Jump to content

Pompey Takeover Saga


Fitzhugh Fella

Recommended Posts

Why is the trial of Mandaric and Redknapp on the Pompey Takeover thread. Surely should be on a thread of its own? Mods?

Originally Posted by Goalie66

This.

 

NO! The redknap mandric case is an integril part of the wrongfull goings that caused the takeover thread and they are potentially a source of points deduction

I argue it should stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how funny would it be if the prosecution introduces their first witness and he looks familiar - having just been extradited from the witness protection programme in the people's republic of Hayling?

 

And for people asking why this subject is on here, the thread has evolved and this is the place for everything dirty about pompey.

I would even suggest that the takeovers and tax evasion are to quote a phrase we might hear soon from the league, inextricably linked...

 

Could Arry's defence be that he didn't know that the tax had been avoided - leaving Mandaric as the man who paid it to take the rap...either way, I can't see how the club could not be penalised if either is found guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone clarify that if they are subject to a winding up order then besides their bank accounts being frozen their Executives are UNABLE to dispose of any assets. In their case their players. Therefore they cannot sell anyone. Am I correct?

 

I'm assuming that it is because the winding up petition has not been officially issued yet, it's expected this week.

They probably have, at most, today and tomorrow to sell any assets to raise the cash to pay HMRC as I'm also assuming that once the notice gets advertised in The London Gazette that it is classed as being issued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm assuming that it is because the winding up petition has not been officially issued yet, it's expected this week.

They probably have, at most, today and tomorrow to sell any assets to raise the cash to pay HMRC as I'm also assuming that once the notice gets advertised in The London Gazette that it is classed as being issued.

 

Are issued and advertised the same thing? I was under the impression that the order had been issued at the end of last week but had yet to be advertised so that people like banks and credit agencies know they need to act on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mods,

 

Could we not have the Harry trial on a seperate thread?

 

Yes you can - click on post New Thread in Lounge. 8)

 

There is room for two - we are viewing the proceedings to look for nuances and pointers to what happened at poopey. It has ramifications for them as even IF they have a miracle savious at the last moment, they could (a la Luton or even Swindon) have major impact on their position.

 

In the Lounge there can be a thread that comments on "Arry, on football in general, on it's impact on Spuds and England.

 

It's no big deal - us nutjobs are happy with where we are but would also I am sure have some omg Spud moments as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are issued and advertised the same thing? I was under the impression that the order had been issued at the end of last week but had yet to be advertised so that people like banks and credit agencies know they need to act on it?

 

 

I think the confusion is that The Guardian said it had been issued, The News and other media sources saying it is to be issued this week.

 

I'm only going on assumptions - seemed to make sense coupled with them only taking cash for ticket sales from tomorrow onwards.

If it has already been issued then they cannot sell any players.

 

http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/company-rescue/guides/what-is-a-winding-up-petition

 

I might be wrong...I usually am :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't see how the court case could take 2 weeks. Once assumes the fact the money was transferred cannot be disputed as one assumes there is a fairly cast iron paper trail. So the only thing to be determined is if it should be subject to tax or not which would involve H&M coming up with a good reason why it was tax free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm not worried at all, because About 99% of been what's been written on here about how we were "toast" has turned out to be utter rubbish. And yet there are still a significant number of you who are clinging to the idea that we're somehow going to hell in a handcart, it's just a matter of time. Well, two YEARS into this thread, it aint happened yet.

 

I don't mind, it's your board- I find it a good laugh now, but we're at the fag end of a story that bar a few little crumbs that won't amount to anything, is everyone else's chip-paper....

 

I do love PFC 123s predictions.

 

Oh, how he has such a success rate - this little nugget from June this year - he tells us back then that they'll be fine. Absolutely nothing wrong with the then new owners, everything hunky dory, nothing to see here :)

 

Every time he posts that all is rosy in the garden, something catastrophic happens. Let's hope he stays true to form :D

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?14620-Pompey-Takeover-Saga&p=1076544#post1076544

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how funny would it be if the prosecution introduces their first witness and he looks familiar - having just been extradited from the witness protection programme in the people's republic of Hayling?

 

And for people asking why this subject is on here, the thread has evolved and this is the place for everything dirty about pompey.

I would even suggest that the takeovers and tax evasion are to quote a phrase we might hear soon from the league, inextricably linked...

 

Could Arry's defence be that he didn't know that the tax had been avoided - leaving Mandaric as the man who paid it to take the rap...either way, I can't see how the club could not be penalised if either is found guilty.

 

Hi Mods,

 

Could we not have the Harry trial on a seperate thread?

 

No!!! :x See bold above! You're obviously following this thread already so what's the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do love PFC 123s predictions.

 

Oh, how he has such a success rate - this little nugget from June this year - he tells us back then that they'll be fine. Absolutely nothing wrong with the then new owners, everything hunky dory, nothing to see here ;)

 

Every time he posts that all is rosy in the garden, something catastrophic happens. Let's hope he stays true to form :D

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?14620-Pompey-Takeover-Saga&p=1076544#post1076544

 

lol I was wondering if someone would go back and find that. Thought at the time he was tempting fate when all didnt look well for the blue phew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

default_profile_5_normal.png

DavidhBrown David Brown

 

Peter Storie, Portsmouth chief executive, ordered club to pay Harry #Redknapp 5% of £2.3million profit on Peter Crouch sale in March 2002.

59 seconds ago

 

 

default_profile_5_normal.png

DavidhBrown David Brown

 

Tax trial: "Mr #Redknapp did not wait long to take steps to make sure that he got what he thought he was due in payments from the chairman"

39 seconds ago

 

 

jpearce_normal.jpg

Pearcesport James Pearce

 

Prosecution allege that Redknapp instead received secret payment from Mandaric and in April 2002 Redknapp flew to Monaco to open account

57 seconds ago

Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prosecution say Redknapp's share of Crouch transfer was £115,473. Would have been double if contract not changed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

James Pearce@Pearcesport4m

 

 

 

 

 

Prosecution say Crouch sold just 9 days after new Redknapp contract reduced his share from 10% to 5%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

James Pearce@Pearcesport6m

 

 

 

 

 

Jury told example of Peter Crouch. Bought for £1.25 million and sold for £4.5 million

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

James Pearce@Pearcesport10m

 

 

 

 

 

When Redknapp moved from director of football to manager in May 2002 his profit on transfers reduced to 5%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

James Pearce@PearcesportReply

Retweeted

 

Favorite

· Open

 

Jury told that when Redknapp was director of football at Portsmouth his contract entitled him to 10% of net profit on any transfers

 

Wonder if he had any sort of contract in place like that when he was here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already consider him guilty...haha how the FOOK can they spin this the other way...?!

 

Oh yes, it involves Pompey.

 

Do you never watch TV? It always starts this way the prosecution are giving their evidence and you think "oh yeah they've got him bang to rights" but then it's Ironside's turn and he comes out with a last minute bid of evidence or witness or something and you go "oh my God! he's innocent! I would've convicted him wrongly if it wasn't for Ironside!"

 

Edit: I might've meant Perry Mason. Which one was the cripple?

Edited by Bearsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you never watch TV? It always starts this way the prosecution are giving their evidence and you think "oh yeah they've got him bang to rights" but then it's Ironside's turn and he comes out with a last minute bid of evidence or witness or something and you go "oh my God! he's innocent! I would've convicted him wrongly if it wasn't for Ironside!"

 

Edit: I might've meant Perry Mason. Which one was the cripple?

 

 

Sorry I don't watch TV, I'm always reading this thread. :lol:

 

Nah, he's toast. Spot the theme....?!??!

 

We'll be up to 3000 posts by next Thursday...haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez why TODAY of all days.

 

I've got a busy evening ahead of me re-wiring the fecking Satellite so I can watch the footie on my flat screen and I know if I go downstairs, do that, cook dinner & have a beer I'll have 240 pages to catch up on.

 

Oh in other news - didn't someone post that the London Gazette gets published at 3:30 - so about 8 minutes to wait for more fun then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...