Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

View From The Top

View From The Top

Posted
Posted

Regardless, the fact that such a high % was paid in image rights compared to the big clubs such as United means AA is snookered. There is no escaping the evidence.

 

That, combined with the factual mistakes regarding the process on the day suggests to me that HMRC will win those two points and the CVA will be nullified.

 

The football creditors rule is much more complex and can envisage that being put aside for consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
I would assume this is on the basis that the Premier League is a global brand which markets itself worldwide and has the majority of its consumers abroad. It's an angle I hadn't considered before, and worryingly, he may actually have a point... one hell of a can of worms, that one :uhoh:

 

That is certainly a valid point - there is no doubt the PL is an international brand and players images are worth something overseas. I've no idea what the tax implications are around that though.

 

BUT

 

It still doesn't get around the fact that they appear to have paid more than Man U did. I still think Rooney is worth more in Malaysia than Hayden Mullins.

 

HMRC are not challenging the concept here (they might another time) - they're challenging the amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
Regardless, the fact that such a high % was paid in image rights compared to the big clubs such as United means AA is snookered. There is no escaping the evidence.

 

That, combined with the factual mistakes regarding the process on the day suggests to me that HMRC will win those two points and the CVA will be nullified.

 

The football creditors rule is much more complex and can envisage that being put aside for consideration.

 

Indeed, if all the grounds for appeal need to be examined in court (ie if HMRC don't get a simple slam-dunk on the factual questions around voting procedures) there's no way they will be finished in one day. The issues around football creditors voting are complex and require in-depth legal argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark

Mark

Posted
Posted

Have you been banned from pompeyonline yet?

 

Not that I'm aware of, I haven't been on there for ages though. I was having a decent discussion with a couple of people on there a while back and then a few of the resident mongs waded in and I got bored of it all.

 

If Pompeyscot bans us, we should go out in a blaze of glory :) The bloke is a useful idiot, fed rubbish to brainwash the skates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
I would assume this is on the basis that the Premier League is a global brand which markets itself worldwide and has the majority of its consumers abroad. It's an angle I hadn't considered before, and worryingly, he may actually have a point... one hell of a can of worms, that one :uhoh:

So if you work in the London office of a Global Corporation, you only have to pay tax on that part of your salary that you earn while working on UK subsidiary business, and your employer can pay the rest of your salary tax-free into an overseas account?

 

But putting that question aside, the appeal isn't about image rights, it's much more simple than that. It's about voting rights. His assessment of 1½ days in Court is wishful thinking, based on hoping that the Judge will be interested to hear all their convoluted arguments.

 

IMO, the judge will ask 2 questions:

  • Mr. Andronikou, what happened between 28 May and 17 June to make you change your mind and include the football creditors, which you had previously excluded, in the unsecured creditors vote? and
     
     
  • Mr. Andronikou, what happened between 28 May and 17 June to make you unilaterally and without explanation or notice, and without any doubt as to the correctness of your decision, reduce the voting rights of HMRC from the amount in the HMRC assessment, which you had previously accepted, of £37m to £24m?

If he doesn't get a satisfactory answer the vote will be nullified, and it'll be all over by lunchtime on the first day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

IMO, the judge will ask 2 questions:

 

  • Mr. Andronikou, what happened between 28 May and 17 June to make you change your mind and include the football creditors, which you had previously excluded, in the unsecured creditors vote? and
  • Mr. Andronikou, what happened between 28 May and 17 June to make you unilaterally and without explanation or notice, and without any doubt as to the correctness of your decision, reduce the voting rights of HMRC from the amount in the HMRC assessment, which you had previously accepted, of £37m to £24m?

 

If he doesn't get a satisfactory answer the vote will be nullified, and it'll be all over by lunchtime on the first day.

 

I'm guessing that the answer "Because otherwise the vote would not have be passed" is not going to cut the mustard?

 

Actually you wonder if HMRC might save these 'bankers' for the end? It sounds like they have been on the lookout for some 'low hanging fruit' to both tests the law on image rights and the football creditor rule. With pompey providing them with something akin to a broken branch on the floor would they not take this opportunity to test both as it is by far the best opportunity they are likely to get?

Edited by pedg
thinking...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
View From The Top

View From The Top

Posted
Posted
So if you work in the London office of a Global Corporation, you only have to pay tax on that part of your salary that you earn while working on UK subsidiary business, and your employer can pay the rest of your salary tax-free into an overseas account?

 

But putting that question aside, the appeal isn't about image rights, it's much more simple than that. It's about voting rights. His assessment of 1½ days in Court is wishful thinking, based on hoping that the Judge will be interested to hear all their convoluted arguments.

 

IMO, the judge will ask 2 questions:

 

  • Mr. Andronikou, what happened between 28 May and 17 June to make you change your mind and include the football creditors, which you had previously excluded, in the unsecured creditors vote? and
     
     
  • Mr. Andronikou, what happened between 28 May and 17 June to make you unilaterally and without explanation or notice, and without any doubt as to the correctness of your decision, reduce the voting rights of HMRC from the amount in the HMRC assessment, which you had previously accepted, of £37m to £24m?

 

If he doesn't get a satisfactory answer the vote will be nullified, and it'll be all over by lunchtime on the first day.

 

Posts like this leave me feeling all warm and happy. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gingeletiss

Gingeletiss

Posted
Posted
So if you work in the London office of a Global Corporation, you only have to pay tax on that part of your salary that you earn while working on UK subsidiary business, and your employer can pay the rest of your salary tax-free into an overseas account?

 

But putting that question aside, the appeal isn't about image rights, it's much more simple than that. It's about voting rights. His assessment of 1½ days in Court is wishful thinking, based on hoping that the Judge will be interested to hear all their convoluted arguments.

 

IMO, the judge will ask 2 questions:

  • Mr. Andronikou, what happened between 28 May and 17 June to make you change your mind and include the football creditors, which you had previously excluded, in the unsecured creditors vote? and
     
     
  • Mr. Andronikou, what happened between 28 May and 17 June to make you unilaterally and without explanation or notice, and without any doubt as to the correctness of your decision, reduce the voting rights of HMRC from the amount in the HMRC assessment, which you had previously accepted, of £37m to £24m?

If he doesn't get a satisfactory answer the vote will be nullified, and it'll be all over by lunchtime on the first day.

 

Whilst in the armed forces, and serving over seas on 6 month detachments, I still had to pay tax in the UK, on all of my salary. It could be argued, that the Army is an 'international' company IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doctoroncall

Doctoroncall

Posted
Posted
I would assume this is on the basis that the Premier League is a global brand which markets itself worldwide and has the majority of its consumers abroad. It's an angle I hadn't considered before, and worryingly, he may actually have a point... one hell of a can of worms, that one :uhoh:

 

A valid point, however as the PL earn ~£600m pounds from the overseas TV rights as the global brand. The skates could only clain image rights on the club name and players - just how many skate shirts have made it out of portsea Island?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
I'd like to hear the Football League's reasoning behind this...

 

http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Pompey-Sign-Sonko-1172.aspx

 

I bet Bournemouth would as well. Especially considering Pompey have a player out on loan. Why don't they recall him to make up numbers?

 

Maybe it is costing them nothing? ie, no loan fee and no wages. If that's the case it's hard to think of any rationale why it shouldn't be allowed. The article thanks Tony Pulis for making it happen so it sounds like the terms are, er generous.

 

Alternatively, it hasn't been ratified and they're just being silly buggers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
Maybe it is costing them nothing? ie, no loan fee and no wages. If that's the case it's hard to think of any rationale why it shouldn't be allowed.

 

Bournemouth were refused permission whilst under their embargo to sign a free transfer even though the player offered to play for no wages. Would be double standards if Pompey were allowed and Bournemouth weren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JackFrost

JackFrost

Posted
Posted
I'd like to hear the Football League's reasoning behind this...

 

http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Pompey-Sign-Sonko-1172.aspx

 

I bet Bournemouth would as well. Especially considering Pompey have a player out on loan. Why don't they recall him to make up numbers?

 

I haven't seen anywhere on that link or otherwise saying the FL have ratified it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frank's cousin

Frank's cousin

Posted
Posted
Posts like this leave me feeling all warm and happy. :)

 

You are a cruel man! ;-)

 

Those are obviiously right stinkers, but I agree with the others who suggest the image rights is rather plump and juicy low hanging fruit - potentially rippened in glorious sunshine and dripping juice on the thigh.... er I digress.... sorry

 

The interesting thing will be the player contracts and do these reflect the PAYE v Image right payments, next up if they do, do the percentages provide a realistic picture of these rights - because I can see HMRC challenging this and teh onus will be on PCFC to provide the evidence to support their payments - as they say dont feck with the taxman - I still am thankful to unkle Rupert for at least getting that bit right -

 

If PCFC can 'prove' that the image right payed are a genuine reflection of monies earned abroad - get ready for a **** fight as the players from every other club in the prem will look for a tax rebate - it will make a mockery of the system if they get away with such blatent tax dodge - the question for teh courts will be whetehr this is considered avoidence or the very serious criminal charge of evasion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintscottofthenortham

saintscottofthenortham

Posted
Posted
So if you work in the London office of a Global Corporation, you only have to pay tax on that part of your salary that you earn while working on UK subsidiary business, and your employer can pay the rest of your salary tax-free into an overseas account?

 

But putting that question aside, the appeal isn't about image rights, it's much more simple than that. It's about voting rights. His assessment of 1½ days in Court is wishful thinking, based on hoping that the Judge will be interested to hear all their convoluted arguments.

 

 

IMO, the judge will ask 2 questions:

  • Mr. Andronikou, what happened between 28 May and 17 June to make you change your mind and include the football creditors, which you had previously excluded, in the unsecured creditors vote? and
     
     
  • Mr. Andronikou, what happened between 28 May and 17 June to make you unilaterally and without explanation or notice, and without any doubt as to the correctness of your decision, reduce the voting rights of HMRC from the amount in the HMRC assessment, which you had previously accepted, of £37m to £24m?

If he doesn't get a satisfactory answer the vote will be nullified, and it'll be all over by lunchtime on the first day.

:poundit:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rockhill

rockhill

Posted
Posted

I think the Washington post can give the answer to PCFC global pulling power.

 

As each day and hour passed, D.C. United's ill-conceived friendly with English club Portsmouth at RFK Stadium seemed to take a new and farcical turn.

 

It began with Portsmouth's utter lack of appeal beyond England's southern shores, resulting in an announced crowd of just 8,987 for United's 4-0 victory on an oven-baked Saturday evening not fit for athlete or spectator.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/24/AR2010072402309.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suewhistle

suewhistle

Posted
Posted
Good post in the news from kski in London

 

PCFC to not have to enter or exit CVA by the start of the season – they have 12 months from entering the CVA. The points deduction is determined by the exit vehicle (agreed or extraordinary CVA) not by the timescale.

 

So a possible scenario, if they should survive at all is relegation this season, then points deduction for next season. It's like catching your edge on a black slope, and whoooosh, down you go..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted
That Helioglobus chap comments well and is patently ignored by the heads in sand mob around him !

 

Is he a SWF member I wonder???

He/she claims to be a skate, but makes far too intelligent and balanced comments to be one. A Saint infiltrator I think. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted
I think 20,000 is a better target, both 50,000 posts and 1000 pages.

 

But then again, if HMRC win the court case we may have to wrap this thread up well before then.

Fear not, liquidisation, the bulldozing of Nottarf Krap, and the building of Tesco on the unholy ground will take quite some time (and hundreds more hilarious fun-packed pages). And as dronskisaint mentioned, there's also the Little gun runner, Mad Milan, Saggy & Storrie Show to look forward to. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sotonist

sotonist

Posted
Posted
Bournemouth were refused permission whilst under their embargo to sign a free transfer even though the player offered to play for no wages. Would be double standards if Pompey were allowed and Bournemouth weren't.

maybe loan vs signing makes a difference. not in player registrtion terms i know, but maybe in other ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted
Is he really that clueless that he can't see that Pompey has image rights payments over twice that of Man Utd or any other clubs.

 

How can Pompey player's image rights be more than Rooney, Ferdinand etc?

 

It was blatantly done so they could save money and offer players higher wages supplemented by image rights. Thus build a squad for the Premier League and win the FA Cup that they couldn't otherwise attract on what their wage budget should have been.

So, in summary, they are

 

CHEATING BASTARDS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clapham Saint

Clapham Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
I'm no tax expert but just because you may have earned money/wages/profit abroad it doesn't follow that you aren't taxed in the UK on that income. If you are a UK tax payer you pay UK tax on all of your world-wide earnings, only if you have already been taxed abroad will you be able to claim some tax relief but that is an entirely different issue.

 

Even if you argue that as a footballer playing in a league with an international brand that some of your earnings are earnt abroad (an argument that is unlikely to hold much water in this instance anyway) you would still have to pay UK tax on it.

 

Quite. Its been a while since I sat my tax exams but AA's sound bit doesn't sit with my exams on the UK taxation system at all.

 

If you didn't all know that he is a highly qualified and respected professional you'd think he was just making it up as he goes along...

 

 

EDIT:

 

And anther thing... to listen to AA you would think that the football creditors rule was part of the UK insolvency legistlation.

 

The football creditors rule has nothing to do with UK insolvency law. There is not legislation which gifts football creditors elivated status. It is a boys club rule and as such does not hold the weight that he implies. If the CVA prefers football creditors to HMRC to the extent that one gets 100% and the other 20% but both still get to vote how can that be anything other than unfairly predudicial to HMRC?

 

This is the reason that Wimbledon's CVA was structured in the way that it was. A 3rd party purchaser buying the club paid the balance of the football debt independently and so the top up was technically outside of the CVA. This is not the case in AA's CVA proposal.

Edited by Clapham Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted (edited)
:poundit:

FWIW, I was paraphrasing. I'm aware the Judge is unlikely to get the chance to ask those questions directly to Andy.

 

But, IMHO, those are the questions he will be looking at Pompey's Counsel for answers. And HMRC's Counsel will be standing by to explain why those answers are wrong.

Edited by hutch
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
FWIW, I was paraphrasing. I'm aware the Judge is unlikely to get the chance to ask those questions directly to Andy.

 

But, IMHO, those are the questions he will be looking at Pompey's Counsel to for answers. And HMRC's Counsel will be standing by to explain why those answers are wrong.

 

What do you think the main aim of HMRC's council will be? Overturning the CVA with the minimum of effort or an all out attack on the validity of image rights and the football creditors rule?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
from a meeting that was held with our new CEO tonight

 

Details here: http://www.pompeyonline.com/2010/07/details-of-the-meeting-with-david-lampitt/

 

Notice he does not really go into either of the points Hutch mentions, the change in the status of the football creditors between initial proposal and the meeting and that the figure AA downgraded was actually in their initial CVA document.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted

 

if we can prove that a signing of a player would be working to our budgets, and managing our costs, then this would also be looked on favourably. For example, signing Joe Cole for free on 90k a week would be a no-no, as it is outside our recognised budget. However, signing a player for a few thousand a week would be possible as it’s within affordability.

 

Erm, how can any increase in the wage bill, no matter how small, be deemed "within affordability" for a company in administration....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
I would suggest, that HMRC would love it, if Chainrai stepped forward as your 'new' owner, they would have a field day.

 

Indeed. And how someone who helped steer the club into administration in the first place can be deemed 'fit and proper' to assume the same position again is beyond me.

 

Haven't they already demonstrated how unfit and improper they are to run a football club...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted (edited)
Details here: http://www.pompeyonline.com/2010/07/details-of-the-meeting-with-david-lampitt/

 

Notice he does not really go into either of the points Hutch mentions, the change in the status of the football creditors between initial proposal and the meeting and that the figure AA downgraded was actually in their initial CVA document.

2 points on what Lampitt said (or is reported to have said):

 

In his explanation of the basis of HMRC's appeal against the CVA vote, he didn't mention the "material irregularity at or in relation to either of the meetings", 6 (1)(b) of the Act and 1.17 (4) of the rules, and

 

Lampitt aims to have the club stable in a 2-5 year timescale, and thinks this is achievable, the two year minimum being counted because of the legacy left by previous regimes. Budgeting for the club is very prudent, being based around the four year parachute payments which we are receiving. £16m of those payments are being put towards the CVA, another £19m or so going to creditors, which leaves around £15m for business working capital.

 

That same £19m or so that appears in the cash flow to pay the football creditors, which states that the football creditors are actually £22.4m, but were allowed voting rights of over £30m?

Edited by hutch
accuracy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...