Pompey Takeover Saga

[stevegrant]

A packed crowd outside the High Court...

 

[saintjay77]

From pompey mongline:

 

Email Sent to CEO of HMRC - Short and Sweet - Yesterday, 08:41 PM

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Portsmouth FC is the only thing I have left in my life! Take it away from me and my life will be gone forever! It's in your hands...

 

twas a bit late to send it to HMRC as there fate is now in the hands of Mr Justice Mann. lol

[saintjay77]

A packed crowd outside the High Court...

 

 

 

LOL,

Do you think the Cup Semi Final 2010 scarf was put there to remind the judge just how far there cheating took them?

[stevegrant]

I'm more intrigued by the goalkeeper with no head

[Viking Warrior]

I don't particularly want any club to go out of business but we are talking about a premier league side (Yes they are now relegated) had they have been a league 1 side then nobody would give a toss. The FL premeir League etc. We could have gone out of business llast year and very few would have shed a tear

Look at poor old luton. They didnt cheat as much as the skates. My reading about this whole situation is that the Premier league are complicit in what has been going on. How many other clubs have they bailed out to prevent their (Premier League name being) tarnished. I hope they get whats comming to them and further points deductions etc. but above all else I hope the Football authorities start to have a close look at whats been happening and start to clean up this disease which has been rife in the game for some time.

[South Londoner]

The goalkeeping shirt has got R.I.P printed on the back.

[Ashtead Saint]

Thanks for clarifying..but I guess HMRC could still push the view about Chinarai's status as existing owner/repossessioner at the time? Or ask for proof of his original loan that he used to secure Nottarf Krap on?

 

The appeal will be very limited indeed as regards scope. The Court of Appeal will not go through the evidence again and it will certainly not consider any new evidence. It will come down to legal argument as to why the judge erred in making the findings that he did.

[Viking Warrior]

Trouble with the modern judiciary they tend to give into those that play "Im the victim card"

 

I wouldnt be suprised if this judge gives them millions to help build a new stadium.

 

Look at the burglar who committed 6oo crime. He got given a rent free flat, equipment a holiday and allowances oh and 120hrs community service

2 months later heis on the rob again this time they are putting him away

[bolo]

My question is, will this thread make it past the capacity of st mary's before pompey go pop?

[saintjay77]

I'm more intrigued by the goalkeeper with no head

 

As they are without a keeper at the mo maybe they are trying to show the judge both ends of there predicament. Cup finalists on the prems forwarded money but keeperless cause they released there rubbish keeper and englands number 1 walked away.

[Channon's Windmill]

My question is, will this thread make it past the capacity of st mary's before pompey go pop?

 

Yes. IMO

[OttawaSaint]

LOL,

Do you think the Cup Semi Final 2010 scarf was put there to remind the judge just how far there cheating took them?

 

What kind of a dummy buys a "semi finalists" scarf whilst they are still in the competition with a chance of getting in the final (which they did)?

 

Pay Up Pompey, time to man up and admit that you cheated...

[dubai_phil]

Good words Frank, as always.

 

But, at what point does somebody turn around and say - enough.

 

It is clear the rules that were in place to allow fair play were bent or even broken.

 

Not one season goes by without some club narrowly escaping.

 

Always it is the fans that suffer BUT they also reap the rewards of success that overspending brings.

 

Just WHEN will somebody say to football - Enough?

 

The Governments have tried, the Taqx man has tried and yet still football is run like a Monopoly game.

 

Will it improve IF they go out of existance? Will it change the laws?

 

IMHO the law SHOULD change, Officers of the club need to face personal liability for THEIR bad decisions and the Leagues need to cream off some of the TV money to refund clubs who lose out by the football creditors rule being removed.

 

Will it all happen? Doubt it.

 

But it damn well NEEDS to happen sometime.

 

Hope Eric & I are sober enough at the Beer Fest to read the texts about the court result. Will be sad to lose them as a Saints fan, but as a football fan, the rot MUST be stopped somewhere and this really is the moment.

[K,Billy's supersound]

question if they lose and if they are then liquidated and removed from the football league, would it then be a case of an extra team being promoted up from all the lower leagues come the end of the season? would league 1 have three automatic teams promoted and teams 4th to 7th in the playoffs?

[stevegrant]

but above all else I hope the Football authorities start to have a close look at whats been happening and start to clean up this disease which has been rife in the game for some time.

To be fair, the Football League has been quite good at this sort of thing in recent years.

 

Don't forget, it's as recent as 2003 that Leicester were allowed to be promoted to the Premier League despite having gone into administration and getting away with paying 10p in the pound to their creditors, the biggest of which was Barr, who built their ground. So they paid £3m for a 32,000-seater stadium.

 

As a result of that, we now have the rule where administration means an automatic 10-point deduction (which the Premier League then also introduced, albeit 9 points to reflect fewer games played), the Leeds saga saw the introduction of the rule imposing further points deductions on clubs who exit administration without having a CVA agreed, with additional deductions for repeat offenders (see Rotherham, Bournemouth and Luton), and most recently both the Football League and Premier League have an agreement with HMRC to impose registration embargos on clubs who fall behind on their tax liabilities, and also rules forcing disclosure of individuals or companies who own 10% or more of any club.

 

The next step, which won't happen for a number of years because there are too many clubs struggling at the moment so it would never get voted in, is to take the Italian approach and automatically relegate any club who can't financially support themselves through a full season. You'd soon see clubs fall into line pretty quickly if they knew that irresponsible spending and gambling on success will lead to failure of an epic proportion.

[Winchester Exile]

As a lawyer I find it difficult to disagree with HMRC's argument that it is unfairly prejudiced by the rule that football creditors have to be paid in full whilst non-football creditors do not. I also agree with HMRCs view that the image rights saga is nothing more than an illegal sham designed to cheat HMRC. Tax planning is fine, but tax avoidance is not. Sorry Pompey but I think you've fallen on the wrong side of the line.

 

Pompey are pleading with the courts not to find against them as that would not be in anybody's interest. HMRC admit they would lose financially from such a result. However, the win for HMRC would be so much greater than the loss from Pompey in this case. The football authorities would be forced to change their rules about prefering football creditors and the payment of image rights could be investigated closely. As a fair-minded tax payer myself I would be happy for Pompey to lose given the aggregate gains HMRC would pick up elsewhere.

 

Whatever the outcome today the matter should go to appeal. My guess is it would be difficult to overturn today's ruling.

 

As a football fan I don't like what's happening to Pompey and I feel sorry for the fans. Unlike us when we were in admin, there doesn't seem to be an obvious silver lining for them if they lose this case. On the other hand it was difficult, as a football fan, seeing Pompey get to to the FA Cup final again last year and continuning to benefit from what appears to be in my opinion financial cheating.

 

Despite my belief that HMRC have a good case I would not bet on the outcome of this case. I felt they should have been wound up at the previous big court case given the facts. Courts have shown time and time again in recent years that the outcome of these cases can go against the evidence and law on offer. Clearly football clubs are afforded special treatment by the courts but I think it's about time that stopped.

 

With respect tax avoidance (= planning) is fine, tax evasion is illegal. This hearing isn't about whether the football creditor preference is right or wrong (that hearing is in November) it is about whether HMRC can get across the 25% of total creditor threshold and therefore strike out the CVA. Therefore it will depend on whether the Judge finds that some or all of the image rights income is taxable or not. If he finds that sufficient tax is payable so as to get HMRC across the 25% threshold then the CVA is dead in the water and the adminsitrator will have to act accordigly - if he can't find a quick buyer then liquidation beckons. Pompey should be fine because anyone carrying out this sort of tax planning should have run it past UK tax counsel to sign it off as legitimate. If they didn't then are incredibly stupid and derserve all they get.

[Wes Tender]

Trouble with the modern judiciary they tend to give into those that play "Im the victim card"

 

I wouldnt be suprised if this judge gives them millions to help build a new stadium.

 

Look at the burglar who committed 6oo crime. He got given a rent free flat, equipment a holiday and allowances oh and 120hrs community service

2 months later heis on the rob again this time they are putting him away

 

The Skates had their equivalent of the free flat, holiday and allowances the last time they went into administration.

 

Time for them to be put away, I think.

[stevegrant]

Trouble with the modern judiciary they tend to give into those that play "Im the victim card"

 

I wouldnt be suprised if this judge gives them millions to help build a new stadium.

 

Look at the burglar who committed 6oo crime. He got given a rent free flat, equipment a holiday and allowances oh and 120hrs community service

2 months later heis on the rob again this time they are putting him away

Isn't that just what he stole?

[Ohio Saint]

My question is, will this thread make it past the capacity of st mary's before pompey go pop?

 

At last! Something to play for! Saturday is too far away to survive without any kind of footy competition!

[dubai_phil]

question if they lose and if they are then liquidated and removed from the football league, would it then be a case of an extra team being promoted up from all the lower leagues come the end of the season? would league 1 have three automatic teams promoted and teams 4th to 7th in the playoffs?

 

Don't be silly :-)

 

One less relegated from the land of greed

[saintjay77]

question if they lose and if they are then liquidated and removed from the football league, would it then be a case of an extra team being promoted up from all the lower leagues come the end of the season? would league 1 have three automatic teams promoted and teams 4th to 7th in the playoffs?

 

I think there are loads of ways for it to be compensated, but it would mean changes in every league.

[stevegrant]

question if they lose and if they are then liquidated and removed from the football league, would it then be a case of an extra team being promoted up from all the lower leagues come the end of the season? would league 1 have three automatic teams promoted and teams 4th to 7th in the playoffs?

The Championship would run with 23 teams, and only two would be relegated at the end of the season. 3 promoted from League One as usual, but only 3 relegated to League Two. 4 promoted from League Two as usual, only one relegated to the BSP. Two promoted from the BSP, and then it's up to the Conference board to juggle things around there to get the right numbers. They're used to it now, with Chester and various other clubs going bust in recent years.

[Bobbyboy]

Pompey should be fine because anyone carrying out this sort of tax planning should have run it past UK tax counsel to sign it off as legitimate. If they didn't then are incredibly stupid and derserve all they get.

 

See, that's what I'm expecting the judge to say this afternoon, despite all the common sense and hope on here that they'll go under. They're cheats, but they'll get away with it.

[tony13579]

A packed crowd outside the High Court...

 

 

 

 

The lad in the white shirt, is that the one who questioned Storrie "your avin a laugf"

[K,Billy's supersound]

another question who would people consider to be a football rivals in place of them, Bournmouth,Brighton or someone else?. persnally i like brighton and their manager so for me its bournmouth.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

From pompey mongline:

 

Email Sent to CEO of HMRC - Short and Sweet - Yesterday, 08:41 PM

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Portsmouth FC is the only thing I have left in my life! Take it away from me and my life will be gone forever! It's in your hands...

 

HMRC in reply

 

. . . . . . . . . .

 

Go get your gun

[EastleighSoulBoy]

I'm more intrigued by the goalkeeper with no head

 

That's James. . .he dropped it.

[Saint_lambden]

Pro's and cons of them going bust:

 

+'s

 

- We will undoubtedly be the best team in Hampshire (although we knew we already were )

 

- They will form a new club and come back eventually anyway...

 

- Those who booed during the Ted Bates minute's silence and the majority of ***ts who support them will suffer

 

Negatives

 

- I'm sure like all clubs they have some 70 year old loyal fan who has been going all his life and isn't a complete w@Nk3r (minus W******d) , for the minority of those I would have some sympathy.

 

- No more derbies....no more feeling like we experienced when Lambert prodded in ...not being able to make up for those 4-1's....

 

- Some of them may pop up at Saints games to watch a proper team

 

Any more?

[Ashtead Saint]

This hearing isn't about whether the football creditor preference is right or wrong (that hearing is in November) it is about whether HMRC can get across the 25% of total creditor threshold and therefore strike out the CVA. Therefore it will depend on whether the Judge finds that some or all of the image rights income is taxable or not.

 

Spot on up until the last sentence.

 

The Judge will not be considering whether the image rights income is taxable or not. That will be determined by Tribunal if/when PFC's appeal against the assessments comes round to be heard.

 

All the Judge needs to consider is whether the assessments issued by HMRC in May in repsect of the image rights income gave rise to 'liabilities'. Mitchell made the point on Tuesday that, by virtue of Section 55 TMA 1970, assessments do give rise to an immediate liability to pay, even if those assessments are disputed.

 

Although I wasn't in court yesterday, I have not heard any mention of Sheldon having produced any argument against the clear wording of Section 55.

[Pancake]

question if they lose and if they are then liquidated and removed from the football league, would it then be a case of an extra team being promoted up from all the lower leagues come the end of the season? would league 1 have three automatic teams promoted and teams 4th to 7th in the playoffs?

 

No, one less will go down from each division with teh normal numbers coming up from each division. Just mentally put them bottom with -100 points when you see the NPC table. And the L1 table. and the L2 table etc....

[Gingeletiss]

Spot on up until the last sentence.

 

The Judge will not be considering whether the image rights income is taxable or not. That will be determined by Tribunal if/when PFC's appeal against the assessments comes round to be heard.

 

All the Judge needs to consider is whether the assessments issued by HMRC in May in repsect of the image rights income gave rise to 'liabilities'. Mitchell made the point on Tuesday that, by virtue of Section 55 TMA 1970, assessments do give rise to an immediate liability to pay, even if those assessments are disputed.

 

Although I wasn't in court yesterday, I have not heard any mention of Sheldon having produced any argument against the clear wording of Section 55.

 

Saved me rectifiying that point. Ashtead Saint, do you feel as I do, that this has been a pre pack administration, in all but name, and do you think that this was legal? As my limited knowledge tells me that it wasn't.

[bolo]

did we come to a conclusion over whether pompey double counted the advance parachute payment in the cva calcs?

[tony13579]

A 16m Dinasour has made its way to southsea common on news of an imminent extinction party? http://www.culture24.org.uk/art/live+%2526+public+art/art81842

 

"Experts will recognise the sauropod as one that existed only briefly during the 1970s under a misapprehension.

By mistake, bones from brachiosaurus and supersaurus were put together to create the colossal Ultrasauros."

He couldnt see the end coming either!

[altoniansaints]

just got in from trip to town, whats happened today if anything? is the news running thier live chat thing today? and have we got anyone in court to keep us posted?

 

Happy days ahead i hope!!!!

[Kingsbridge Saint]

Spot on up until the last sentence.

 

The Judge will not be considering whether the image rights income is taxable or not. That will be determined by Tribunal if/when PFC's appeal against the assessments comes round to be heard.

 

All the Judge needs to consider is whether the assessments issued by HMRC in May in repsect of the image rights income gave rise to 'liabilities'. Mitchell made the point on Tuesday that, by virtue of Section 55 TMA 1970, assessments do give rise to an immediate liability to pay, even if those assessments are disputed.

 

Although I wasn't in court yesterday, I have not heard any mention of Sheldon having produced any argument against the clear wording of Section 55.

 

As a tax accountant I would concur. I see no way that AA can properly have disallowed these liabilities in assessing whether HMRC had the required 25%. If the judge disagrees I will be very interested in his detailed reasoning, as I am sure will HMRC. Pompey are banged to rights in my opinion. Get the toaster ready.

[Ashtead Saint]

Ashtead Saint, do you feel as I do, that this has been a pre pack administration, in all but name, and do you think that this was legal?

 

Yes to the first question. Pass on the second!

[saint_stevo]

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/custompages/custompage.aspx?pageid=82690

[Winchester Exile]

Spot on up until the last sentence.

 

The Judge will not be considering whether the image rights income is taxable or not. That will be determined by Tribunal if/when PFC's appeal against the assessments comes round to be heard.

 

All the Judge needs to consider is whether the assessments issued by HMRC in May in repsect of the image rights income gave rise to 'liabilities'. Mitchell made the point on Tuesday that, by virtue of Section 55 TMA 1970, assessments do give rise to an immediate liability to pay, even if those assessments are disputed.

 

Although I wasn't in court yesterday, I have not heard any mention of Sheldon having produced any argument against the clear wording of Section 55.

 

 

Yes that's correct, by taxable I mean giving rise to a liability. I haven't been following the detail of this case so don't immediately understand the s.55 point. I understood s.55 to outline the process available to an appellent.

[ohwhenthesaints]

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/custompages/custompage.aspx?pageid=82690

 

Damn, not accepting comments yet. Looking forward to getting some more of my TCWTB comments displayed.

[OldNick]

When we were hours/days of going bust I went through many emotions, and one of the worst was knowing that many Saints in years to come would turn to become Pompey fans as they would be drawn by top football.

The boot is on the other foot now, and long term Saints could reap the benefit of fans on the periphery of Pompey help fill our coffers.

[Gingeletiss]

Pre pack administration...

 

 

Pre-Pack Administration/Liquidation

 

A commonly used product within insolvency services is pre-packaged administration. The deal is agreed pre-appointment with an Insolvency Practitioner. This allows a new company to purchase the assets back on appointment at the discretion of the debenture holders.

 

Benefits of a phoenix company

 

A phoenix company arises from the ashes of another. This accomplishes the recovery of a business that has a viable core but is unable to repay outstanding debts. It is a pragmatic arrangement that protects the interests of employees and private enterprise:

 

* Preserves jobs for Directors & employees;

* Achieves a write-off of debt (not subject to debentures or Personal Guarantees);

* Releases the business from leases or contracts that may no longer be required (as they remain with the old company to be dealt with by the Insolvency Practitioner subject to Personal Guarantees);

* Avoids disruption to customers & other stakeholders;

* Often achieves a higher return for creditors.

 

Advantages of a pre-pack

 

Pre-pack administration provides a planned & swift transition to a new phoenix company:

 

* The sale of the business assets & undertaking is agreed in advance;

* The business may apply to trade under a variation of the original name;

* Minimum disruption occurs and it is possible that some customers may be unaware of the change.

Edited 5 August, 2010 by Gingeletiss

[Frank's cousin]

I think all it woudl mean is only 2 relegated from the CCC next season as in effect Pompey would have been the 3rd, and so on trickle down? but not sure...

[Guided Missile]

All the Judge needs to consider is whether the assessments issued by HMRC in May in repsect of the image rights income gave rise to 'liabilities'. Mitchell made the point on Tuesday that, by virtue of Section 55 TMA 1970, assessments do give rise to an immediate liability to pay, even if those assessments are disputed.

 

Although I wasn't in court yesterday, I have not heard any mention of Sheldon having produced any argument against the clear wording of Section 55.

 

The section that the judge will have to concentrate his mind on, whichever way he goes, is, I believe:

 

55(2) Except as otherwise provided by the following provisions of this section, the tax charged-

(a) by the amendment or assessment, or

(b) where the appeal is against a conclusion stated by a closure notice, as a result of that

conclusion,shall be due and payable as if there had been no appeal.

I think this pretty much distils it down to the main point. Comments welcomed!

[sussexsaint]

COY section55

[Saint Keith]

Pre pack administration...

 

 

Pre-Pack Administration/Liquidation

 

A commonly used product within insolvency services is pre-packaged administration. The deal is agreed pre-appointment with an Insolvency Practitioner. This allows a new company to purchase the assets back on appointment at the discretion of the debenture holders.

 

Benefits of a phoenix company

 

A phoenix company arises from the ashes of another. This accomplishes the recovery of a business that has a viable core but is unable to repay outstanding debts. It is a pragmatic arrangement that protects the interests of employees and private enterprise:

 

* Preserves jobs for Directors & employees;

* Achieves a write-off of debt (not subject to debentures or Personal Guarantees);

* Releases the business from leases or contracts that may no longer be required (as they remain with the old company to be dealt with by the Insolvency Practitioner subject to Personal Guarantees);

* Avoids disruption to customers & other stakeholders;

* Often achieves a higher return for creditors.

 

Advantages of a pre-pack

 

Pre-pack administration provides a planned & swift transition to a new phoenix company:

 

* The sale of the business assets & undertaking is agreed in advance;

* The business may apply to trade under a variation of the original name;

* Minimum disruption occurs and it is possible that some customers may be unaware of the change.

 

i think thats the bit where they have come unstuck. achieves a higher return for Chainrai, but not HMRC, so not surprisngly, HMRC are bit miffed, and are aften them like a terrier downa rabbit hole

[OldNick]

LOL,

Do you think the Cup Semi Final 2010 scarf was put there to remind the judge just how far there cheating took them?

 

funny how it is not an official PFC product but one purchased from a street vendor Lol

[Gingeletiss]

Pre pack......

 

"Your Company Ltd" takes expert advice from insolvency practitioners or turnaround practitioners on its very poor financial position. It is likely the company has threats from landlords, HMRC for PAYE and VAT, the bank and many trade creditors. The directors are worried about wrongful trading and their personal risk. The business may have onerous contracts or too much property, too many employees and or lost market share/customers.

 

This advice should be thorough and a report prepared in writing for the board and possibly for the bank. All options such as company voluntary arrangement, trade sale, refinancing, administration, creditors voluntary liquidation and pre-pack administration must be considered as part of the SIP 16 rules (see below).

 

If there are good reasons for pre-pack this option should be very carefully considered by the board of directors. If a decision is taken to go down this path a board meeting should be held and a resolution passed stating the company's board will consider the option in greater detail.

 

It’s likely the resolution will include the appointment of advisors either insolvency practitioners (IP), turnaround practitioners or accountants to act as advisors to the board.

[Dave Benson Phillips]

COME ON YOU HMRC!!!

 

:vuvu: :vuvu:

 

:vuvu: :vuvu:

 

:vuvu: :vuvu:

 

[buctootim]

funny how it is not an official PFC product but one purchased from a street vendor Lol

 

That will have reduced PFC's tax liability a bit then.

[SO16_Saint]

whats happened people?