Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga


Fitzhugh Fella

Recommended Posts

Their fans shamelessness knows no bounds. On one hand, you've got those giving the v's and telling HMRC they should be thankful for 20p in the pound. Then on the other hand, you've got the whingers, bemoaning how hard done by they've been.

 

Unreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gemmel ask again in 2 hours. Nobody knows! The evidence is all over the place. But by all accounts Pompey are shooting themselves in the for by admitting to advanced parachute payments that have also been included in the cva calcs. I big fiddle basically...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Help me out fella's. Sat by a pool in Spain, drinking an ice cold pint and going through the pain barrier with the sun burn.

Can't quite work out where the whole case is at - quick summary needed, how did HMRC do

Cheers

 

Various reports and opinions, from mine of' they will get away with it', to they are toast. So no real change. i don't think anyone is sure, and we keep jumping from they are doomed to ,the HMRC (barrister) have not done a very good job

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the news

Mark: The court has adjourned to try to sort out whether Kevin Prince Boateng and other players were entitled to vote at the creditors' meeting on June 17.

 

 

Mr Sheldon, for Pompey, claimed player was perfectly entitled to vote under the terms of reference for the Company Voluntary Agreement to make a claim for £1.3m which would be owed to him over the rest of his contract .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Help me out fella's. Sat by a pool in Spain, drinking an ice cold pint and going through the pain barrier with the sun burn.

Can't quite work out where the whole case is at - quick summary needed, how did HMRC do

Cheers

 

From my opinion, it's been a bit weird really. Unexpected openings by both defence and prosecution, HMRC throwing a lot of (justifiable) mud at Pompey, Pompey throwing a lot of unjustifiable mud at everyone else (and admitted the PL bailed them out last year...).... still inconclusive what will happen, as far as I can tell...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Help me out fella's. Sat by a pool in Spain, drinking an ice cold pint and going through the pain barrier with the sun burn.

Can't quite work out where the whole case is at - quick summary needed, how did HMRC do

Cheers

 

HMRC 0 Pompey 1 - yesterday afternoon.

 

This morning HMRC equalised and took the lead. Currently HMRC 2 Pompey 1.

 

Pompey now have the ball and we are waiting to see what happens - hopefully an own goal or two

Link to comment
Share on other sites

phpN6yhatAcheson-150.jpgspacer.gifMark:

The court has adjourned to try to sort out whether Kevin Prince Boateng and other players were entitled to vote at the creditors' meeting on June 17.

Mr Sheldon, for Pompey, claimed player was perfectly entitled to vote under the terms of reference for the Company Voluntary Agreement to make a claim for £1.3m which would be owed to him over the rest of his contract .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Comment From BigBearPFC ]

HMRC are on thin ground to win this, and this Judge will see sense and that they have been wasting his and everyone else's time and money. About time the HMRC got put in their place

 

Unreal

 

Indeed would like to see a little more contrition

 

Tried sending

 

contrition - sorrow for sin arising from fear of damnation

 

Didn't get through

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I notice that they may withhold payments due to the foreign clubs. Should have done the same last season, but of course that would have sent Pomepy over the edge and the PL can't have that can they

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice that they may withhold payments due to the foreign clubs. Should have done the same last season, but of course that would have sent Pomepy over the edge and the PL can't have that can they

 

But this must be one of the crucial issues in this case. Are the TV/parachute payments 'assets' of the company or not? If they are paid early, or diverted to pay another creditor at a time when a club is in administration or subject to a possible winding-up order, then how does this square with all unsecured creditors being treated equally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark: When the hearing resumed Mr Sheldon told the judge: 'The players clearly have an interest in the Company Voluntary Agreement.

'If the CVA was approved the players would be paid for the continuation of their contracts.

'That has a real benefit to the players because they are continued to be paid at Premier League levels [via Premiership cash made as parachute payments] whereas if they are paid by CVA funds the players become free agents, their contracts are terminated and they become unsecured creditors of the company for the unexpired portion of their existing contracts.

'This means they would lose the benefits of their existing contracts,'

he added.

Earlier Mr Sheldon said Pompey received an £11m parachute payment from the Premier League between December 24, 2009, and January 31 this year.

There was a further payment of £1.5m between February 1 and February

26 and another of £1.7m after the club went into administration.

 

Dirty, cheating....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the news :

 

Mark: When the hearing resumed Mr Sheldon told the judge: 'The players clearly have an interest in the Company Voluntary Agreement.

 

 

'If the CVA was approved the players would be paid for the continuation of their contracts.

 

 

'That has a real benefit to the players because they are continued to be paid at Premier League levels [via Premiership cash made as parachute payments] whereas if they are paid by CVA funds the players become free agents, their contracts are terminated and they become unsecured creditors of the company for the unexpired portion of their existing contracts.

 

 

'This means they would lose the benefits of their existing contracts,'

 

 

he added.

 

 

Earlier Mr Sheldon said Pompey received an £11m parachute payment from the Premier League between December 24, 2009, and January 31 this year.

 

 

There was a further payment of £1.5m between February 1 and February

 

 

26 and another of £1.7m after the club went into administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark: When the hearing resumed Mr Sheldon told the judge: 'The players clearly have an interest in the Company Voluntary Agreement.

'If the CVA was approved the players would be paid for the continuation of their contracts.

'That has a real benefit to the players because they are continued to be paid at Premier League levels [via Premiership cash made as parachute payments] whereas if they are paid by CVA funds the players become free agents, their contracts are terminated and they become unsecured creditors of the company for the unexpired portion of their existing contracts.

'This means they would lose the benefits of their existing contracts,'

he added.

Earlier Mr Sheldon said Pompey received an £11m parachute payment from the Premier League between December 24, 2009, and January 31 this year.

There was a further payment of £1.5m between February 1 and February

26 and another of £1.7m after the club went into administration.

 

Dirty, cheating....

 

So the footballers get to vote for the CVA so they get their contracts paid up fully, while all others in the CVA get 20%, as opposed to not agreeing the CVA (in the hope of getting more for the creditors) and getting 100% of their monies owed, as football creditors. Win win all round for the FCSBs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick question for the brainy ones amongst us. If Pompey were receiving payments from the EPL to carry on playing does that leave a door open to sue the league and FA for clubs that lost points or were knocked out of the FA cup?

 

I'dsay so, as they were clearly supporting a team financialy, who were insolvent!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...