positive now though should they. The whole thing sucks. It's not that this is pompey per se (although it helps), I'm just sickened by the whole run and debts, emerge with a CVA and with the same owner.

[pedg]

Abstentiions/non votes shouldn't really count as a positive now though should they.

 

Morally no but them is the rules, and not just ones AA has made up.

[angelman]

I am a little confused about a couple of things, and hope someone can explain:

 

1) Paul Hart. If footballer's wages and bonuses are secured why is PH an unsecured creditor?

 

2) Gayboy - why has he written off £24m (if we do believe that he and Chainrai are not connected)? He sold the club and hasn't been paid for it or possibly he has been paid but made loans to the club. If the former, then surely this above all else is a football debt as it is THE club. If the £30m were loans, why are they treated differently from Chainrai's which are secured? But above all, it seems very strange that Gayboy has kissed good by to £24m (unless of course there is some dodginess going on and surely that wouldn't be the case now, would it!?)