Gorgiesaint Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 No, they are not "revised schedules", they are the clear and unambiguos terms of the CVA as proposed by the administrator and voted in favour of by the creditors. End of... So why were you going to make a £3m contribution then? Out of the goodness of your hearts!? You didn't raise £15m in player sales so you deferred it.... to the revised schedule which starts on 1st April 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 So what? We made a 300k profit last year. We're not trading insolvently, the debt is ringfenced and being dealt with under the terms of the CVA, so we are free to spend if we want. Anyway, it doesn't say Pompey have paid for the refurb- as we rent the ground, it could be that the Uni has paid for it....... Can you provide a link to your published accounts - you have published them this year have you, like the rest of the footballing world has to.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfc123 Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 So why were you going to make a £3m contribution then? Out of the goodness of your hearts!? You didn't raise £15m in player sales so you deferred it.... to the revised schedule which starts on 1st April 2012. No idea. But we're not arguing about that. We're arguing about: "...and let's not forget they are not even servicing the CVA." Well you have to admit that we ARE servicing the CVA as agreed by the creditors..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Because we're in dispute with him, not that we haven't got the money! Keep up...... Lol...it seems you're in dispute with anyone you owe money to, from the taxman to charities, what a dispicable club you really are, and the fact that you defend these non payments, leads me to believe, that you also have the morals of an alleycat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 You need to learn to speak skate to follow his argument. "Servicing" a debt means not paying it, in skate-speak. They were servicing all of their debts for years without a problem. It was patently obvious that Chainrai had no intention of paying a penny, and gave himself 5 years to find a mug to buy the debt. I don't think the Administrator was particularly clever. The majority of creditors who are affected by the terms of the CVA voted against it, but were outvoted by those who's 20p dividend was going to be topped up by another 80p from the parachute payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaMarlin Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Now the Portsmouth News is saying £130K has been spent on refurbishing their training facilities... http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/great-matches/meagre_playing_numbers_gives_plenty_of_food_for_thought_on_blues_return_1_2832508 But it carefully avoids saying the club have spent £130,000. Chances are, King Edward VI school has spent that money for its own purposes to improve their facilities. You can bet p****y haven't contributed a penny towards the improvements. Not for the first time, the pikeys have let other people spend money and then ponced off the proceeds. But in order to attract the likes of Heskey, they'll tell them they have spent money upgrading their (their?) training ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 No, sorry you are wrong. Legally a CVA starts as follows: From http://www.insolventsolutions.com: The CVA Ends: Once the agreed period of the CVA has been completed and all the payments made, the company is no longer in a CVA state and is considered legally debt-free. Just thought it might be worth singling out this sentence from your quote. Reverse the logic for a moment here and you have highlighted your beloved skates as legally in a CVA state and you will not be legally out of administration until you have completed your shambolic CVA (based on AAs Swindon FC administration model - which very nearly killed them). Corp Ho makes me laugh because he tries hard but comes across as very dim, and normally misses the point. Reading your posts, your really ****ing hacking me off because you have basically behaved like your ****ing disgusting football club, constantly manipulating the rules, shifting the goalposts and acting with absolutley no moral conscience. OK, so you have demonstrated that your CVA is well underway(!!!). You have also highlighted that creditors (including footballers FFS) signed the CVA plan under the promise that £3mil would be raised for the first payment - which subsequently never happened (because your 'squad' was worth **** all) and the goalposts were shifted. You then demonstrate that this is what the creditors agreed to, as it states in various small prints that the goalposts can be shifted when the club cant meet the totally unrealistic promises it conned the creditors into agreeing to... after already ****ing them over 80% of the money owed. SO... what i dnot get is... WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE YOU DIRTY ****ING CHEATING SKATE BASTARD? that you are a moron who thinks this kind of behaviour is acceptable? And before you all start getting excited about 'monthly payments', payments can be made to a timetable agreed by the creditors. The CVA has well and truly started, ok? No. The £3m initial payment was deferred due to us not raising £15m in player sales- a condition that was agreed by the creditors on 17th June 2010 as part of the CVA. We also show a £300k profit during the period to April 5th 2011 so how are trading insolvently? Clearly we're not, so you're wrong there too..... Dont you owe Ben Haim £1.4m in back pay (and rising) you muppet? Dont you owe spurs £1m due to convicted fraudster Azougys cock up you muppet? Im not gonna sit here and try and recall all the other people you are currently stiching up (paid sol his mil for lifting the cup yet?) as I will be here all day... but dont try and dress up the cheating skate bastards up as legitimate, because they just ****ing arent and you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfc123 Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Can you provide a link to your published accounts - you have published them this year have you, like the rest of the footballing world has to.... Again, from the administrators report, which you obviously haven't bothered to read: Receipts and payments account Attached at Appendix 1 is a copy of our receipts and payments account for the period 26 February 2010 to 27 November 2010, from which you will note that the receipts total for the period is £27,830,711.23 and the payments total is £27,530,711.23, resulting in a balance in hand of £300,000. Happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfc123 Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Lol...it seems you're in dispute with anyone you owe money to, from the taxman to charities, what a dispicable club you really are, and the fact that you defend these non payments, leads me to believe, that you also have the morals of an alleycat. Yep, when the facts get in the way just resort to good old abuse eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Again, from the administrators report, which you obviously haven't bothered to read: Receipts and payments account Attached at Appendix 1 is a copy of our receipts and payments account for the period 26 February 2010 to 27 November 2010, from which you will note that the receipts total for the period is £27,830,711.23 and the payments total is £27,530,711.23, resulting in a balance in hand of £300,000. Happy? Oh I see! You're quoting figures from November 2010 and stating that you are trading solvently and there is no financial worry at Fratton dump! Forgive me for thinking that this measly £300k 'profit' [sic] would have been well and truly eaten up if you'd have paid TBH since December! I think I'll wait for this years accounts and forensic report before I start trumpeting the solvency of PFC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Yep, when the facts get in the way just resort to good old abuse eh? Jeez, are you saying that you owe no-body nothing, but are in fact, in profit? are you saying that your disgusting club has never disputed any form of payment, like say....the taxman. I don't really care how you dress it up ( but sir, we are a new club now, that was the previous owners), 3 times in administration, twice in ten years. All the owners in the last five years, have ties with each other, as do this latest lot, but all is now ok in your eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 I shall simply make a comparison to personal finances. When you use a small overdraft each month that gets repaid by your salary going in, that's manageable debt. When your pay goes in and you're still overdrawn, that's not manageable. You have to reduce your outgoings, buy Tesco Value Baked Beans and knock Sky on the head. You don't go out and sign up for a Gym Membership at Chewton Glen...again...and again...and again.... Saints did one thing, Poopey did the other. When we were in the sh1t, we made changes, whilst the blue oh-so-few continue to splash money on the never never. Two words: Nut. Shell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint si Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Again, from the administrators report, which you obviously haven't bothered to read: Receipts and payments account Attached at Appendix 1 is a copy of our receipts and payments account for the period 26 February 2010 to 27 November 2010, from which you will note that the receipts total for the period is £27,830,711.23 and the payments total is £27,530,711.23, resulting in a balance in hand of £300,000. Happy? And the 27.8m receipts includes one offs of £7.1m contribution to cost of admin, and £200k contribution to legal fees, not to mention 7.2m of player sales. Hardly overwhelming evidence of long term book balancing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 If a skate wants to come onto a Saints board and lie to the members, I guess he should expect a certain amount of abuse. These are the actual figures, as published by UHY: Period 26 Feb 10 to 24 Oct 10 Income £22,798,396 Expenses £23,166,057 Trading loss £ 367,662 Period 26 Feb 10 to 24 Feb 11 Income £28,810,583.61 Expenses £28,810,583.61 Cash balance £ 0.00 I think the dates are: Feb 10 - into administration Oct 10 - assets "sold" to Chainrai Feb 11 - liquidated You should consider a career in insolvency practice, pfc123 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Aviva were FORCED to write off 16mil because somebody went to see a Bank Manager the day before he reduced our overdraft facility. We had the income to pay the next years due amount, but oh no, our bank Manager had a meeting and within days started a new job. Strangely at the same Administrator. yeah we were crook compared to the few.... Simply because that someone who had No role in the club when he met our Bank Manager made some promises... Oh and guess what - he got screwed by ML as well when he saved us. ONE day the man with the emails and the copy of the Appointments book will decide to make the facts known, until then he has a family to feed and damned good luck tyo him, but trust me there are some scared "influencers" out there trying to make sure that day never happens. 4 grand that's what we got screwed over. 4 fecking grand Would you like Frys with that sir? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 the administrator was a very clever operator Or....the creditors weren't very bright....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 The £3m initial payment was deferred due to us not raising £15m in player sales- a condition that was agreed by the creditors on 17th June 2010 as part of the CVA. Ah....there's my answer.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfc123 Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 From http://www.insolventsolutions.com: Just thought it might be worth singling out this sentence from your quote. Reverse the logic for a moment here and you have highlighted your beloved skates as legally in a CVA state and you will not be legally out of administration until you have completed your shambolic CVA (based on AAs Swindon FC administration model - which very nearly killed them). No- we exited administration on 23rd October last year. Corp Ho makes me laugh because he tries hard but comes across as very dim, and normally misses the point. Reading your posts, your really ****ing hacking me off because you have basically behaved like your ****ing disgusting football club, constantly manipulating the rules, shifting the goalposts and acting with absolutley no moral conscience. OK, so you have demonstrated that your CVA is well underway(!!!). You have also highlighted that creditors (including footballers FFS) signed the CVA plan under the promise that £3mil would be raised for the first payment - which subsequently never happened (because your 'squad' was worth **** all) and the goalposts were shifted. You then demonstrate that this is what the creditors agreed to, as it states in various small prints that the goalposts can be shifted when the club cant meet the totally unrealistic promises it conned the creditors into agreeing to... after already ****ing them over 80% of the money owed. SO... what i dnot get is... WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE YOU DIRTY ****ING CHEATING SKATE BASTARD? that you are a moron who thinks this kind of behaviour is acceptable? Do you think I'm proud to see my club dragged through the mud through it's previous owners failing? Of course I'm not- it's been a nightmare, but the problem you seem to have is us having a LEGAL right to enter into a CVA under the Insolvency Act of 1986. If you don't like the act why aren't you vigourously lobbying your MP to have it repealed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 No- we exited administration on 23rd October last year. Not really. You sold the assets (and the liabilities which include the obligation to pay the CVA) to Chainrai in October last year. You exited administration when the Company was liquidated in February this year. Do you think I'm proud to see my club dragged through the mud through it's previous owners failing? Of course I'm not- it's been a nightmare, but the problem you seem to have is us having a LEGAL right to enter into a CVA under the Insolvency Act of 1986. If you don't like the act why aren't you vigourously lobbying your MP to have it repealed? I think what people don't like is that your administrator deliberately included financial models clearly showing payment in instalments every year, which he had no intention of making. He even sent them cash flow predictions showing those payments. And it was he himself who put the estimated proceeds from player sales into those financial models. It was, at best, intended to mislead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Be fair, anyone who has had Peter Storrie as the chief executive of their club is bound to have a very different view of the figures to everyone else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
100%Red&White Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Someone really should check and make sure the skate has paid his whole £5 to be a Full Member. It's not like they've got a great track record or anything. £5 to be on your rivals board. Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Be fair, anyone who has had Peter Storrie as the chief executive of their club is bound to have a very different view of the figures to everyone else And Comical Andy. Remeber how he magically found £millions of debt stuffed down Storrie's sofa when it came to marginalising HMRC's percentage of the vote on the CVA itself..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 (edited) So, "...and let's not forget they are not even servicing the CVA." is totally wrong. The terms of the CVA clearly state that IF £15m isn't raised in player sales, the £3m payment is not made and the payment structure will be as above and will finish on 17 June 2015. Therefore, the first payment is due on 1st April 2012..... Stop digging pfc. To say you are not servicing the CVA yet, is an entirely accurate statement. You can correct it on April 1st 2012 (Or not as the case may be) What I will acknowledge, is that you were never going to raise 15 million in player sales, so by default the date was always going to be pushed back a year. How strange that a professional accountant and administrator should be so wide of the mark with his calculations and valuations, when he could have been easily corrected by 99.99999% of the footballing world. It's almost as if it was deliberate, but that would be underhand and obvioulsy not the case. I hope today has perhaps filled out some gaps, as to why this thread is still ongoing and some of the reasons for our vitriol. Edited 5 July, 2011 by Gemmel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Because we're in dispute with him, not that we haven't got the money! Keep up...... Although we haven't seen details of the alleged dispute, unless you sacked him or suspended him without pay, it's hard to see how you can be in dispute. The administrator himself, in his published report, confirmed that TBH was loaned out to West Ham until 6 January 2011 to assist with cash flow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 So, financial bods out there, what would the repercussion be, if any, if the CVA was not cleared by 17 July 2015? Does the conditions in the CVA allow AA to change the percent returned as well as the dates it should be returned by? If not what happens if its not paid up by then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Again, from the administrators report, which you obviously haven't bothered to read: Receipts and payments account Attached at Appendix 1 is a copy of our receipts and payments account for the period 26 February 2010 to 27 November 2010, from which you will note that the receipts total for the period is £27,830,711.23 and the payments total is £27,530,711.23, resulting in a balance in hand of £300,000. Happy? And all those receipts were from operations were they or do they include Chanrai's bail outs? If you seriously think the club is profitable you are thicker than I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 So, financial bods out there, what would the repercussion be, if any, if the CVA was not cleared by 17 July 2015? Does the conditions in the CVA allow AA to change the percent returned as well as the dates it should be returned by? If not what happens if its not paid up by then? And that's the bit we don't know pedg. I assume (This is guess work) that if they fail to make payments towards the CVA, then the CVA is invalid and they go back to court at that point, or the new company is liable for the CVA, which if it can't meet, means newco is trading insolvently and they start winding up petitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Again, from the administrators report, which you obviously haven't bothered to read: Receipts and payments account Attached at Appendix 1 is a copy of our receipts and payments account for the period 26 February 2010 to 27 November 2010, from which you will note that the receipts total for the period is £27,830,711.23 and the payments total is £27,530,711.23, resulting in a balance in hand of £300,000. Happy? Err No. I can't be bothered to trawl back through it all, but included in those figures are the administrators and solicitors fees which are listed, but were not paid as there wasnt enough money. They were going to be paid in 2011 from the boteng installments, to cover your shortfall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 (edited) I'm not a financial bod in any way, but it seems to me that it's got b*gger all to do with AA any more. His involvement is over. He "sold" the obligation to pay the CVA within 5 years to Chainrai, who then sold it on to CSI Pompey. I don't think it's strictly a CVA any more, its a payment due as part of the sale agreement of the assets to Chainrai. If it isn't honoured, I doubt HMRC, among others, will hesitate in winding them up properly this time. But that's not until 2015. I don't personally see any interim installment payments until then. Edit after a bit more thought - there obviously still is a CVA in place until it's fully paid up. But it's got nothing to do with the club, it "belongs" to the old Company, Portsmouth City Football Club Ltd (in liquidation), and must be paid by the liquidators of that Company (those guys from Baker Tilley, not AA & his cronies) to the creditors. The Deed of Sale of the assets of the club by AA to Chainrai must provide that the new owners must pay the liquidators around £16.5m by not later than some time in 2015, and the liquidators will pay it to the creditors. If the owners don't pay, I'm sure the liquidators will apply to wind them up. I wouldn't have been so sure if AA had got his way and been appointed as liquidator. That's a huge millstone, and the longer they leave it before they start paying, the more it will hurt them. If they leave it until the last minute, that's pretty much a whole season's income for a championship club. Edited 5 July, 2011 by hutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 And that's the bit we don't know pedg. I assume (This is guess work) that if they fail to make payments towards the CVA, then the CVA is invalid and they go back to court at that point, or the new company is liable for the CVA, which if it can't meet, means newco is trading insolvently and they start winding up petitions. Or the creditors will kick up a fuss only to be pointed to some clever wording in the CVA that states they will get nothing if they don't have enough money, whilst technically adhering to the CVA That is the million dollar question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 The CVA Begins: From this point, you and your company are required to make the agreed monthly payments as detailed in the CVA proposal. With the help of our professional insolvency experts, the CVA will be structured in a way to give your company the best chance at making these payments and going forward, debt-free. These payments must be made in order to prevent any further legal action being taken against the company and failure to make payments usually leads to liquidation, although changes and reductions can be made at a later date if necessary. The CVA Ends: Once the agreed period of the CVA has been completed and all the payments made, the company is no longer in a CVA state and is considered legally debt-free. You do realise that the current CVA is the third version, because of payment changes and delays. So how do you feel that money can be spent on players, and fairly decent ones at that (Kitson, Lawrence) in favour of servicing the CVA? What with the financial fair play to come in the championship probably next season, the CVA to be serviced and the loss of the parachute payments in two years time, the club is storing up a heap load of trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 (edited) No, they are not "revised schedules", they are the clear and unambiguos terms of the CVA as proposed by the administrator and voted in favour of by the creditors. End of... Just for completeness, they are indeed "revised schedules". Those payment dates and amounts do not form any part of the CVA voted in in June 2010. What the CVA says, in essence, is that 4 years and 3 months after the sale of the assets by the administrator, the buyer must have paid the creditors whatever part of 20p less expenses they haven't already received. Edited 5 July, 2011 by hutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Well yes it does clarify things nicely. Yep, an interesting read: D) CVA PROGRESS TO DATE As you are aware the Joint Administrators’ CVA proposal detailed that, as a result of a projected £15,000,000 in player sales, a contribution of £3,000,000 would be received into the CVA. Below is a summary of the CVA proposals agreed by creditors on 17 June 2010 for ease of reference: However, it then goes on to say..... Accordingly, if £3 million is paid during the first nine months of the CVA then Newco will be obliged to pay the balance of £13.5 million over the remaining four year and three month period.**This translates to the Club having to pay approximately £3.375 million per year to fulfil these proposals.**The £13.5 million outstanding balance of the consideration, or the adjusted balance which takes into account a reduction in the creditor claims, will be engrossed within a sales and purchase agreement between the Newco and the Club. Unfortunately, the player sales did not reach the projected value and therefore the £3,000,000 contribution was not received. The payments which will now be made by PFCR into the liquidation are set out below: Contribution due - Due on 15% of 20% of the unsecured creditors’ claims agreed - In equal installments on 1 April 2012 and 15 August 2012 25% of 20% of the unsecured creditors’ claims agreed - In equal installments on 1 April 2013 and 1 September 2013 30% of 20% of the unsecured creditors’ - claims agreed - 1 April 2014 The balancing figure required in order to comply fully with the CVA proposal document approved by creditors on 6 May 2010 - By 17 June 2015' So, "...and let's not forget they are not even servicing the CVA." is totally wrong. The terms of the CVA clearly state that IF £15m isn't raised in player sales, the £3m payment is not made and the payment structure will be as above and will finish on 17 June 2015. Therefore, the first payment is due on 1st April 2012..... You really do have a funny way of seeing things. Yes, the first payment is due on 1st April 2012, so the CVA hasn't even begun to be serviced yet. If you take out a loan and the first payment is due a month later, you haven't effectively began paying off the loan until that first payment has been made, right? And just as a matter of interest, what exactly are your thoughts on all this? That your club hasn't even began to service the CVA to pay back the 20p in the £ over 4 years to its creditors and yet money is somehow found to buy in players at prices and wage levels that would be deemed to be beyond other clubs operating at more prudent financial levels. Do you ever get a feeling of deja vu? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfc123 Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 And just as a matter of interest, what exactly are your thoughts on all this? Honestly? It's too easy for companies to rack up unsustainable debt and still have a good chance of surviving it, albeit in a different form. We would have been better off ploughing money into a new FP on the land behind the Fratton end. We don't know much about the new owners, they could be genuine businessmen, they could be the gangsters the conspiracy theorists are sure they are. The future? Who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Honestly? It's too easy for companies to rack up unsustainable debt and still have a good chance of surviving it, albeit in a different form. We would have been better off ploughing money into a new FP on the land behind the Fratton end. We don't know much about the new owners, they could be genuine businessmen, they could be the gangsters the conspiracy theorists are sure they are. The future? Who knows? Christ, a pig just flew past my window :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mack rill Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Honestly? It's too easy for companies to rack up unsustainable debt and still have a good chance of surviving it, albeit in a different form. We would have been better off ploughing money into a new FP on the land behind the Fratton end. We don't know much about the new owners, they could be genuine businessmen, they could be the gangsters the conspiracy theorists are sure they are. The future? Who knows? Or they could be on the feckin dole, Well lets face it if you can be invisible, a myth, none existent, Not have a pot to p*ss in, and own one. Why not on the chat, PFC 123 would love to take you fishin, would catch a boat load Lolz! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Or they could be on the feckin dole, Well lets face it if you can be invisible, a myth, none existent, Not have a pot to p*ss in, and own one. Why not on the chat, PFC 123 would love to take you fishin, would catch a boat load Lolz! And then open a brothel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 We had enough tyre kickers before ML came in. I read recently that all PL clubs have been brought up to date with HMRC and FL clubs are being homed in so I don't think poopey will ever be allowed to default or get time to pay in future, will be interesting to see what happens if they do. Does anyone know how their ST sales are, will they get better home attendances with their new owners seemingly spending a few mill on players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfc123 Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 We had enough tyre kickers before ML came in. I read recently that all PL clubs have been brought up to date with HMRC and FL clubs are being homed in so I don't think poopey will ever be allowed to default or get time to pay in future, will be interesting to see what happens if they do. Does anyone know how their ST sales are, will they get better home attendances with their new owners seemingly spending a few mill on players? Around 9k at the last count. Not great, and frustrating. If we had a new ground we'd pick up another 10k floaters, and yes, I know, that's a lot of turds arf, arf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Contribution due - Due on 15% of 20% of the unsecured creditors’ claims agreed - In equal installments on 1 April 2012 and 15 August 2012 25% of 20% of the unsecured creditors’ claims agreed - In equal installments on 1 April 2013 and 1 September 2013 30% of 20% of the unsecured creditors’ - claims agreed - 1 April 2014 The balancing figure required in order to comply fully with the CVA proposal document approved by creditors on 6 May 2010 - By 17 June 2015' So, "...and let's not forget they are not even servicing the CVA." is totally wrong. The terms of the CVA clearly state that IF £15m isn't raised in player sales, the £3m payment is not made and the payment structure will be as above and will finish on 17 June 2015. Therefore, the first payment is due on 1st April 2012..... So If my understanding is correct, they owe £16.5M (£3M missed + £13.5M that was going to be paid over 4 years originally). Therefore payments to be made are : 1 April 2012 = £1,237,500 15 August 2012 = £1,237,500 1 April 2013 = £2,062,500 September 2013 = £2,062,500 1 April 2014 = £4,950,000 By 17 June 2015 = £4,950,00 When all these payments have been made the club will then exit administration, not before and not until, if these payment are missed any of the creditors could legally apply to the court that granted the CVA to put the club into liquidation. So until all payments are made the club is still in danger of going under, and unless our dodgy Russians have lots of money to put in Player sales or promotion is the only way to service these payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 You need to learn to speak skate to follow his argument. "Servicing" a debt means not paying it, in skate-speak. They were servicing all of their debts for years without a problem. It was patently obvious that Chainrai had no intention of paying a penny, and gave himself 5 years to find a mug to buy the debt. I don't think the Administrator was particularly clever. The majority of creditors who are affected by the terms of the CVA voted against it, but were outvoted by those who's 20p dividend was going to be topped up by another 80p from the parachute payments. Correct, and an absolute bloody disgrace. Not to mention that if the unsecured creditor amounts had been summed properly (for example, with Child Maimer Jr. probably being at a much lower percentage), HMRC would probably have been well above the 25% level to block the CVA. That's what their QC should have focused on in court with Injustice Mann. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Now the Portsmouth News is saying £130K has been spent on refurbishing their training facilities... http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/great-matches/meagre_playing_numbers_gives_plenty_of_food_for_thought_on_blues_return_1_2832508 Lol, they still don't get it, do they? pompeysteve Tuesday, July 5, 2011 at 10:50 AM Hughes is a disloyal donkey, and the sooner he goes, the better. Brown on the other hand is a good steady player, but has shown that he is a greedy money grabber, and must also be shot of. You agreed to pay them the money you fe(king morons.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 And that's the bit we don't know pedg. I assume (This is guess work) that if they fail to make payments towards the CVA, then the CVA is invalid and they go back to court at that point, or the new company is liable for the CVA, which if it can't meet, means newco is trading insolvently and they start winding up petitions. I think the bottom line is, as soon as the last parachute payment has been divvied up amongst the various dodgy ex and current owners, Cheats FC are truly toast. It's like a massive train wreck going on in slow motion. Plenty of life in this thread yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 You agreed to pay them the money you fe(king morons.... But now they've got new owners surely they have plenty of money to pay what they agreed, what with them running at a profit and all that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigShadow Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Now the Portsmouth News is saying £130K has been spent on refurbishing their training facilities... http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/great-matches/meagre_playing_numbers_gives_plenty_of_food_for_thought_on_blues_return_1_2832508 Yes....but the age of financial responsibility has dawned......or in other words being a cheapSKATE...http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Fratton-Gets-Arty-2301.aspx Can't afford to get the stadium redecorated? ...make it a community project and get it done for free by 8 - 12 year olds. I particularly liked this bit... "They were so excited about being able to come to Fratton Park when it was empty, and they loved sitting in the middle of one of the stands to sketch – I was surprised by how long they concentrated." How nice of PFC to provide these kids with an authentic matchday experience in return for their paintings. Still mustn't grumble...nice to see the DFCSBs not splashing the cash for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporate Ho Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Corpy, It would hard to imagine how your credibility could fall any lower on here than it already has, but can I point you in the direction of the latest report (Published after chinny re took the club back) from the administrators, as Chinny is listed as a secured creditor as is gaydamak. The total amount of secured money is 29 million. We know from the little spat that lampitt had when he was going to close the club down, that his amount is 5 million..... I'm not very good at maths, so what does that leave chinnny?....... goodness me that is some interest rate on his 17million. He is a secured creditor and you are not signing riquelme Sorry Gummy, things have moved on since Chainrai's pet poodle AA manipulated the system to his liking. You're right that when the CVA was agreed Chainrai received the club for nothing AND was still secured against his £17m loan. I commented at the time that it was a disgrace he was allowed to get both. Apparently the FL agreed with my thinking. There was a lot of petitioning by a number of Pompey fans groups and seeing as the FL were well aware of Chainrai's intentions all along they thankfully managed to stop it. You may remember a lot of noise going on around the granting of the golden share to PFC. What the FL said was that Chinny could either get the club or retain his secured status but not both - and they wouldn't grant the golden share unless he agreed. He made a lot of noise about folding the club but the FL had him over a barrel. Without the golden share he wouldn't get any cash. So he agreed. If you've been masquerading on the Main Board as someone else, why is it you've been signing in on your Corp Ho username as seen by several on here regularly, surely you wouldn't have needed to if you had another Account? If I want to view this forum I don't need to sign in. BUT, if I want to look at the main board I do have to. However, if I signed on from the laptop I use when posting as the ITK Saints fan whose posts have been well received (PMSL) the mods would have spotted that they had a shared ISP address and I'd have been rumbled. I logged in as CH so I could see the posts on the main board about what was happening and any reactions to my own posts on there. Simple really I managed to find a trail from Russia into the Baltics that led my "contacts" at great risk to themselves to find the secret mock-up of Poopey's new owner's new Arena plans. This undercover mission called for enormous strength and endurance Are these the same ITK contacts who told you the CSI deal to buy Pompey was off and they were going back to buy Bournemouth instead? What was it you had been "led to believe" thats everal meetings had taken place between them and a deal was close" wasn't it? Or words to that effect. LOL can anyone be bothered to read this drivel? Most of the board apparently!! Now, tear yourselves away from your infatuation and obsession with Pompey's CVA for a moment if you can (a CVA that, including the deferred payments, has been agreed by the creditors involved after all) and answer me a couple of questions: 1. If CSI wanted a football club to launder money through why buy Pompey, a club with more focus on it's financial dealings from the football authorities than any other club in the country? Does that sound like the kind of option a gang of what you're calling international criminals would do? Why wouldn't Antonov do it through one of the banks he owns or through one of the many other companies he and CSI own instead which could be done much more easily with much less focus? 2. If CSI have no money (another theory that's been levelled on here) how do they manage to own and operate such a diverse range of high profile companies? 3. What are the "absurd wages" Jack Frost confidently states we've agreed to pay David Norris? Come on Jack, explain how you got this ITK info 4. Do you understand the concept of the "transfer gossip" posts I used to make yet and that it wasn't a list of players I was boasting that Pompey were about to sign but just a list of "targets" from various websites and papers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 I want to know how your contact at the club, whom you see socially every two weeks or so, is getting on? We miss his accurate reading of events, especially the reassurances that Sky money was all that was required and everything was fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 I fear for Corp, he's clearly a man on the edge. Unemployment can do that to a fragile soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 If I want to view this forum I don't need to sign in. BUT, if I want to look at the main board I do have to. However, if I signed on from the laptop I use when posting as the ITK Saints fan whose posts have been well received (PMSL) the mods would have spotted that they had a shared ISP address and I'd have been rumbled. I logged in as CH so I could see the posts on the main board about what was happening and any reactions to my own posts on there. Simple really So we are not only to believe that you have attracted our undevided attention on this thread, but also most of the main board are eating out of your hand as you spoon feed them false snippets? You really are a very sad and deluded individual. You have some compatriots who post here - I might suggest that you take a leaf from their book if you really want to be taken for anything other than a clown and a joke. I note with some interest that your user name is an anagram of 'Cheat or Poor' - somehow both seem quite apt, to both you and your club. I'm off back to the main board to check out some more of your brilliant ITK wind up posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 5 July, 2011 Share Posted 5 July, 2011 Corp's back for the latest round of d1ck measuring! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts