Pompey Takeover Saga

[ozzmeister]

So if they do drag it on and Pompey enter the start if the FL season still in admin I assme they will bw deducted points much the same way we did?

[slickmick]

Looks like Poopey r going to die slowly rather than a quick execution.

[View From The Top]

So if they do drag it on and Pompey enter the start if the FL season still in admin I assme they will bw deducted points much the same way we did?

 

No.

 

HTH.

[Matthew Le God]

So if they do drag it on and Pompey enter the start if the FL season still in admin I assme they will bw deducted points much the same way we did?

 

If they stay in admin they won't get a points deduction. They get a points deduction if they exit admin without a CVA. It isn't comparable to Saints situation at all.

[View From The Top]

Looks like Poopey r going to die slowly rather than a quick execution.

 

Great isn't it.

[slickmick]

So if they do drag it on and Pompey enter the start if the FL season still in admin I assme they will bw deducted points much the same way we did?

Apparently not. Only if they come out of admin without a cva.

Beaten to it. ;-)

[JackFrost]

I can't think how but unless HMRC are playing 'the ultimate long game' and are attempting to drag this out until the start of the 2011/12 season. I believe clubs aren't allowed to start two consecutive seasons in admin?

[trousers]

Sounds like the HMRC is flakey at best....

 

To be fair, so would you be if you'd worked for Gordon Brown for 13 years

[bridge too far]

To be fair, so would you be if you'd worked for Gordon Brown for 13 years

 

No doubt they'll have balls of steel now they have a new paymeister, eh?

[Matthew Le God]

BBC Radio Solent have their Pompey Fans Forum at 7:05pm tonight. David Lampitt is attending, it has been a long stressful day for him!

 

Listen here...http://www.bbc.co.uk/solent/programmes

Edited 3 August, 2010 by Matthew Le God

[Ashtead Saint]

Just back from court. I missed the last hour or so, but doubt that it will change the main thrust of what follows.

 

Timetable:

 

HMRC submissions today.

Administrator’s submission tomorrow morning.

Allowing for replies and general overruns, the hearing will finish sometime tomorrow afternoon.

Judgement (outline only with detailed judgement to follow later) probably Thursday.

 

1. The main issue is whether HMRC are entitled to vote on the £13 million of assessments they issued in May re PAYE and NI on “Image Rights” and “EBT’s” (employee benefit trusts). HMRC’s position is that once the assessments are issued there is a statutory liability on PFC’s part to pay which can only be upset/varied by a Tribunal (which hasn’t happened). The £13 million was disallowed by AA. HMRC only need to get an extra £11.1 m of votes to get to the magic 25.0001% needed to block the CVA. If HMRC win on this point, and it’s hard to see on the evidence presented to date how they can not, HMRC will win the appeal irrespective of what happens on the other points.

 

2. Quite a bit of time spent discussing the FCR. The FCR is being challenged by HMRC under separate court proceedings and Mann J is not being asked to make a decision on that point. However, he is being asked to consider whether there is an arguable case that the FCR is contrary to public policy and/or the insolvency rules since, if so, the failure to address that issue in the CVA proposal could make that proposal unfairly prejudicial. It’s an irrelevant point (save for appeals) if HMRC win on point 1.

 

3. Quite a bit of time also spent discussing Section 127 of the Insolvency Act (which renders void any transfers of property made after the presentation of a winding-up petition (unless validated by the court)). HMRC got into a bit of a tangle over their position on this and had to backtrack a bit. Their point, in essence, is that the CVA deferred the point at which a liquidator could bring s127 into play by about 9 months during which time ‘the trial might have run cold’. Again, it’s an irrelevant point if HMRC win on point 1.

 

4. No discussion, at least while I was in court/awake about secured and/or football creditors being ruled out of the CVA vote. Maybe those issues have been ironed out in correspondence and HMRC was satisfied they were not worth arguing.

 

There were various ‘digs’ at AA having failed to take account of the interests of all creditors.

 

Several Pompey supprters in and around court. They were well behaved and came across as genuine supporters. The one I spoke to was a decent bloke.

[Causer]

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)...

 

But Rumpole only defends so he would be helping the Skates

[qwertySFC]

None of the reporters there seem to fully grasp what's going on and what everything means, so I wouldn't read too much into that. The judge said he'd probably pass judgement on Thursday.

 

 

If he is that good at passing maybe a new midfieklder for the Poorsmouth

[Jimmy_D]

Just back from court. I missed the last hour or so, but doubt that it will change the main thrust of what follows.

 

Timetable:

 

HMRC submissions today.

Administrator’s submission tomorrow morning.

Allowing for replies and general overruns, the hearing will finish sometime tomorrow afternoon.

Judgement (outline only with detailed judgement to follow later) probably Thursday.

 

1. The main issue is whether HMRC are entitled to vote on the £13 million of assessments they issued in May re PAYE and NI on “Image Rights” and “EBT’s” (employee benefit trusts). HMRC’s position is that once the assessments are issued there is a statutory liability on PFC’s part to pay which can only be upset/varied by a Tribunal (which hasn’t happened). The £13 million was disallowed by AA. HMRC only need to get an extra £11.1 m of votes to get to the magic 25.0001% needed to block the CVA. If HMRC win on this point, and it’s hard to see on the evidence presented to date how they can not, HMRC will win the appeal irrespective of what happens on the other points.

 

2. Quite a bit of time spent discussing the FCR. The FCR is being challenged by HMRC under separate court proceedings and Mann J is not being asked to make a decision on that point. However, he is being asked to consider whether there is an arguable case that the FCR is contrary to public policy and/or the insolvency rules since, if so, the failure to address that issue in the CVA proposal could make that proposal unfairly prejudicial. It’s an irrelevant point (save for appeals) if HMRC win on point 1.

 

3. Quite a bit of time also spent discussing Section 127 of the Insolvency Act (which renders void any transfers of property made after the presentation of a winding-up petition (unless validated by the court)). HMRC got into a bit of a tangle over their position on this and had to backtrack a bit. Their point, in essence, is that the CVA deferred the point at which a liquidator could bring s127 into play by about 9 months during which time ‘the trial might have run cold’. Again, it’s an irrelevant point if HMRC win on point 1.

 

4. No discussion, at least while I was in court/awake about secured and/or football creditors being ruled out of the CVA vote. Maybe those issues have been ironed out in correspondence and HMRC was satisfied they were not worth arguing.

 

There were various ‘digs’ at AA having failed to take account of the interests of all creditors.

 

Several Pompey supprters in and around court. They were well behaved and came across as genuine supporters. The one I spoke to was a decent bloke.

 

Now that's interesting, came across from the reporting that point two was their main argument, it was all starting to look a bit flimsy TBH, but this would seem to go against that.

[Katalinic]

Thanks Ashtead Saint - this gives us more meat on the bone from was was being reported via The News - this seemed to give the impression that the skates had won the day but from your report it does appear that things are very much in the balance/HMRC ahead by a nose.

[ericofarabia]

None of the reporters there seem to fully grasp what's going on and what everything means, so I wouldn't read too much into that. The judge said he'd probably pass judgement on Thursday.

 

Did he mention which week or even which year?

 

previous 48 hour windows (admittedly from the mathmatically challenged AA, Storrie and lately lampitt!!) are still open

[View From The Top]

Thanks Ashtead Saint - this gives us more meat on the bone from was was being reported via The News - this seemed to give the impression that the skates had won the day but from your report it does appear that things are very much in the balance/HMRC ahead by a nose.

 

I genuinely don't see how pfc can win point one. It's always been the main chance IMHO.

 

The FC malarky as way to complex to be done now.

[pedg]

1. The main issue is whether HMRC are entitled to vote on the £13 million of assessments they issued in May re PAYE and NI on “Image Rights” and “EBT’s” (employee benefit trusts). HMRC’s position is that once the assessments are issued there is a statutory liability on PFC’s part to pay which can only be upset/varied by a Tribunal (which hasn’t happened). The £13 million was disallowed by AA. HMRC only need to get an extra £11.1 m of votes to get to the magic 25.0001% needed to block the CVA. If HMRC win on this point, and it’s hard to see on the evidence presented to date how they can not, HMRC will win the appeal irrespective of what happens on the other points.

 

Given that a) HMRC have followed the rules in issuing the assessment (even if it is proven eventually to be wrong it was correctly issued) and b) AA did not follow the rules when disallowing it surely its going to be very hard to get out of that one. The fact that the assessment is for image rights is irrelevant, it should be the same as if it was a bill for bad hair tax as far as the court is concerned w.r.t. it being disallowed against the rules.

[ericofarabia]

Why am I getting a horrible feeling that the HMRC are going to screw this up.

 

Like the OJ Simpson case where everybody knew he was (allegedly ) guilty but still walked.

 

I losing count of how many loaves I've had to chuck away, whilst waiting for a lovely round of toast with my brekkie. How many more fat singing ladies do we have to endure? FFS:uhoh:

[sussexsaint]

Thanks Ashted, makes muchl better reading than NOTW or the news

[tony13579]

Ashted Saint, are you returning to court tomorrow? can you team up with a runner who can leave the court and Twitter (or text a twit)

I would act as runner but all my colleages have gone on leave!

[NickG]

just been viewing a few of their forums as interested in whats happening - most seem to think it went well, with judge asking HMRC to come back tomorrow to clarify what their issue is

[Matthew Le God]

BBC Radio Solent have their Pompey Fans Forum at 7:05pm tonight. David Lampitt is attending, it has been a long stressful day for him!

 

Listen here...http://www.bbc.co.uk/solent/programmes

 

Just about to start. One hour long.

Edited 3 August, 2010 by Matthew Le God

[benjii]

just been viewing a few of their forums as interested in whats happening - most seem to think it went well, with judge asking HMRC to come back tomorrow to clarify what their issue is

 

Basically they're clinging to the myopic News reporting.

 

Ashtead Saint's report seems to indicate a good comprehension of what happened.

[Gorgiesaint]

Just to add to Ashstead Saint's report, listening to Talksport's 'financial expert' he talked about the primary issue being in line with Ashstead - i.e. image rights taxation.

 

Good work Ashstead Saint.

[Jonnyboy]

So theyve got this Lampitt bloke who is "FA integrity" runing the club now?

Sounds dodgey to me, pulls a few strings with the old mates - no points deduction etc

[Cincy USA]

But Rumpole only defends so he would be helping the Skates

 

Left back or right back?

[Channon's Sideburns]

Nice one Cyril....mentioning about 'signings' -

[View From The Top]

So theyve got this Lampitt bloke who is "FA integrity" runing the club now?

Sounds dodgey to me, pulls a few strings with the old mates - no points deduction etc

 

For the 10,000th time, they can ONLY get another points deduction if they exit administration without a CVA.

 

I sometimes wonder who are more deluded. A large section of Saints fans or the blue few.

[Channon's Sideburns]

Well that forum shows that Lampitt's deluded as well. Trying to explain away the 'image rights' issue as 'something in all forms of sport and entertainment for years'...

 

Yes David, but I doubt sportsmen in other places don't get paid 10x the amount of revenue they generate for their club do they?????

 

'Poor old Pompey' my arse.

 

FRICKIN CHEATS

[saintscottofthenortham]

SC talking about the possibility of getting promoted this year!!! "You never know!"

[Jimmy Gabriel's Halo]

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?

 

Don't be ridiculous. Don't you know ALL judges go to lunch.......:)

[RedArmy]

Anyone that thinks Pompey aren't winning this is deluded

[saint lard]

Lifted from a skate.......

 

"The Judge asked whether HMRC were saying Employee Benefit Trusts were all flawed. he then went on to ask how the ones at Pompey didn't work if others worked and answer came there none. So I think the large element of EBT in the HMRC claim is gone.

 

The point about image rights was not about whether its an abuse of tax in this case - of course it is. But the question was how it was counted and it was.

 

At the very end our brief got up and said something along the lines of "Isn't this all a waste of time?" and the Judge said HMRC might want to reflect on that."

[saint si]

Sounds like we're off to a good start. It's only half time and there's plenty to come yet.

 

Why are HMRC making so much of the tax evasion piece? I think they're just trying to provide the evidence that they had a valid claim, and that AA should not have dismissed it - i.e. he could not have had absolute certainty that it was an invalid claim. They're just building up the credibility of their claim in order to prove the process was not followed correctly.

 

On the MK Dons case... absolutely they do want the judge to look at that case. The legal judgement there was that paying extra to the football creditors was ok, provided it was not from company assets and only from "new" money. That sets the precedent that says you cannot use company money to pay the football creditors 100% whilst paying less than 100% to others.

 

Regarding the rules of association (PL versus FL). Just a hunch, but there may be something specific in there that distinguishes whether the member clubs are treated as a single economic entity versus multiple entities, and that could be material to whether football creditors are counted as creditors in the same way as normal trade creditors.

 

More fun tomorrow... Pompey get to have a go at defending their actions!!

[Viking Warrior]

Pompey get to have a go at defending their actions!!

 

They might have a chance then now they have sold calamity James!

[Dark Munster]

For the 10,000th time, they can ONLY get another points deduction if they exit administration without a CVA.

 

I sometimes wonder who are more deluded. A large section of Saints fans or the blue few.

Maybe there ought to be a Pompey Takeover Saga F.A.Q.

[Dark Munster]

'kin 'ell, don't people get this? It doesn't matter if they off load, they have to get everything through the FL and it so far they have dispensation to sign three players only. That, I'm willing to bet on, won't change.

And how many players did Bournemouth (for example) get special dispensation to buy during their embargo?

[Dark Munster]

The answer is we don't know. I believe HMRC said that taking the image rights into account they are owed 30M. I don't think that figure included anything to do with these trusts. Maybe that is where the extra 4M to take them up to the 34M they claimed at the CVA comes from? Assuming nothing else changes 30M would not be over 25%.

 

Step 1: Establish that they are owed £30 million.

Step 2: Establish that the overall unsecured debt used for voting purposes of £138 million has been deliberately overestimated by AA, and should be £120 million (or less).

 

Maybe?

 

 

CHEATING BASTARDS.

[SimplyRed&White]

Lifted from a skate.......

 

"The Judge asked whether HMRC were saying Employee Benefit Trusts were all flawed. he then went on to ask how the ones at Pompey didn't work if others worked and answer came there none. So I think the large element of EBT in the HMRC claim is gone.

 

The point about image rights was not about whether its an abuse of tax in this case - of course it is. But the question was how it was counted and it was.

 

At the very end our brief got up and said something along the lines of "Isn't this all a waste of time?" and the Judge said HMRC might want to reflect on that."[/QUOTE]I the part I have highlighted is correct the learned Judge is hinting that he is siding with PFC on the arguments so far. Not over yet but PFC look favourite to win the hearing. HMRC will not likely appeal a Judge who has never had a judgement overturned.

[View From The Top]

Lifted from a skate.......

 

"The Judge asked whether HMRC were saying Employee Benefit Trusts were all flawed. he then went on to ask how the ones at Pompey didn't work if others worked and answer came there none. So I think the large element of EBT in the HMRC claim is gone.

 

The point about image rights was not about whether its an abuse of tax in this case - of course it is. But the question was how it was counted and it was.

 

At the very end our brief got up and said something along the lines of "Isn't this all a waste of time?" and the Judge said HMRC might want to reflect on that."[/QUOTE]I the part I have highlighted is correct the learned Judge is hinting that he is siding with PFC on the arguments so far. Not over yet but PFC look favourite to win the hearing. HMRC will not likely appeal a Judge who has never had a judgement overturned.

 

The judge was refering to point two, not the case overall as I understand it.

[suewhistle]

Quick post from Clapham. Went today, couldn't get in but will tell you all about it tomorrow. Saw AA and made notes as he spouted his mouth off to the Pimpley fans present....

[saintsab1]

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!

 

 

 

I would either use "We use phrases like "the money will be in the players accounts next week" and "there will be a takeover tommorow". We use them as a club trying to hide something.

 

or

 

"We use words like fish, pikey, bad smell" etc!

[pedg]

Can't help but think that AA missed a trick here. It sounds like the amount he discounted from HMRC consisted of tax on the image rights and these trusts. If he has held his hand up and said 'yes the previous management did cheat on the image rights and I will accept that figure but I will not accept the figure for the trusts' he would still have won the CVA vote and would be in a much stronger position in this appeal.

 

If it just comes down to this (ignoring all the other things the judge could find against pompey on) and the judge agrees that tax was liable on the image rights but he decides its not proven for the trusts could the judge say. 'After my judgement the HMRC would still not have had enough to block the CVA so I consider it valid' or does any 'win' for HMRC force AA to come back with a new CVA?

[pedg]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/8839169.stm

 

quote from the pompey QC

 

Richard Sheldon QC representing Portsmouth saying: "We see no reason why HMRC want to pursue this appeal. They'd be shooting themselves, other creditors and the fans in the foot. I ask them to go away and consider whether they want to pursue this."

 

So basically mimicking a lot of there fans i.e. not taking into the account the bigger picture (i.e. lost 6M on pompey and gain many more millions from image right taxation). Don't know why HMRC don't just come back in the morning and say 'We are aware we may get less from pompey if we win this appeal but we want to stop these tax evasion techniques that are widespread amongst other football clubs for the greater long term good'.

[pedg]

Door, stable, bolted, after.

 

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_6293446,00.html

[Matthew Le God]

Door, stable, bolted, after.

 

Not really, because there are still horses in the stable.

[Chin Strain]

Door, stable, bolted, after.

 

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_6293446,00.html

 

This is ridiculous. Prospective new owners have to prove that they have the funds to sustain the club? OK, so I've not been banned from being a director or have any criminal convictions. I could take the FAPPT and pass. Do I have the funds to sustain the club? Yes, thanks, the PL give me £30 - £50m a year plus ticket sales, beer sales and merchandising. It's nonsense.

 

IN Scudamore's own words 'it was rank bad management' that caused the Pompey meltdown.He went on to say "If you start the season knowing you're going to get between £30million and £50million as a starter from the Premier League, through the year, it is entirely possible to get yourself organised so you don't get into the difficulties that Portsmouth got into." All of a sudden you seem to need to prove you have a pile of money yourself. - or that's the inference.

 

Idiot.

[Jonnyboy]

For the 10,000th time, they can ONLY get another points deduction if they exit administration without a CVA.

 

I sometimes wonder who are more deluded. A large section of Saints fans or the blue few.

 

You what? Why am I deluded? Im just suspicious that they will wriggle out of it when they clearly deserve that points deduction. If they dont get a CVA and exit admin its still up to the FL to deduct the points

[CityRanger]

Prem chief: Pompey duped us.

 

More from Scudamore in the Sun:

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3080777/Richard-Scudamore-said-he-was-betrayed-as-Portsmouth-went-into-administration.html