Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

tony13579

tony13579

Posted
Posted (edited)
Slow ticket sales for Blues great's big

Just 2,715 tickets have so far been sold for Linvoy Primus' testimonial.

That is the disappointing take-up, with the Fratton Park fixture against Premier League Fulham only three days away.

... blah .... blah...

 

It is hoped a bumper crowd will turn out to mark the Pompey legend's 10 years of magnificent service at the club.

 

Tickets are priced at £5 for those aged under-22, while those aged 22 and over are asked to pay £15

best fans ??? blah ...blah...

Edited by tony13579
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doctoroncall

Doctoroncall

Posted
Posted
Well this should be an interesting get together on the day the appeal is also due to be heard. May hear lots more come 3rd August.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8842347.stm

 

I think we have a duty to ask questions on issues that Hutch has raised to get a complete picture, although much may change from the days proceedings, in fact if it goes completely against them, they may as well call it a wake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

AA needs to explain a lot of discrepancies in his figures.

The court must be wondering if anyone has really got to the bottom of the extent of the debt yet.

 

Thankfully the accounts that AA will file following his extensive forensic investigation will explain everything in precise detail, and we can then establish who was telling porkies.

 

 

 

My bet would be all of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tony13579

tony13579

Posted
Posted (edited)

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Pompey-third-favourites-to-go.6443278.jp

Pompey third favourites to go

 

Pompey are tipped for a second consecutive relegation

 

 

By Neil Allen

Pompey have been made the third favourites to be relegated from the Championship.

And, according to The Betting Room, Blues fans themselves are backing them for the drop.

 

Pompey supporters have been placing stakes of up to £20 on their side to plunge straight into League One.

 

They should put enough on to buy a saints season ticket as they head for the BSL

Edited by tony13579
Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted
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.

 

On that 1st point, Did HMRC agree to voluntary liquidation or did they agree to aa proposing a cva with voluntary liquidation in it?

 

I thought they just agreed for aa to propose a CVA so pushing for a compulsary liquidation now has naff all to do with anything.

 

His comments about taking on a player for a few thousand a week being within there budget. Does that include the players like Ben Hiem, KPB and other high earners? Budget without these players would make a signing possible but surly as long as these players are still pompy players any wage budget must be blown out of the water.

 

I dont think he made Pompys argument against the court case sound very strong in any of his responses. He might think they are confident but that may just be blind optimism.

 

Roll on the 3rd!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
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.

 

I would not be particularly reassured by that if I was a skate:

 

- some wishy points around the court case; frankly, Lampit is not a lawyer and the person reporting it is probably not either. I doubt either of them really understood what they were talking about.

 

- some wishy points around signing players; we all know this will be done on a case-by-case basis with each one assessed by the FL on its merits, they aren't going to be able to scam people here and they aren't going to be able to persuade everyone to let them have players for no fee and no wages.

 

- Chanrai, fit and proper; he is doing the test on the offchance they might win their case. Great, so if they lose.... curtains?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
On that 1st point, Did HMRC agree to voluntary liquidation or did they agree to aa proposing a cva with voluntary liquidation in it?

 

I thought they just agreed for aa to propose a CVA so pushing for a compulsary liquidation now has naff all to do with anything.

 

His comments about taking on a player for a few thousand a week being within there budget. Does that include the players like Ben Hiem, KPB and other high earners? Budget without these players would make a signing possible but surly as long as these players are still pompy players any wage budget must be blown out of the water.

 

I dont think he made Pompys argument against the court case sound very strong in any of his responses. He might think they are confident but that may just be blind optimism.

 

Roll on the 3rd!!!

 

It's complete red-herring. HMRC voted in favour of AA producing a proposal that included, as one element of it, the winding up of the company and the transfer of everything to a new company.

 

HMRC's vote in favour of that proposal would have been predicated on then receiving their full voting rights when that proposal was put to the vote and in all other things being conducted properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted

He completely glosses over anything to do with the specific facts of what actually happened procedurally in this case (understandably as you wouldn't put your case in the public domain before trial). He just makes some general points about authorities and HMRC tactics etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted
It's complete red-herring. HMRC voted in favour of AA producing a proposal that included, as one element of it, the winding up of the company and the transfer of everything to a new company.

 

HMRC's vote in favour of that proposal would have been predicated on then receiving their full voting rights when that proposal was put to the vote and in all other things being conducted properly.

 

Exactly. There voting in favour was no more than voting in favour of the administrator producing a CVA. I was suprised that there was a vote needed at that point to be honest as surly the creditors were only waiting around for a CVA to be produced so they could vote on it. Why should they have to vote for the administrator to actually produce one in the 1st place?

 

I cant see how the admistrator can stand up in court claiming that HMRC voted in favour of them producing a CVA so there vote should not now count cause they later voted against the actual CVA.

 

If there arguments against the HMRC really are that week then the court case will be over my lunch time or possibly longer to allow for the judge to stop laughing at the idiot that is AA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
He completely glosses over anything to do with the specific facts of what actually happened procedurally in this case (understandably as you wouldn't put your case in the public domain before trial). He just makes some general points about authorities and HMRC tactics etc...

 

You have to think that there is going to be a rude awaking for some of their fans who appear to be being fed the "It's all about the image rights" line by club and press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted (edited)
You have to think that there is going to be a rude awaking for some of their fans who appear to be being fed the "It's all about the image rights" line by club and press.

 

Yeah, that is certainly a key part of determing what the actual tax liability to HMRC is but there is more to the appeal than that; I doubt the judge will even attempt to answer the question; "what is the overall tax liability owed to HMRC". The judge will be primarily interested in the question as to whether the claim was handled properly; if the exact amount of the debt owed to HMRC is a material factor in determining whether the CVA has been validly passed then there will need to be a much longer hearing than a day/day and a half.

Edited by benjii
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

bearing in mind there seems to be a unanimous opinion on here that AA is about to be found out bigtime, how do we think he's going to try to get away with it?

 

He must have a plan, there must be more to him than a comb-overed simpleton who can't add up.

 

From everything I've seen he has made mistakes and SHOULD have the cva thrown out - but I have this nagging thought that having survived the initial day in court when it was clear that any normal business would have been wound up, well I don't like to quote the regular words of a serial poster but, will he produce something to help them 'get away with it'?

 

Was it the protective arm of the Prem that saved them before so they are now on their own, or did AA use up all his good luck in one hit?

 

Or is he a financial genius and he's about to make Houdini look like a pub act?

The taxman had better deliver this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gingeletiss

Gingeletiss

Posted
Posted
bearing in mind there seems to be a unanimous opinion on here that AA is about to be found out bigtime, how do we think he's going to try to get away with it?

 

He must have a plan, there must be more to him than a comb-overed simpleton who can't add up.

 

From everything I've seen he has made mistakes and SHOULD have the cva thrown out - but I have this nagging thought that having survived the initial day in court when it was clear that any normal business would have been wound up, well I don't like to quote the regular words of a serial poster but, will he produce something to help them 'get away with it'?

 

Was it the protective arm of the Prem that saved them before so they are now on their own, or did AA use up all his good luck in one hit?

 

Or is he a financial genius and he's about to make Houdini look like a pub act?

The taxman had better deliver this time.

 

I'd say this...

 

'Was it the protective arm of the Prem that saved them before'

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trader

Trader

Posted
Posted
I'd say this...

 

'Was it the protective arm of the Prem that saved them before'

 

Could well be - having a member club going into administration was bad enough, but having one get liquidated would have been a huge embarrasment for the self-styled "best and richest league in the world".

 

Of course the PL couldn't give a sh*t now they've gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted

AA wasn't appointed when Pompey had their first day in Court to face the WUP. He was only appointed just before the final hearing, to effectively stave off the winding up order.

 

He did survive a Court challenge by HMRC against the legitimacy of his appointment at the begining of March, but with a stark warning from HMRC that "they would be keeping an eye on him".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
derry

derry

Posted
Posted

It may be argued that whilst not in the recognised definition of secured creditors, football creditors are secured against the £48m parachute payments due in this case. The paperwork for this argument is the League's insolvency rules defining the status of football debt and the fact that it has been recognised in a previous court case which was lost by HMRC when previously challenging the payments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
View From The Top

View From The Top

Posted
Posted
It may be argued that whilst not in the recognised definition of secured creditors, football creditors are secured against the £48m parachute payments due in this case. The paperwork for this argument is the League's insolvency rules defining the status of football debt and the fact that it has been recognised in a previous court case which was lost by HMRC when previously challenging the payments.

 

We understand that, it's the other two points of the appeal that we expect HMRC to win.

 

The football creditors rule can wait for another day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Faz

Faz

Posted
Posted
It may be argued that whilst not in the recognised definition of secured creditors, football creditors are secured against the £48m parachute payments due in this case. The paperwork for this argument is the League's insolvency rules defining the status of football debt and the fact that it has been recognised in a previous court case which was lost by HMRC when previously challenging the payments.

 

In previous cases football creditor have voted intnhe CVA and recieved their percentage as unsecured creditors. All proper because, distasteful as it may be, the new owners have separately and formt heir own funds, settled the balance inordser to obtain their Golden Share.

 

In this case the TV monies were, IIRC, shown in the CVA document as income due to the Club, and then paid away to football creditors. This is pr9obably the first time a club in receipt of huge PL payment shas gone into Administration. I simply cannot see how the football creditors can be prefered in this way, and if they are, they they are effectively secured. Either way the CVA goes back to the drawing board IMO.

 

If they stay in Admin, do the PL still pay them the money, or do they appropriate it to settle football debts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gemmel

Gemmel

Posted
Posted
We understand that, it's the other two points of the appeal that we expect HMRC to win.

 

The football creditors rule can wait for another day.

 

I think you have missed the point in what he was saying. Given HMRC have challenged and lost the football creditors rule, they have been legally deemed as secured creditors in a numer of cases (12 i think) which means they should not be voting on the CVA...... I think his point was either way HMRC win. If they are not secured creditors the CVA is void, if they are they shouldnt have voted, so it's void.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EastleighSoulBoy

EastleighSoulBoy

Posted
Posted
I think you have missed the point in what he was saying. Given HMRC have challenged and lost the football creditors rule, they have been legally deemed as secured creditors in a numer of cases (12 i think) which means they should not be voting on the CVA...... I think his point was either way HMRC win. If they are not secured creditors the CVA is void, if they are they shouldnt have voted, so it's void.

 

It's all panning out quite clearly now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Keith

Saint Keith

Posted
Posted
I think you have missed the point in what he was saying. Given HMRC have challenged and lost the football creditors rule, they have been legally deemed as secured creditors in a numer of cases (12 i think) which means they should not be voting on the CVA...... I think his point was either way HMRC win. If they are not secured creditors the CVA is void, if they are they shouldnt have voted, so it's void.

 

check%20mate.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
View From The Top

View From The Top

Posted
Posted
I think you have missed the point in what he was saying. Given HMRC have challenged and lost the football creditors rule, they have been legally deemed as secured creditors in a numer of cases (12 i think) which means they should not be voting on the CVA...... I think his point was either way HMRC win. If they are not secured creditors the CVA is void, if they are they shouldnt have voted, so it's void.

 

Ahhhh. I get it. Sorry Derry, I misunderstood what you were saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crab Lungs

Crab Lungs

Posted
Posted
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Andronikou-We-are-confident-over.6443778.jp

 

More dodgy editing by the News. Says he is confident that he can sell pompey if the appeal goes their way which has been turned by the news into confidence about the appeal which, possibly tellingly, he did not appear to say.

 

Yes, he's been confident of selling them every time the **** starts to hurtle towards a fan - and yet they still keep getting chance after chance.

 

Pull the ****1ing plug, someone, please.

 

Pig bloody sick at their incessant "poor us" mentality and the constant bleating and whining - or the unbelievable level of stupidity - or the "heads in sand" route taken by many.

 

13 man squad tonight? W4nkers, absolute w4nkers. We've have previously and continue to include youngsters in our squads to make up the numbers - not pretend we've not got any.

 

Cheating, lying bastards.

 

Die soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidthesquid

sidthesquid

Posted
Posted

 

Why do I always get the feeling we're missing something. Sonko is hardly Rio Ferdinand but he is still a relatively high-profile & high maintenance player as their first signing, and presumably Stoke aren't paying all his wages, (are they?). And they seem in no desperate hurry to shift on the likes of £40k/week Nugent. Is Chainrai still funding them? Because he must be pumping money in like there's no tomorrow at present

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidthesquid

sidthesquid

Posted
Posted

This bit of news is so exciting I actually felt compelled to put it on the main site, too. (I just hope it's not a Poopey WUM. They know how to fight dirty.)

 

Paul Wotton lol

Portsmouth

by John_the_Saint (U14558047) 28 July 2010

 

28 Jul 2010 18:18:14

I have inside information from Portsmouth football club that we are going to sign Paul Wotton on a season long loan from our rivals Southampton with view to a permanent deal. Trust me, this is looking very likely at the moment, I work within the club which is how I know!

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NickG

NickG

Posted
Posted
Why do I always get the feeling we're missing something. Sonko is hardly Rio Ferdinand but he is still a relatively high-profile & high maintenance player as their first signing, and presumably Stoke aren't paying all his wages, (are they?). And they seem in no desperate hurry to shift on the likes of £40k/week Nugent. Is Chainrai still funding them? Because he must be pumping money in like there's no tomorrow at present

 

when you remember how long Bournemouth struggled for and how hard it was for them to get low level emergency short term loans in.

 

Sonko on radio today saying he had other offers.

 

Once again, something not quite right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shrek

Shrek

Posted
Posted
when you remember how long Bournemouth struggled for and how hard it was for them to get low level emergency short term loans in.

 

Sonko on radio today saying he had other offers.

 

Once again, something not quite right!

 

Hmm, paperwork not gone through in time or simply propaganda from the skates? Could it actually be that the FL have told them to bugger off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
Hmm, paperwork not gone through in time or simply propaganda from the skates? Could it actually be that the FL have told them to bugger off?

 

Encouraging people to go to the next match only to then be told he can't play as they have run out of the letters K,N,S and O to put on the shirts?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
Not sure if this has been posted.

 

http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2267176/football-industry-needs-give

 

PL defending the football creditors rule (think of the poor children, sorry clubs) in front of a parliamentary committee. Does not sound like they were too convinced.

 

Bill Bush, director of communications and public policy at the Premier League, defended the football creditor rule (FCR) at the briefing yesterday, claiming smaller clubs would suffer if it was taken away.
I fail to follow his reasoning behind that statement, unless he is trying to justify it on grounds of the trickle down of funds into the lower leagues because the Premiership gravy train benefits from the players maintaining their astronomical salary levels at the expense of us taxpayers and other unsecured creditors.

 

And in any event, what about the counter argument? Smaller clubs suffering, or small businesses, charities and schools suffering instead as in the case of the Skates. Seems pretty clear cut as to which it should be to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
I fail to follow his reasoning behind that statement, unless he is trying to justify it on grounds of the trickle down of funds into the lower leagues because the Premiership gravy train benefits from the players maintaining their astronomical salary levels at the expense of us taxpayers and other unsecured creditors.

 

And in any event, what about the counter argument? Smaller clubs suffering, or small businesses, charities and schools suffering instead as in the case of the Skates. Seems pretty clear cut as to which it should be to me.

 

I guess that if the FCR was removed that the total sums for transfers would probably go down as the club selling would be more inclined to insist on the full sum up front. Some might say that this is a necessary adjustment anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gorgiesaint

Gorgiesaint

Posted
Posted

 

when administration was started AA secured a fixed amount of money to fund the administration. Has any one tried running a spreadsheet showing the cash flow and when it runs out (ran out?)

 

Indeed, and it seems that the papers are now starting to cotten on that money is still flooding out through the doors.

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