Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga

Fitzhugh Fella

By Fitzhugh Fella,
in Golden Posts

 Share

Recommended Posts

Gingeletiss

Gingeletiss

Posted
Posted

Pre pack administration...........

 

Following on from this pre pack insolvency procedure the administrator is obliged by law to file a report to the Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) on the conduct of company directors and disclose any misconduct on their part. The reason for the company's failure must also be reported by the administrator.

 

 

I trust AA has not in fact, been complicit in a prepack deal, without approval of the court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sussexsaint

sussexsaint

Posted
Posted

Oh this moment is lovely I shall treasure this feeling right now.

 

Its like Christmas morn as a child with a big box to unwrap

 

At the moment anything is possible it could be something awesome or it could be something C*ap, but for now either is possible

 

 

Another analogy would be Schrodingers Carp

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Winchester Exile

Winchester Exile

Posted
Posted
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!

 

OK Right. I'm no expert here but I do know that s.55 doesn't give HMRC carte blanche to make any assessment (or amendment) they please and for that to be "due and payable". It has to be fairly and reasonably assessed and HMRC have to give consideration to all the circumstances at the time of the assessment or amendment. For me therefore, it all rests on whether the image rights are fairly and reasonably assessed with consideration of all the circumstances at the time of the assessment or amendment. I only have limited knowledge in this area - which could be dangerous!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gingeletiss

Gingeletiss

Posted
Posted
OK Right. I'm no expert here but I do know that s.55 doesn't give HMRC carte blanche to make any assessment (or amendment) they please and for that to be "due and payable". It has to be fairly and reasonably assessed and HMRC have to give consideration to all the circumstances at the time of the assessment or amendment. For me therefore, it all rests on whether the image rights are fairly and reasonably assessed with consideration of all the circumstances at the time of the assessment or amendment. I only have limited knowledge in this area - which could be dangerous!

 

It does when AA admitted it as part of the CVA, when the proposal was made, then omitted it, when the vote was taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Victor

Victor

Posted
Posted
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.

 

Tax avoidance is NOT "fine". It may be legal, but it is cheating and it is immoral. Tax is simply taking back a little of what is held by a few of the rich but which has been earned by the efforts of the workforce and the values created by the needs and desires of society for the benefit of those workers and that society.

 

The national debt is roughly equivalent to the estimated value of tax "avoidance" (a euphemism, incidentally) but thousands will be losing their jobs because the government would rather spend their resources chasing a maximum of £3m benefit fraud because it is more politically expedient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted
OK Right. I'm no expert here but I do know that s.55 doesn't give HMRC carte blanche to make any assessment (or amendment) they please and for that to be "due and payable". It has to be fairly and reasonably assessed and HMRC have to give consideration to all the circumstances at the time of the assessment or amendment. For me therefore, it all rests on whether the image rights are fairly and reasonably assessed with consideration of all the circumstances at the time of the assessment or amendment. I only have limited knowledge in this area - which could be dangerous!

 

I think the judge needs to decide if HMRC whacked the bill up to achieve the 25% or if aa did the same to make sure HMRC didnt reach 25%. Its difficult to imagine both happening and its even more difficult to imagine HMRC doing it deliberatly. What trust would the system have in them if they were to act in that way?

 

My guess is HMRC have played by the book as it always has too. Its open to get things wrong but any wrong doings will or would be made in an honest way Pompey have proved time and time again that they are willing to flick the v's at whats right so where is the trust that they have acted in the right way this time?

 

Not long to wait to find out though. still timme for me to bugger off home and set my self up for some coffee and toast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Barry the Badger

Barry the Badger

Posted
Posted

My guess is HMRC have played by the book as it always has too. Its open to get things wrong but any wrong doings will or would be made in an honest way Pompey have proved time and time again that they are willing to flick the v's at whats right so where is the trust that they have acted in the right way this time?

.

 

I love the way that we are all extolling the virtues of Her Majestys Revenue and Customs, like they in some way represent all that is good and pure in the world :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted
So anyone want to make a prediction then? I reckon the judge will ask amendments to be made to the CVA which COULD see HMRC's claim above the 25% threshold.

 

 

I think the judge will amend the CVA and ask for a proper SofA followed by a proper count of votes that are actually alloud to vote.

 

This could take a while so aa and CHainrai will have a hissy fit and pull the plug claiming its all the taxmans fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Channon's Sideburns

Channon's Sideburns

Posted
Posted

Well Hypo, I conclude this.

 

It was Storyteller in the Boardroom with a calculator. Has to be. There's no-one intelligent enough to be a Professor in Portsmouth, and Miss Scarlett's working on the streets.

There's no lead piping, as they've sold that at the scrappy. The candlesticks have been kept, just in case the leccy's turned off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
Tax avoidance is NOT "fine". It may be legal, but it is cheating and it is immoral. Tax is simply taking back a little of what is held by a few of the rich but which has been earned by the efforts of the workforce and the values created by the needs and desires of society for the benefit of those workers and that society.

 

The national debt is roughly equivalent to the estimated value of tax "avoidance" (a euphemism, incidentally) but thousands will be losing their jobs because the government would rather spend their resources chasing a maximum of £3m benefit fraud because it is more politically expedient.

 

How quaint. Might make sense if we were all mill-owners.

 

(Legal) tax avoidance is fine. I put in far more than I get out and if I could pay less I would. I am certainly not "rich". And to pre-empt you labelling me a Thatherite or, "me, me, me" or some other nonsense... I am not at all. I am quite generous but I am getting a pretty raw deal from the government IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
I think the judge will amend the CVA and ask for a proper SofA followed by a proper count of votes that are actually alloud to vote.

 

This could take a while so aa and CHainrai will have a hissy fit and pull the plug claiming its all the taxmans fault.

 

Nah. I don't think there is any chance of pulling the plug whilst they have potentially 20 odd million from parachute payments and the players to sell. That was justa dirty dirty bluff to persuade the judge. CHEATS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted
I love the way that we are all extolling the virtues of Her Majestys Revenue and Customs, like they in some way represent all that is good and pure in the world :-)

 

 

LOL I did read it as I typed thinking that HMRC are not all rosey as the picture I seem to be painting. But in a case as high profile as this surly its in there best interest to play everything above board as if its proved at the inevitable appeal that they have fiddled the books to achieve a level in which they can screw someone over then the whole system is in trouble.

 

If they get something wrong and it comes out in any appeal which would be the normal and correct process then corrections would be made and people would move on.

 

The tax man is far from everyones friend but as much as most of us dislike paying our taxes at least we are pretty sure the tax man is only trying to get what the law says he is due. How would we feel if he went for more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Keith

Saint Keith

Posted
Posted
Best case scenario for them is years of struggle - they can hardly large it up about that.

 

agreed. its like a game of chess. pompey only have their King left, and the HMRC have got most of their pieces. they can run away each time they are checked, but eventually they will be cornered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ohio Saint

Ohio Saint

Posted
Posted
i do hope we are not setting ourselves up for a fall, there are a few who are waiting to come on and give it large i suspect.

 

Even if they get off easy they still have the moral low ground. Did I say low ground? They will still have the moral cess pit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
GuardianJamieJ #pompey court 52 is packed for Portsmouth's fate to be decided. Consensus among the shrewdys is they'll escape.

4 minutes ago via twitter

 

you know how to p### on our bonfire.

I think in our heart of hearts we all know Pompey will get away with it.

Not that it is the correct result but, we will have to hope that there are other skeletons and ways they will get justice for their wrongdoing

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suewhistle

suewhistle

Posted
Posted

Well, back to Tuesday and my trip to London. As I mentioned earlier I was up in the smoke to visit my nephew and gf and instead of visiting the British Museum (I knew it would still be there the day after..) I went to the courts.. Well, bit of a shame as I didn't get in: I'm sure the next Pompey case they'll have in one of the big show courts, but for the first time in many seasons a Pompey performance was sold out. Still, I hung around for a chat with the Pompey fans in the lounge for the entertainment. There was a mixture of Mero types and News contributor types outside, a former Pompey employee who'd been shafted the previous time went into admin. I kept quiet for a bit about being a Saints fan but ultimately it came out.:-) The first couple I spoke to we had a bit of banter, but they were the types to say Johnstone's Paints have 40,000 employees which is why there were so many at Wembley. One said that there were a lot of Southampton supporters in the gallery; they looked like Chanrai's family/associates "and we don't have any of those in Portsmouth..."

 

Somebody came out of the court to pass on that HMRC's barrister was not performing particularly well, but I didn't manage to take notes. Then just before midday who should grease into the lounge but AA himself who then proceeded to chat with the Pompey fans whilst I kept quiet and tried not to snig ger. I could have interrupted a number of times but didn't think it worthwhile, but a sensible Portsmouth lass whispered to me "what do you think of him?". I scribbled on my pad 'DODGY', and she agreed "he's very over-confident, isn't he". She could recognise a bull-****ter when she saw one. According to AA Gaydamak wants to get as much money out as possible, and commented that his initial revenue stream into the country had been dubious (I didn't scribble the exact words). He commented that the wage bill was £56m, now down to £14m and it needed to go down further. Steve Cotterill was calling the shots on players [really?] and they'd had an offer of £1.5 from the Baggies for Mark W.

 

Other scribbles from my notes 'Pompey Fan' "Do you think it's a good investment" [me snorting...]. AA: "football isn't a good investment" [First time I agreed with him!]. He apparently supports Arsenal. He did say they should have built a new stadium which would have improved crowds, they had 1200 unsold tickets for the cup semi.

 

Most of my other notes I can't read except these. re HMRC: "It's beeen a shambles from their POV. They keep moving the goalposts..." "We're pretty confident"..

 

When they adjourned I wandered off for a liquid lunch. I chatted with the BBC cameraman (Villa) on the way out and told him that although AA had arrived he hadn't entered court - a bit surprised by that. I popped in briefly after lunch and only listened briefly at the door before I was told to go away (still a full house). Couldn't hear very well but heard a barrister talking about the assessment for tax on image rights is protected as a liability but that this would be appealed? The FCR was argued at some length and he stated that they were not asking for a ruling but to point out that it created a prejudicial environment. The judge asked why it hadn't been raised before.

 

Oh yes, AA mentioned that the HMRC had wanted to give a long preamble at the start of proceedings to outline events since 2005 but the judge hadn't allowed it, not sure of the significance of that.

 

Not too much meat in my post, I'm afraid, but thought you'd like a little atmosphere..

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