Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

MorningtonCrescent

MorningtonCrescent

Posted
Posted
If HMRC do as theysaidand end by 1530hrs, surely they must come to the nitty gritty soon, or is that it? Or does the relevant documentation previously submitted be admissible for decision purposes. Or was that if they didn't go to lunch?

 

It like the opening statements.... prosecution get their say... followed by defence..... then they have a big mud fight and interrogate each other.. the judge might make some observations and ask for the odd adjournment to consider a legal point or three.... and then they eventually get to a point, sometime tomorrow, when the judge says "i've heard enough, i'm off to make a decision"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
landford.saint

landford.saint

Posted
Posted

Any of you legal bods out there know the answer o this please.

The documentation handed in prior to the case, and at the commencement of this mornings hearing. Is that admissable evidence which can be used by the judge without being raised in 'open' court. Or must it be reffered to in court. Because there is no jury, I'm guessing that whatever is in these documents will be read by the judge and used or discarded when he comes to his final pronouncement regardless of whether they were actually spoken or reffered to in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted

From the news:

 

The arguments are over whether HMRC might have suffered prejudicial treatment by Pompey and, the crux, whether that prejudicial treatment was unfair.

Mr Justice Mann and Mr Mitchell are consulting case history as they debate the issue.

The judge is trying to pinpoint exactly which grounds the Revenue has brought the case against the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted

If, as we believe, this is the first case of one set of unsecured creditors receiving more than another set of unsecured creditors from company assets, rather than from new money from outside the company, through the implementation of the football creditors rule, then the Judge will be setting a new precedent on the interpretation of "unfair prejudice" in those circumstances under the existing law, and will want to be sure that he doesn't trip over any existing judgements in arriving at his decision.

 

It's in HMRC's appeal, so he has to make a decision, even though, in this particular instance, the CVA might fail for other reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gorgiesaint

Gorgiesaint

Posted
Posted
16:05 Chris: Now the argument is based around the differences between the rules of association for the premier league and football league and what happens to a club in either which becomes insolvent.

 

Be interesting to know what they are looking for in the rules of association - neither has any relevence to insolvency law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted
The Wimbledon judgement is interesting as the reason given by the judge for HMRC losing in that case doesn't apply to Pompey.

 

Suspect HMRC telling judge he should not use the wimbledon case as a precedent so he will be checking to make sure that is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pedg

pedg

Posted
Posted

Plus we still have AA having to be cross examined about why he chose to ignore a share of HMRC debt without explaining why & Lampitt explaining what he meant in the meeting with fan's when he said something along the lines of "and HMRC are also massaging their figures"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted
Suspect HMRC telling judge he should not use the wimbledon case as a precedent so he will be checking to make sure that is the case.

 

I would have thought there will be mixed opinion about the wimbledon case as all creditors got the small % in the pound from the CVA and only new buyers put the money in to pay the rest off to football creditors.

 

HMRC wants to get rid of the FCR on one hand but if its going to stay they will want to make sure any money the club have in parachute payments and so on, should be going to all the creditors and any new owner should be paying the football creditors the rest of there money to satisfy any members club.

 

If the parachute money and tv rights money and all that were to be used just to pay a percentage in the pound it should put that percentage to more than 20%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint 76er

Saint 76er

Posted
Posted

It sounds like HMRC are launching a tax evasion case, when this trial is supposed to be an appeal against AA awarding himself a CVA in incredibly dubious and dodgy circumstances. That being a case HMRC should be able to win easily using a calculator with fresh batteries to disprove all the rubbery figures and probably get AA booted out at the same time. His previous in such matters probably won't look good and no doubt the judge will be aware of it.

 

However, HMRC appear to have eschewed this golden opportunity and gone off on a tangent pursuing some broader tax evasion scenario which is not the actual purpose of this particular trial. No wonder His Honour has become slightly confused with this approach (if only Rumpole were available)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ozzmeister

ozzmeister

Posted
Posted

Im sure this has been mentioned plenty of times on this thread (i am not going to read all the pages) but I used to work in corporate insolvency albeit only for a year.

 

Now of the little that I learnt it was all focussed round the insolvency act and the differentiation between primary and secondary creditors. Primary being staff of the club - players etc and secondary being all third parties owed money - HMRC, local charities etc etc.

 

From what I understand HMRC are complaining that millionair players are taking precient over money owed to them. If they were employees of the club at time of administration then by the terms of the Insolvency Act this is perfectly acceptable and completly legal.

 

I agree that other clubs owed money should not be paid in advance of them and that of the Premier League have also directed money which should have gone to Pompey to other potential secondary creditors then again this is contestable.

 

WIth this in mind I dont see why they should be appealing the CVA of Pompey but more the legality of Premier League rules - I will be interested to know what the outcome is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sour Mash

Sour Mash

Posted
Posted
It sounds like HMRC are launching a tax evasion case, when this trial is supposed to be an appeal against AA awarding himself a CVA in incredibly dubious and dodgy circumstances. That being a case HMRC should be able to win easily using a calculator with fresh batteries to disprove all the rubbery figures and probably get AA booted out at the same time. His previous in such matters probably won't look good and no doubt the judge will be aware of it.

 

However, HMRC appear to have eschewed this golden opportunity and gone off on a tangent pursuing some broader tax evasion scenario which is not the actual purpose of this particular trial. No wonder His Honour has become slightly confused with this approach (if only Rumpole were available)...

 

Exactly, this is one of the things I've thought all along, why do posters on this thread have so much faith in HMRC? Wouldn't put it past them at all to f**k up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Bognor

Johnny Bognor

Posted
Posted (edited)
My second favourite court room drama....

 

I'm getting ideas for a new subtitled video......

 

Before I do the subtitles, would anyone like to add or amend anything?????

 

 

HMRC Vs Android

 

Android: You want answers?

HMRC: I think we're entitled.

Android: You want answers?!

HMRC: We want the truth!

Android: You can't handle the truth!

Son, we live in a world that has football and this football needs to be guarded by men in the Premier League. Who's gonna do it? You? You, HMRC? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for the Taxpayer and curse Pompey; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that not paying tax, while tragic, probably saved footballers jobs and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves football clubs. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me in this club, you need me in this club. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use them as the backbone of a club trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps with his Sky Sports subscription and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a football club. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

HMRC: Did you deliberately skew the CVA

Android: I did the job I had to do.

HMRC: Did you deliberately skew the CVA

Android: You're God damn right I did!

Edited by Johnny Bognor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tony13579

tony13579

Posted
Posted
Im sure this has been mentioned plenty of times on this thread (i am not going to read all the pages) but I used to work in corporate insolvency albeit only for a year.

 

Now of the little that I learnt it was all focussed round the insolvency act and the differentiation between primary and secondary creditors. Primary being staff of the club - players etc and secondary being all third parties owed money - HMRC, local charities etc etc.

 

From what I understand HMRC are complaining that millionair players are taking precient over money owed to them. If they were employees of the club at time of administration then by the terms of the Insolvency Act this is perfectly acceptable and completly legal.

 

I agree that other clubs owed money should not be paid in advance of them and that of the Premier League have also directed money which should have gone to Pompey to other potential secondary creditors then again this is contestable.

 

WIth this in mind I dont see why they should be appealing the CVA of Pompey but more the legality of Premier League rules - I will be interested to know what the outcome is!

 

some were employees, many were ex-employees, many football creditors were agents, other clubs, scouts etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JackFrost

JackFrost

Posted
Posted
Exactly, this is one of the things I've thought all along, why do posters on this thread have so much faith in HMRC? Wouldn't put it past them at all to f**k up.

 

Even if they do they can still appeal this appeal, and drag it all out a whole further.

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