eurosaint Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/538516585?-11209 Another one who dosent want to buy them, Shame, but it does leave the way clear for the young lad from up north whose dad is bankrupt ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/538516585?-11209 Another one who dosent want to buy them, I don't think they should give up on looking to Italy for investment. May be they could find a Sicilian who would look over them like a godfather figure. Do the League rules say anything about if you can leave a horses head in the other teams dressing room? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 I see things differently. I think the only good result HMRC actually got last time round was successfully blocking AA's appointment as liquidator of "Oldco", which is now in liquidation. The liquidators of Oldco are Baker Tilley. The CVA is an Oldco problem, it's got nothing to do with "Newco", and AA is now completely out of the picture so far as the CVA is concerned. So paying the creditors under the CVA is Baker Tilley's responsibility, not the club's or AA's. In order to make those payments Baker Tilley have to collect money from Newco over the next 3 years, in the amounts and dates helpfully highlighted in an earlier post by Gruffalo, taken from UHY's Completion Report (the same one where AA's further involvement in the CVA was terminated). Those scheduled payments to Baker Tilley are (or should be) irrevocably included in the original Deed of Sale of the club from Oldco to Newco, and are the responsibility of the owners of Newco (Chainrai when he bought Newco from the Administrator, and then CSI when they bought Newco from Chainrai). If they are not then I would say the terms of the CVA have already been breached. So the real question is what will Baker Tilley do if they don't receive the first scheduled payment from Newco (50% of 15% of 20% of £87m if my sums are correct) in April next year? As I see it only Baker Tilley can change the dates or amounts of payments, and probably only with the consent of the majority of the creditors. Who was it that chose Baker Tilley as liquidators? Good work Hutch. HMRC appointed Baker Tilly as liquidators and this was ratified in court. IIRC they also had them commision an alternative CVA draft to submit to the creditors which showed how creditors would get 50% - they suggested Gadymack et al were grossly inflating the debt positions to manipulate insovency proceedings... the 50% CVA planned for league one and playing the kids which wouldnt sit well with the cheats... of course we know this is patently true however AA and the gang were very good at blackmailing, guilting and bullying the creditors to sign to get sweet FA. If as you say AAs involvement has been terminated then I am very happy as this means AA cant 'do a Swindon' and stitch the creditors and spend there money on dave Kitsons et al. Baker Tilly/HMRC will ensure the cash materialises come spring 2012... and pompey/chinny/mafia will have to stump up them missing millions... just at the end of the season before summer strengthening! Link just tweeted by Matt Slater from the BBC a few moments ago... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-15/tale-of-missing-1-6-billion-a-bankrupt-baltic-bank-and-soccer.html :lol: You cheating skate B*stards...they're coming for you.... interesting that Bloombery linked this article in the main article: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/vladimir-antonov-withdraws-from-investbank-118100444.html step forward once again the honourable Sergei Mendeleyev of the Mirax Group. He appears to be tied into Antonov big style, although it is difficult to tell whether they have worked together on the great robbery, or if Vlad has screwed him? This thread gives me that warm and toasty Christmas feeling of joy and happiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporate Ho Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 i read that as CSI and Antonov being inextricably linked to the phew - Don't you!! Jesus Christ, what a bunch of 'tards. OF COURSE Pompey and CSi are inextricably linked - Pompey are/ were part of the CSI portfolio. The statement about SLH and you as a club wasn't whether you were just "inextricably linked", it was whether you were inextricably linked "as one economic entity". The other businesses in SLH were worth about 2 bob. CSI's other assets like the WRC may actually be worth a lot more. It's a problem for PFC if the other businesses aren't worth anything meaning only Pompey has value in their group but as Eclestone is supposedly interested in acquiring the rights to the WRC and there's also the Spyker Sports car division I suspect that's not the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 If as you say AAs involvement has been terminated then I am very happy as this means AA cant 'do a Swindon' and stitch the creditors and spend there money on dave Kitsons et al. From APPENDIX 2 of the linked CVA Completion Report from UHY: NOTICE OF COMPLETION I hereby confirm that Portsmouth City Football Club Limited (In Administration) has complied with the terms of the proposal agreed by the requisite majority of creditors on 17 June 2010. I further confirm that I am now ceasing to act as Joint Supervisor of this Voluntary Arrangement. Signed: Andrew Andronikou Date: 24/02/11 Seems pretty clear to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 Jesus Christ, what a bunch of 'tards. OF COURSE Pompey and CSi are inextricably linked - Pompey are/ were part of the CSI portfolio. The statement about SLH and you as a club wasn't whether you were just "inextricably linked", it was whether you were inextricably linked "as one economic entity". The other businesses in SLH were worth about 2 bob. CSI's other assets like the WRC may actually be worth a lot more. It's a problem for PFC if the other businesses aren't worth anything meaning only Pompey has value in their group but as Eclestone is supposedly interested in acquiring the rights to the WRC and there's also the Spyker Sports car division I suspect that's not the case Besides Spyker cars and the WRC company the other companies in CSI are worth about 2 bob. Should those 2 be sold off would it not then be a situation exactly the same as SLH? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 Jesus Christ, what a bunch of 'tards. OF COURSE Pompey and CSi are inextricably linked - Pompey are/ were part of the CSI portfolio. The statement about SLH and you as a club wasn't whether you were just "inextricably linked", it was whether you were inextricably linked "as one economic entity". The other businesses in SLH were worth about 2 bob. CSI's other assets like the WRC may actually be worth a lot more. It's a problem for PFC if the other businesses aren't worth anything meaning only Pompey has value in their group but as Eclestone is supposedly interested in acquiring the rights to the WRC and there's also the Spyker Sports car division I suspect that's not the case The man has a ****ing good point. No-one, on either side, has tried to deny any link between PCF2010 and CSI. All the crap on here about "oh look, I found a link between them and mailed the FA" makes us looks like total bellends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 Jesus Christ, what a bunch of 'tards. OF COURSE Pompey and CSi are inextricably linked - Pompey are/ were part of the CSI portfolio. The statement about SLH and you as a club wasn't whether you were just "inextricably linked", it was whether you were inextricably linked "as one economic entity". The other businesses in SLH were worth about 2 bob. CSI's other assets like the WRC may actually be worth a lot more. It's a problem for PFC if the other businesses aren't worth anything meaning only Pompey has value in their group but as Eclestone is supposedly interested in acquiring the rights to the WRC and there's also the Spyker Sports car division I suspect that's not the case As much as I think that Ho is a complete tit - as shown many times on here - I do agree that their situation is different to ours. In our case effectively the football club caused the holding company to go into administration. In the case of Pompey, while they're not exactly healthy financially, it wasn't the club that caused CSI to go into administration, it was the crook owner. That doesn't mean that the League won't see fit to dock them points but it won't be on the same basis as our deduction. I'm not sure of the mechanics should the club run out of cash before they get sold. Chanrai could drip feed them enough cash but I foresee potential points deductions if they're sold by AA and the debt to CSI isn't fully paid and/or if they miss the first CVA installment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 The man has a ****ing good point. No-one, on either side, has tried to deny any link between PCF2010 and CSI. All the crap on here about "oh look, I found a link between them and mailed the FA" makes us looks like total bellends. The KEY thing is whether the Skates would or could survive now without CSI's money. As Akers and Dubov have publically stated, CSI's money was Antonov's money. Now it just depends where Mr Antonov's money came from doesn't it? So, if CSI was bankrolling Skatesmouth, then it's simple - they are linked as one economic entity - each one relies on the other to trade = points deduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 Jesus Christ, what a bunch of 'tards. OF COURSE Pompey and CSi are inextricably linked - Pompey are/ were part of the CSI portfolio. The statement about SLH and you as a club wasn't whether you were just "inextricably linked", it was whether you were inextricably linked "as one economic entity". The other businesses in SLH were worth about 2 bob. CSI's other assets like the WRC may actually be worth a lot more. It's a problem for PFC if the other businesses aren't worth anything meaning only Pompey has value in their group but as Eclestone is supposedly interested in acquiring the rights to the WRC and there's also the Spyker Sports car division I suspect that's not the case Please feel free to point out what value PFC actually has to anyone! As far as I can work out - and no doubt many others on here - PFC seems to be saddled with more debt than actual value. Let's see : Fratton park - nope, no value there as Chinny owns it. Surrounding grounds - nope, no value there as Gaydy gun runner owns it, well, has a mortgage on it. Players - minimal value there I would suggest, as the high earners are happy to sit and take the money. Training facilities - nope, no value there as you rent them! Income - nope, no value there as you don't earn enough to pay the bills without outside help. So that just leaves : CVA - circa £17m still to pay. Gaydy the gunrunner - circa £5m? to pay. Chinny - circa £10m to pay. CSI / Vlad the defrauder - circa £10m to pay. So that's about £42m in dedts - not counting the small creditors who aren't going to see a penny. If you could sell the entire squad for £42m it might make sense and have some value to someone with no economic grasp, but I can't find any real value in PFC. Happy to be proved wrong though if you can do so..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 The man has a ****ing good point. No-one, on either side, has tried to deny any link between PCF2010 and CSI. All the crap on here about "oh look, I found a link between them and mailed the FA" makes us looks like total bellends. Agreeing with Corp is a dangerous game, it tends to come back and bite you on the arse within a couple of months. No need to turn on fellow Saints to make your point, regardless if you are right. For my two pence worth, the whole points decuction centers around one fundemental point; Sporting advantage or attempting to achieve sporting advantage. From where I am sitting, that case is nailed on beyond dispute. So i assume it comes down to whether there's a difference from using borrowed money to acheive sporting advantge, or using stolen money to achieve sporting advantage. If I had to bet on one way or another, I would put my money on the fact that they will get a points deduction, but then this is pompey, so who knows. Oh and now that corp has mentioned eclestone, in relation to WRC, i think we can cross him off that list. Although if it came from one of his legal buddies, who assured him that Chinney didn't have a charge, then it might have some legs, or indeed one of his financial whizzes, who cleverly identified, Snoras as a beacon of light in the banking world with no links to money laundering at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 I cannot see how they are not intrinsically linked economically. If the loan is recalled by the administrator then the club folds. If no further money is forthcoming from the holding company, the club folds. The club is absolutely dependant upon the money from CSI therefore they are economically linked. If the club was a viable concern, generating its own cash flows and absolutely self sufficent, then it would be different and I would say that a points deduction isn't warrented. But that isn't the case, is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 (edited) I think that there is far too much attantion given to what the Football League may or may not do, with regard to Pompey. A points deduction is the least of their problems. It is claimed by the governments of Lithuania and Latvia that over $1.3 billion of depositors funds, formally held by two banks owned by Antonov are unaccounted. It is further claimed that Antonov stole this money to by assets in the form of homes, shares in companies, etc. These governments are currently seizing control of any assets of Antonov, that they can get their hands on, to recover depositors savings in these banks that they are insuring. Presumably they will be seizing PFC and liquidating it to repatriate these funds, if Antonov is found guilty of misappropriating these funds. I can't see how, with the potential claims that these two EU governments have on Antonovs assets, how anyone could by the club, or invest in it. I also can't see how Chanrai can gain access to any security that he was offered by Antonov, considering that the security probably consists of stolen money. PFC, as a company, is screwed. As a club, I jusy don't know. All I know is that no one is going to buy or invest in them, unless they are certifiably insane... Edited 15 December, 2011 by Guided Missile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporate Ho Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 I cannot see how they are not intrinsically linked economically. If the loan is recalled by the administrator then the club folds. If no further money is forthcoming from the holding company, the club folds. The club is absolutely dependant upon the money from CSI therefore they are economically linked. Which part of "as one economic entity" is it that you struggle to understand? PMSL I bet any journalists who come on here after reading your proud boasts about your investigative prowes and intelligence must be so impressed at the fact that everyone's a mensa member I think that there is far too much attantion given to what the Football League may or may not do, with regard to Pompey. A points deduction is the least of their problems. It is claimed by the governemnts of Lithuania and Latvia that over $1.3 billion of depositors funds, formally held by two banks owned by Antonov are unaccounted. It is further claimed that Antonov stole this money to by assets in the form of homes, shares in companies, etc. These governments are currently seizing control of any assets of Antonov, that they can get their hands on, to recover depositors savings in these banks that they are insuring. Presumably they will be seizing PFC and liquidating it to repatriate these funds, if Antonov is found guilty of misappropriating these funds. I can't see how, with the potential claims that these two EU governments have on Antonovs assets, how anyone could by the club, or invest in it. I also can't see how Chanrai can gain access to any security that he was offered by Antonov, considering that the security probably consists of stolen money. Happy for one of your investigative genius' to prove me wrong but so far Lithuania can't seize/ freeze Antonov's assets anywhere except their own country. If they could, presumably they'd be stopping Andronikou's company from finding buyers for the various CSI businesses to pay off Chainrai's charge. But they're not, are they? Furthermore, if the money Antonov used in PFC was stolen, I fail to see how he can expect the club to b expected to pay it back to him. That leaves PFC owing around £3m to Gaydamak and around £12m to Chainrai (I seem to remember it being reported that CSI had paid an installment off the purchase pice of £17m for PFC) plus the CVA. So any potential owner could probably pick up the club for around £10m, plus the cost of th CVA - a lot of which is covered by the parachute payments. Chainrai only gets his money if the clubs a going concern. If it folds he only has the value of the land which is £7m and even then it will take him years and a fortune in legal fees to get any building approval granted. Whether anyone will buy us or not in time is a doubt of course but the moneyneeded to do that which you lot are quoting seem way over the top to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 Jesus Christ, what a bunch of 'tards. OF COURSE Pompey and CSi are inextricably linked - Pompey are/ were part of the CSI portfolio. The statement about SLH and you as a club wasn't whether you were just "inextricably linked", it was whether you were inextricably linked "as one economic entity". The other businesses in SLH were worth about 2 bob. CSI's other assets like the WRC may actually be worth a lot more. It's a problem for PFC if the other businesses aren't worth anything meaning only Pompey has value in their group but as Eclestone is supposedly interested in acquiring the rights to the WRC and there's also the Spyker Sports car division I suspect that's not the case you're still skint and heading for Admin...again! CHEATS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 Whether anyone will buy us or not in time is a doubt of course but the moneyneeded to do that which you lot are quoting seem way over the top to me Experience suggests then that it's bang on the money. Perhaps you should ask your contact at the club, whom you see socially every two weeks or so, what they think as their input has never been short of 100% accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 (edited) Jesus Christ, what a bunch of 'tards. OF COURSE Pompey and CSi are inextricably linked - Pompey are/ were part of the CSI portfolio. The statement about SLH and you as a club wasn't whether you were just "inextricably linked", it was whether you were inextricably linked "as one economic entity". The other businesses in SLH were worth about 2 bob. CSI's other assets like the WRC may actually be worth a lot more. It's a problem for PFC if the other businesses aren't worth anything meaning only Pompey has value in their group but as Eclestone is supposedly interested in acquiring the rights to the WRC and there's also the Spyker Sports car division I suspect that's not the case Perhaps "Oh wise and well connected one", I should have elaborated to save you wasting one of your 3 a day posts in trying to defend the indefensible again! As my good friend Channon's Sideburn's has already pointed out, CSI's money was Antonov's money ( well probably not actually but thats for the courts to decide)which once he had his collar felt and charged with international financial crime - CSI quickly followed him down the toilet! Implication - Without Antonov, CSI's entire portfolio was generating/worth 2 brass farthings between them.. Therefore my provocation is that the whole lot is "one economic entity" which although not identical to our former circumstance, has manifested in a pretty similar manner. Edited 15 December, 2011 by Foxstone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 Have UHY successfully sold any of the "various CSI businesses" then Ho?Don't PFC owe the (potentially, initially stolen) money to CSI? And reason that it shouldn't be paid back? Or is AA just going to write off the debt owed to CSI by PFC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 "Which part of "as one economic entity" is it that you struggle to understand?" Probably the bit where, without CSI's funding you do not have a pot to p!ss in !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 Furthermore, if the money Antonov used in PFC was stolen, I fail to see how he can expect the club to b expected to pay it back to him. That leaves PFC owing around £3m to Gaydamak and around £12m to Chainrai (I seem to remember it being reported that CSI had paid an installment off the purchase pice of £17m for PFC) plus the CVA. Sorry, are you trying to say that you think that if the 10.8 million you got from Antonov was stolen that you can just keep it? The wheels of financial justice run slower than those of criminal justice. Do not be too sure that other members of the EU do not have routes available to recover stolen assets. Just because nothing has happened yet does not mean nothing will happen at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 (edited) Happy for one of your investigative genius' to prove me wrong but so far Lithuania can't seize/ freeze Antonov's assets anywhere except their own country. Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism Happy, now? To save you the trouble of reading the European Law covering Antonov's alleged crime, this is the salient part: Section 1 – General provisions Article 3 – Confiscation measures 1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to enable it to confiscate instrumentalities and proceeds or property the value of which corresponds to such proceeds and laundered property. 2 Provided that paragraph 1 of this article applies to money laundering and to the categories of offences in the appendix to the Convention, each Party may, at the time of signature or when depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, by a declaration addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, declare that paragraph 1 of this article applies a only in so far as the offence is punishable by deprivation of liberty or a detention order for a maximum of more than one year. However, each Party may make a declaration on this provision in respect of the confiscation of the proceeds from tax offences for the sole purpose of being able to confiscate such proceeds, both nationally and through international cooperation, under national and international tax-debt recovery legislation; and/or b only to a list of specified offences. 3 Parties may provide for mandatory confiscation in respect of offences which are subject to the confiscation regime. Parties may in particular include in this provision the offences of money laundering, drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings and any other serious offence. 4 Each Party shall adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to require that, in respect of a serious offence or offences as defined by national law, an offender demonstrates the origin of alleged proceeds or other property liable to confiscation to the extent that such a requirement is consistent with the principles of its domestic law. Furthermore, if the money Antonov used in PFC was stolen, I fail to see how he can expect the club to b expected to pay it back to him. I was expecting PFC to be forced to give the money back from the people he stole it from. You really will have to change your name to Baldrick. Is their no end to your cunning plans? Edited 15 December, 2011 by Guided Missile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper71 Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 Jesus Christ, what a bunch of 'tards. OF COURSE Pompey and CSi are inextricably linked - Pompey are/ were part of the CSI portfolio. The statement about SLH and you as a club wasn't whether you were just "inextricably linked", it was whether you were inextricably linked "as one economic entity". The other businesses in SLH were worth about 2 bob. CSI's other assets like the WRC may actually be worth a lot more. It's a problem for PFC if the other businesses aren't worth anything meaning only Pompey has value in their group but as Eclestone is supposedly interested in acquiring the rights to the WRC and there's also the Spyker Sports car division I suspect that's not the case Question - I didn't think Spyker was part of CSI, and was rather part of one of Antonov's other companies? If that is true, then that just leaves image rights of WRC (CSI don't own the whole WRC of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 Article 25 – Confiscated property 1 Property confiscated by a Party pursuant to Articles 23 and 24 of this Convention, shall be disposed of by that Party in accordance with its domestic law and administrative procedures. 2 When acting on the request made by another Party in accordance with Articles 23 and 24 of this Convention, Parties shall, to the extent permitted by domestic law and if so requested, give priority consideration to returning the confiscated property to the requesting Party so that it can give compensation to the victims of the crime or return such property to their legitimate owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 (edited) I think Corp Ho makes a valid point.... Up to the moment where CSI went into administration, PFC 2010 was simply one of several "asset-poor" companies in the CSI 'portfolio'. It survived (and therefore remained solvent) solely because it's parent company (CSI) was able to keep it afloat. Nothing wrong in that. (For example, The Times newspaper runs at a loss but is kept afloat by Murdoch redistributing News International money) But....the moment that funding tap was turned off (i.e. when CSI went into administration) PFC 2010 ceased to be in a position where it could continue to trade solvently APART from the fact, of course, that they still have some of "CSI/Andronov's money" sitting in their bank account. Now, this is where my understanding gets fuzzy.... At what point do the Football League's "trading insolvently" rules (and therefore points penalty) kick in? In other words, are Pompey deemed to be "trading solvently" by virtue of the fact they can bridge the 'income vs outgoings' gap by tapping into the money CSI/Andronov conveniently put in their bank account before CSI went into administration OR are the Football League rules less forgiving than that? (i.e. the FL don't count "money in the bank" as a source of income per se) Alas, I'm guessing the former. If, for example, I was paying off a personal loan using money given to me by my parents but then my parents were declared bankrupt, I wouldn't default on the loan until such time that any savings I had were used up. So, what will happen first? PFC 2010 running out of the money in the bank that is keeping them "trading solvently" (and free of point deductions) or someone buying them, thus staving off the insolvency and point deductions? The $64,000 dollar question being "when will the money that is keeping PFC 2010 solvent run out?" Days? Weeks? Months? Never? Edited 15 December, 2011 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 I think Corp Ho makes a valid point.... Up to the moment where CSI went into administration, PFC 2010 was simply one of several "asset-poor" companies in the CSI 'portfolio'. It survived (and therefore remained solvent) solely because it's parent company (CSI) was able to keep it afloat. Nothing wrong in that. (For example, The Times newspaper runs at a loss but is kept afloat by Murdoch redistributing News International money) But....the moment that funding tap was turned off (i.e. when CSI went into administration) PFC 2010 ceased to be in a position where it could continue to trade solvently APART from the fact, of course, that they still have some of CSI/Andronov's of money sitting in their bank account. Now, this is where my understanding gets fuzzy.... At what point do the Football League's "trading insolvently" (and therefore points penalty) kick in? In other words, are Pompey deemed to be "trading solvently" by virtue of the fact they can bridge the 'income vs outgoings' gap by tapping into the money CSI/Andronov conveniently put in their bank account before CSI went into administration OR are the Football League rules less forgiving than that? Alas, I'm guessing the latter. If, for example, I was paying off a personal loan using money given to me by my parents but then my parents were declared bankrupt, I wouldn't default on the loan until such time that any savings I had were used up. So, what will happen first? PFC 2010 running out of the money that is keeping them "solvent" (and free of point dedeuctions) or someone buys them thus staving off the insolvency and point deductions. The $64,000 dollar question being "when will the money that is keeping PFC 2010 solvent run out?" I think from one of reports early from their fan's meeting Lumpit that they had run out of CSI money and that they were getting money loaned to them from Chainrai to keep going? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 With one more post Ho leaves himself looking stupid again or in his lame slang a 'tard. Suggesting that PFC won't have to make good the loan from CSI because it was stolen. Yeah right. Just like if you buy a knock off mobile phone in a pub, you don't have to give it back to the rightful owner do you...... I'm not sure that Android will simply let you off let alone the Lithuanian authorities. In any case if you don't pay back the CSI loan then the League will likely dock you points - you'll have gained a competitive advantage by not paying back borrowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 I think from one of reports early from their fan's meeting Lumpit that they had run out of CSI money and that they were getting money loaned to them from Chainrai to keep going? Loaned or gifted? Either way, they are arguably trading solvently until they stop receiving more money (from whatever source) than they pay out, ergo I believe they are staying the 'right' side of the points penalty rules. Indeed, if anything, by receiving money from a source other than CSI demonstrates that they are not financially dependent on their parent company....does it not? Here's hoping I'm being thick here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruffalo Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 The $64,000 dollar question being "when will the money that is keeping PFC 2010 solvent run out?" Days? Weeks? Months? Never? Didn't AA go public on Radio Solent and state that the club has sufficient capital to operate for 6 weeks (from the end of November) ? And with regard to possible sanction / points deduction, didn't the FL tighten the rules post-Rupert such that there needn't be such an 'inextricable link' between a parent company and its child ? As for Ho-Ho-Ho thinking that any stolen funds which might have found their way into Po**ey's coffers could simply be kept - well that is just naivety beyond belief.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporate Ho Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 I'm not sure that Android will simply let you off let alone the Lithuanian authorities. In any case if you don't pay back the CSI loan then the League will likely dock you points - you'll have gained a competitive advantage by not paying back borrowing. Might not be that simple though. It was said that Antonov had invested £10.8m into PFC and had done it in the form of a loan. The question is, how was the use of that money structured? Most on here seem to think he pumped £10.8m into subsidising the club for wages etc. but if the reports were accurate £5m of it went to Chainrai as the first installment in paying for the club. Some went to other clubs for player purchases. So presumably, either the Lithuanians would ask Chainrai for that cash back or PFC would ask for it back to give back to them. Would Chainrai give it back? Who's liable for it? I guess we could sell the players we bought and use the money generated from that to pay some. Unless anyone on here can tell me exactly how the money was spent and how the "loan" was broken down. You're all investigative genius' so I assume you know the answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 (edited) And with regard to possible sanction / points deduction, didn't the FL tighten the rules post-Rupert such that there needn't be such an 'inextricable link' between a parent company and its child ? Rings a bell. I think they made the rules more objective in that they focus on whether the 'football club' is able to trade "within its means" (i.e. solvently) regardless of the trials and tribulations of the parent company. SFC run out of income, either from internal sources (the SLH board) or external sources. However, PFC 2010 seem to always find some extra cash heading their way from sources of varying levels of dubiousness.... Until that money stops hitting PFC 2010's bank account, from wherever it cometh, then I don't see how the Football League can declare them insolvent and thus deduct points, can they...? Edited 15 December, 2011 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 Loaned or gifted? Either way, they are arguably trading solvently until they stop receiving more money (from whatever source) than they pay out, ergo I believe they are staying the 'right' side of the points penalty rules. Indeed, if anything, by receiving money from a source other than CSI demonstrates that they are not financially dependent on their parent company....does it not? Here's hoping I'm being thick here! This is all we have to go on really in terms of Chainrai's current involvement Questions and discussion with David Lampitt • Can we meet our day to day commitments? – Yes we can short term although, as mentioned earlier, the sooner investment is found the better all round. All parties involved are solely interested in keeping the club going and in existence. It is a difficult balance as the club are confident short term funds are available, but we will need investment into the club. • The question was asked if this funding stream was Balram Chainrai, and this was thought to be an accurate assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 Might not be that simple though. It was said that Antonov had invested £10.8m into PFC and had done it in the form of a loan. The question is, how was the use of that money structured? Most on here seem to think he pumped £10.8m into subsidising the club for wages etc. but if the reports were accurate £5m of it went to Chainrai as the first installment in paying for the club. Which reports are those? Don't think I have seen anything about some of it being used to pay Chainrai. Why would it go through the club anyway as buying the club was a deal between CSI and Chainrai so payments should come directly from CSI one would assume, why pay it to the club for them to pass on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamesaint Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 What a shame. Corp has made his 3 posts today. I was hoping that he would answer the question that I keep on asking: If Pompey were financially sound at the time of winning the FA Cup in 2008 as he keeps alleging, why were they unable to pay sol Campbell his win bonus?? Funny how he never answers that one isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 Might not be that simple though. It was said that Antonov had invested £10.8m into PFC and had done it in the form of a loan. The question is, how was the use of that money structured? Most on here seem to think he pumped £10.8m into subsidising the club for wages etc. but if the reports were accurate £5m of it went to Chainrai as the first installment in paying for the club. Some went to other clubs for player purchases. So presumably, either the Lithuanians would ask Chainrai for that cash back or PFC would ask for it back to give back to them. Would Chainrai give it back? Who's liable for it? I guess we could sell the players we bought and use the money generated from that to pay some. Unless anyone on here can tell me exactly how the money was spent and how the "loan" was broken down. You're all investigative genius' so I assume you know the answer Seriously? Why do you need us "investigative genius'" to tell you how the 'loan' was broken down? Why not just provide us with links to the 'reports' you mention - or are those 'reports' merely the ramblings of Pompey fans, or even hard hitting financial documents from your 'legal' friends? You know, the ones that said that Chinny definitely did not under any circumstances hold a charge over PFC (FPMSFL). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 (edited) Might not be that simple though. It was said that Antonov had invested £10.8m into PFC and had done it in the form of a loan. The question is, how was the use of that money structured? Most on here seem to think he pumped £10.8m into subsidising the club for wages etc. but if the reports were accurate £5m of it went to Chainrai as the first installment in paying for the club. Some went to other clubs for player purchases. So presumably, either the Lithuanians would ask Chainrai for that cash back or PFC would ask for it back to give back to them. Would Chainrai give it back? Who's liable for it? I guess we could sell the players we bought and use the money generated from that to pay some. Unless anyone on here can tell me exactly how the money was spent and how the "loan" was broken down. You're all investigative genius' so I assume you know the answer Well "Investigative genius" Guided Missile has rather ****ed on your first dish of chips with his posts - And you have conveniently omitted to either respond/acknowledge them which means you think he is right - But as usual you stick your fingers in your ears, stick your head in the sand, and don't want to hear it!!!! You would rather not pay your dues and continue as you have done without penalty.... Now thats Cheap Cheating!! Edited 15 December, 2011 by Foxstone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 I can't see how they can get a points deduction this time. They should, the two are clearly linked for all to see, different to the saints situation I know, but still very much against the rules. But if they're docked points again, there has to be some punishment for not learning any lessons, not opting to pay off creditors and spunking more money they didn't have on players and wages, i.e. cheating. What is the punishment for persistent cheating? But I can't see this happening because the club would be gone. It's in such a fragile state, have the league got the balls to actually finish them off? I don't think so, at least not this time. I think you're probably right in that I can't see any simple points deduction soon. However if/once their money really runs out, which it will without another buyer given they are paying out more than they earn, just about anything could happen. Just look at what the FL did to Luton, and Chester to some extent. In effect Luton as a full-time professional club was destroyed by the League's punishments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 Which part of "as one economic entity" is it that you struggle to understand? PMSL Furthermore, if the money Antonov used in PFC was stolen, I fail to see how he can expect the club to b expected to pay it back to him. Whether anyone will buy us or not in time is a doubt of course but the moneyneeded to do that which you lot are quoting seem way over the top to me So you are explicitly endorsing operating your club using dirty money stolen from regular people... typical. well we do know that, according to Sky Sports; Pompey spunked £4.2m on players this summer whilst ignoring all sub £2.5k creditors, the CEO 'taking issue and refusing to pay local charities (including the childrens cancer charity presented a jumbo cheque on the pitch)... all this whilst they deferred the CVAs first installment to 2012... So CSI put £4.2m in transfers in, out of their £8/10.8m budget. We also know Pompey can only survive for just over three more weeks based on cash in the bank according to AA who has access to CSI accounts and extensive knowledge of the skates - so pompey have been relying on CSI cash to pay the wages... how much do they need from CSI each month, £0.5m? This is where the insane 'quality over quantity' approach falls apart. It appears most of the CSI loan has been pumped into PFC, and we havent even considered the toilet investment costs yet. Chinny might have got an instalment, all that means is, like pompey, he is now complicit in handling stolen cash. Looking forward to Antonovs court case tomorrow, should be interesting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Mikey Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 I think you're probably right in that I can't see any simple points deduction soon. However if/once their money really runs out, which it will without another buyer given they are paying out more than they earn, just about anything could happen. Just look at what the FL did to Luton, and Chester to some extent. In effect Luton as a full-time professional club was destroyed by the League's punishments. Yeah, but only while they were in Lge 2 and away from the spotlight. Or, did they receive a points penalty in Lge 1 aswell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_saint Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 46,000. F*cking hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 46,000. F*cking hell. Yep, the Skates could only dream of an attendance like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 Seriously? Why do you need us "investigative genius'" to tell you how the 'loan' was broken down? Why not just provide us with links to the 'reports' you mention - or are those 'reports' merely the ramblings of Pompey fans, or even hard hitting financial documents from your 'legal' friends? You know, the ones that said that Chinny definitely did not under any circumstances hold a charge over PFC (FPMSFL). probably someone high up at Pompey who he sees socially every couple of weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarehamRed Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 46,000. F*cking hell. eh?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 eh?? posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Lindford Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 Might not be that simple though. It was said that Antonov had invested £10.8m into PFC and had done it in the form of a loan. The question is, how was the use of that money structured? Most on here seem to think he pumped £10.8m into subsidising the club for wages etc. but if the reports were accurate £5m of it went to Chainrai as the first installment in paying for the club. Some went to other clubs for player purchases. So presumably, either the Lithuanians would ask Chainrai for that cash back or PFC would ask for it back to give back to them. Would Chainrai give it back? Who's liable for it? I guess we could sell the players we bought and use the money generated from that to pay some. Unless anyone on here can tell me exactly how the money was spent and how the "loan" was broken down. You're all investigative genius' so I assume you know the answer You love to quote the David Conn article, well have a look and he explains where the 'loan' was spent. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2011/nov/29/portsmouth-crisis-vladimir-antonov But just to help you out the key bit is - Akers confirmed that CSI, and Portsmouth, have been relying on millions of pounds from Antonov personally to fund the deal by which CSI bought the club. Creditors of the club's administration, who were owed up to £80m, including Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, which claims a £37m debt, must still be paid 20p in the pound over five years. Akers said Antonov had invested around £10.5m in transfer fees and players' salaries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 You love to quote the David Conn article, well have a look and he explains where the 'loan' was spent. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2011/nov/29/portsmouth-crisis-vladimir-antonov But just to help you out the key bit is - Akers confirmed that CSI, and Portsmouth, have been relying on millions of pounds from Antonov personally to fund the deal by which CSI bought the club. Creditors of the club's administration, who were owed up to £80m, including Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, which claims a £37m debt, must still be paid 20p in the pound over five years. Akers said Antonov had invested around £10.5m in transfer fees and players' salaries Let us not forget of course that marvellous interview where the Russians stated that "They bought the club Debt Free" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 probably someone high up at Pompey who he sees socially every couple of weeks. Who has a legal mind par excellence and ensured him that Chinny, under no circumstances, had a charge over FP and it was just a case of the paperwork taking time to show up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southbourne saint Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 Been away for a few days what is the latest on the football creditors court case? Would appreciate an update if anybody knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Lindford Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 And they still have not sold out for Sunday................... Bestest fans??????...... PMSL http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Southampton-Tickets-Latest-2912.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 15 December, 2011 Share Posted 15 December, 2011 And they still have not sold out for Sunday................... Bestest fans??????...... PMSL http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Southampton-Tickets-Latest-2912.aspx "For just £150 (per person, excluding VAT), you will also be able to take advantage of complimentary tea and coffee at half-time" Tempting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts