warsash saint Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Redknapp will blame Manderic / Manderic will blame Redknapp .... result, they wont be able to prove the guilty part & both walk free !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Redknapp "I was due 10%. They paid me 5%. I said to Mandaric you owe me 10% not 5%. Mandaric said don't worry, I'll sort it" " Right so I think I understand?! Harry was probably paid the 5% due under his new contract via normal routes and, one assumed, got taxed on it but he decided he wanted the extra 5% even though he must have agreed to the contract change. Mandaric rather than upset his prize manager obviously decided he would pay him the extra 5%. Does that sound right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 No let them play up at Farlington and make them put coats down as goal posts. True, bit of space there, and at King George V playing fields as well. The pitches at the sailing centre on the Eastern Road are far better though, even if always covered in copious amounts of goose poo. Let's not even talk about the dire pitches at Bransbury Park... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 So US banks can't transfer to the UK but have to go through Monaco. I didn't know that lol. In any case that would stop saggy chops from declaring it. Exactly. Can't Mandy pay who he wants, what he wants, where he wants? It's up to the payee to declare it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 For such a 'shrewd hard-nosed businessman'' date=' Arry seems easily persuaded...[/quote'] Yeah but he knows how to cover his arse too. Kept quiet for 4 and 1\2 years but as soon as the press came sniffing he talks like he has been open about it the whole time and the problem is with his ex friend Milan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Lunch break until 2pm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 I wonder if my employer couild pay me minimum wage here and the rest into an off shore account .... No... I didnt think so.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red and White Army Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 "personally i would have not said anything,there is such things as timing,i would have protected our strength when it comes to negotiations" The above is reference the HMRC winding up order. Ouch. I don't think he should have admitted that! He wanted to avoid telling new owners about the WUO? WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HK_Phoey Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Redknapp will blame Manderic / Manderic will blame Redknapp .... result, they wont be able to prove the guilty part & both walk free !! Not a lawyer but did do some study on tax laws 20 odd years ago and I know there have been some challenges through the European Court of Human Rights but the burden of proof in tax invasion cases used to be different than other criminal cases. i.e. you are not necessarily presumed innocent and hence there is to a larger degree a requirement on the defendent to actually prove themselves innocent and less onus for the authorities to prove the defendent guilty. Certianly know this still applies in some countries around the world but not up to date on UK law. Wonder if we have some legal eagles on here who would know for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Rob Harris @RobHarrisUK Redknapp in police interview: "For the sake of ..any amount of money, I don't fiddle" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 I know it's probably a stupid question and applies in millions of cases, but it's something I've never understood. Why would someone want or need to evade tax, take bungs etc. when they are a hugely wealthy ex football and highly paid manager? You're already rich legitimately, is it worth the hassle of anxiety of breaking the law for extra amounts that won't change your life anyway? One word - GREED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Why would someone want or need to evade tax Evade or avoid? Rich people become rich people by avoiding payments they legally don't have to make (amongst other things) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Rob Harris @RobHarrisUK Redknapp: "If (money) was something dodgy I would have gone over there and brought it back in a brief case" (transcript of reporter chat) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 I know it's probably a stupid question and applies in millions of cases, but it's something I've never understood. Why would someone want or need to evade tax, take bungs etc. when they are a hugely wealthy ex football and highly paid manager? You're already rich legitimately, is it worth the hassle of anxiety of breaking the law for extra amounts that won't change your life anyway? Unless of course the main reason you had become hugely wealthy was because you'd been evading tax and taking bungs for a much longer period of time... Redknapp has owned his house at Sandbanks for years, dating back to the time he was at West Ham, where he wouldn't have been paid that much - certainly nowhere near the amount he now earns at Spurs or got at Pompey - and I struggle to believe that at that time he earned enough money to afford to buy property in that part of the world without "alternative" sources of income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 (edited) I know it's probably a stupid question and applies in millions of cases, but it's something I've never understood. Why would someone want or need to evade tax, take bungs etc. when they are a hugely wealthy ex football and highly paid manager? You're already rich legitimately, is it worth the hassle of anxiety of breaking the law for extra amounts that won't change your life anyway? You have just given us the definition of 'greed' ! (a bit slow off the mark there, others have said the same, must be true then !) Edited 24 January, 2012 by eurosaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Unless of course the main reason you had become hugely wealthy was because you'd been evading tax and taking bungs for a much longer period of time... Redknapp has owned his house at Sandbanks for years, dating back to the time he was at West Ham, where he wouldn't have been paid that much - certainly nowhere near the amount he now earns at Spurs or got at Pompey - and I struggle to believe that at that time he earned enough money to afford to buy property in that part of the world without "alternative" sources of income. Someone stick up the stats of his player turnover at West Ham......particularly of the foreign variety? Also, sold loads of high value players when at West Ham? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Rob Harris @RobHarrisUK Redknapp: "If (money) was something dodgy I would have gone over there and brought it back in a brief case" (transcript of reporter chat) I think we're getting to that bit after lunch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 You have just given us the definition of 'greed' ! And, of course, without greed the human race would never have evolved from cavemen to the sophisticated species of today.... :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Someone stick up the stats of his player turnover at West Ham......particularly of the foreign variety? Also, sold loads of high value players when at West Ham? To be fair, Mandaric wasn't around at that time and place ! Peter Storrie was in charge, so I'm sure that everything would have been kosher !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 And, of course, without greed the human race would never have evolved from cavemen to the sophisticated species of today.... :-) A tory in "greed is good" shocker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Unless of course the main reason you had become hugely wealthy was because you'd been evading tax and taking bungs for a much longer period of time... Redknapp has owned his house at Sandbanks for years, dating back to the time he was at West Ham, where he wouldn't have been paid that much - certainly nowhere near the amount he now earns at Spurs or got at Pompey - and I struggle to believe that at that time he earned enough money to afford to buy property in that part of the world without "alternative" sources of income. I hear there is bargain repossessed property coming up soon in that area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Rob Harris @RobHarrisUK Redknapp told reporter: "I ain't done nothing wrong ... I ain't done nothing wrong ... there ain't nothing crooked in it" Court has been hearing transcripts of Redknapp interview w/police and phone call with ex-News of the World reporter Beasley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporate Ho Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 So the club owes 1.8m to HMRC who is paying AA? all debt to be to be found by any numpty stupid enough to buy Pompey. So Chanrai may cut his losses and take 5m, add all the other toxic debt and the CVA, somebody will then have to still pay £20m + for the club. As for the player registrations, we all suspect that Chanrai is pulling AA's strings, therefore if he is going to take a massive dive, he may as well instruct AA etc to sell the players. Afterall, Lampitt stated last night that the current squad is worth more than it was when you last went into admin!!!!!!! (where does that come from?) If so Chanrai is still quids in by selling the players. The FL will without a doubt do anything to keep the club alive (parachute payments upfront again) and so no point deduction and turn a blind eye to you trading whilst insolvent. It is a scandalous state of affairs, but why should we be surprised. Nugent loved scoring against your lot as much he did us, by the way Nugent didn't celebrate his goal against us as he did against you last night. Ref your other meanderings, do you really think that if Pompey sell players that HMRC would allow any proceeds to go to Chainrai before they got the money we owe them first? Also, why would anyone need to find £20m to buy Pompey? Let's say Chainrai accepts £5m, what else would a buyer have to pay? The £1.6m to HMRC, small creditors valued at £150 - £200K. CVA is covered by parachute payments. Only other thing I can think of is the money owed to CSI. However, that debt will probably be included as part of the deal to buy PFC and that purchase price will probably include the CSI debt as a peppercorn - maybe £1. So, in theory, depending on Chainrai not being willing to let PFC be liquidated and see liquidators appointed by HMRC meaning he risks getting nothing someone could buy PFC and be effectively debt free (apart from the CVA which is covered anyway) for something like £7 - £8m. What other "toxic debt" am I missing Nick Nack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 A tory in "greed is good" shocker. You're assuming I think the human race is 'good' ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Nugent didn't celebrate his goal against us as he did against you last night. Ref your other meanderings, do you really think that if Pompey sell players that HMRC would allow any proceeds to go to Chainrai before they got the money we owe them first? Also, why would anyone need to find £20m to buy Pompey? Let's say Chainrai accepts £5m, what else would a buyer have to pay? The £1.6m to HMRC, small creditors valued at £150 - £200K. CVA is covered by parachute payments. Only other thing I can think of is the money owed to CSI. However, that debt will probably be included as part of the deal to buy PFC and that purchase price will probably include the CSI debt as a peppercorn - maybe £1. So, in theory, depending on Chainrai not being willing to let PFC be liquidated and see liquidators appointed by HMRC meaning he risks getting nothing someone could buy PFC and be effectively debt free (apart from the CVA which is covered anyway) for something like £7 - £8m. What other "toxic debt" am I missing Nick Nack? Is it though? Lumpitt seems to think he needs to draw down some of the PPs to keep the club going for the next few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsaint Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Nugent didn't celebrate his goal against us as he did against you last night. Of course he didn't. It's no big deal scoring against the skates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctoroncall Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Is it though? Lumpitt seems to think he needs to draw down some of the PPs to keep the club going for the next few months. The amounts match give or take a mill, the trouble is when are they due - in time to pay the CVA? Also what is the burn rate at the club considering the £11m invested by CSI has gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Nugent didn't celebrate his goal against us as he did against you last night. Ref your other meanderings, do you really think that if Pompey sell players that HMRC would allow any proceeds to go to Chainrai before they got the money we owe them first? Also, why would anyone need to find £20m to buy Pompey? Let's say Chainrai accepts £5m, what else would a buyer have to pay? The £1.6m to HMRC, small creditors valued at £150 - £200K. CVA is covered by parachute payments. Only other thing I can think of is the money owed to CSI. However, that debt will probably be included as part of the deal to buy PFC and that purchase price will probably include the CSI debt as a peppercorn - maybe £1. So, in theory, depending on Chainrai not being willing to let PFC be liquidated and see liquidators appointed by HMRC meaning he risks getting nothing someone could buy PFC and be effectively debt free (apart from the CVA which is covered anyway) for something like £7 - £8m. What other "toxic debt" am I missing Nick Nack? Ah brilliant, everything is Rosie then and we can close the thread very shortly. No stone has been left un-turned and all the creditors not involved in the CVA have been hanging around just so they can walk away with a fraction of what they put in. They must have been there for the love of the club and to help out the bestest fans n all that. Its all clear now and I dont know why couldnt we see it before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 In case we forget, Chainrai's "debentures" over Pompey's "assets" were transferred from the old PCFC to PFC 2010 as part of the previous admin process. So he is a secured creditor of PFC 2010. He will get first dibs in any liquidation before any leftovers go to anybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 An MD I once knew lived around the Bournemouth/Poole area and his kid was at the same private school as the kid of a Czech man who'd just moved to the area - say 2003ish. When they got chatting about his recently purchased property, the Czech man told him the price paid and that "someone" had sorted it all for him. The MD, being pretty savvy in local matters, noted that he'd paid six figures over the market price. Now I wouldn't necessarily call that person a wheeler dealer but he was obviously the sort who could hammer out a nice wedge for himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 The amounts match give or take a mill, the trouble is when are they due - in time to pay the CVA? Also what is the burn rate at the club considering the £11m invested by CSI has gone. They may match now, but if Lumpitt gets an advance to pay the wages for the next few months, they could be £2-£3m short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sussexsaint Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Is it commonplace for manager to get a %age of any player sales then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
100%Red&White Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Ah brilliant, everything is Rosie Corpy Ho-Ho-Ho = Rosie47? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporate Ho Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Is it though? Lumpitt seems to think he needs to draw down some of the PPs to keep the club going for the next few months. So if we did use the PP's for that purpose that would mean any new owner could use the £1.6m I've included to pay HMRC to pay the CVA shortfall created by using the PP's to keep the club trading. How would that increase what any new owner had to pay? Ah brilliant, everything is Rosie then and we can close the thread very shortly. No stone has been left un-turned and all the creditors not involved in the CVA have been hanging around just so they can walk away with a fraction of what they put in. They must have been there for the love of the club and to help out the bestest fans n all that. What other creditors are there? Football creditors were all paid from the first couple of PP's. All that's left as far as I can see is SG. Who are "all these creditors not involved in the CVA"? Could you tell me please? In case we forget, Chainrai's "debentures" over Pompey's "assets" were transferred from the old PCFC to PFC 2010 as part of the previous admin process. So he is a secured creditor of PFC 2010. He will get first dibs in any liquidation before any leftovers go to anybody else. Whether he is or not is still open to debate (he exercised a charge over CSI, not PFC after all). However, in the event of liquidation, what is there for him to get? PP's won't be there, they're spread across the FL clubs. Player registrations go back to the FL. He might try and get money there but who would pay a fee for what are essentially free agents? All that's realistically left is the land FP is built on which at current market rates is worth around £3 - £4m. Plus of course there's the possibility of points penalty hanging over us for MM/ HR if found guilty which has got to affect the price offered. Can't see that punishing the club would be fair when it didn't gain anything from their scheme but it is a possibility. What part does everyone disagree with there? (I know you'll all disagree about the points penalty being unfair if applied before you say anything) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Am I right in saying that HMRC can, in certain circumstances, double what is due as a fine for non payment? If so that could mean finding over 3 million to clear that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cat Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Whether he is or not is still open to debate No it isn't, it's there in black & white in UHY's published Completion Report Portpin Limited (“Portpin”) Portpin hold a fixed and floating charge over all assets, which was registered with Companies House on 21 October 2009. Portpin hold a deed of priority over the Freehold stadium, known as Fratton Park, in priority to Barclays Bank Plc and AG’s debenture. I advise that under the terms of the sale and purchase agreement Portpin have now transferred this debenture to PFC10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Superb! (and I thought I had too much time on my hands....) ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 No it isn't, it's there in black & white in UHY's published Completion Report I think the problem is no one really knows what happened to all Chinnies various debts and charges when the club was sold to CSI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cat Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Watching tweets come in under the Redknapp search is quite enlightening. Unless they are all from Saints fans it does appear that a lot of people really don't like him. https://twitter.com/#!/search/redknapp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Whatever did happen, you can be sure that the charges weren't lifted until the debts were paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Watching tweets come in under the Redknapp search is quite enlightening. Unless they are all from Saints fans it does appear that a lot of people really don't like him. https://twitter.com/#!/search/redknapp Jay @Jay_in_Essex Amazing scenes in Southwark this morning as Harry Redknapp drives his car into the courtroom and begins giving evidence through the window. Stephen Grant @stephencgrant Nothing grounds your sense of personal achievement like knowing you'll never have more in your bank account than Harry Redknapp's dog. HaveIGotNewsForYou @bbcHIGNFY There’s disbelief that Harry Redknapp opened a bank account in his dog’s name, when he could have put the money in one of his offshore chins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lets B Avenue Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 pic.twitter.com/Boy3QMAi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Nugent didn't celebrate his goal against us as he did against you last night. Ref your other meanderings, do you really think that if Pompey sell players that HMRC would allow any proceeds to go to Chainrai before they got the money we owe them first? Also, why would anyone need to find £20m to buy Pompey? Let's say Chainrai accepts £5m, what else would a buyer have to pay? The £1.6m to HMRC, small creditors valued at £150 - £200K. CVA is covered by parachute payments. Only other thing I can think of is the money owed to CSI. However, that debt will probably be included as part of the deal to buy PFC and that purchase price will probably include the CSI debt as a peppercorn - maybe £1. So, in theory, depending on Chainrai not being willing to let PFC be liquidated and see liquidators appointed by HMRC meaning he risks getting nothing someone could buy PFC and be effectively debt free (apart from the CVA which is covered anyway) for something like £7 - £8m. What other "toxic debt" am I missing Nick Nack? Well you say if Chanrai sold players HMRC would get the money first, in Pompeys case if he keeps the club running and sells the players they wouldnt see the money before it was gone. They don't have a charge over the assets at present, otherwise they would be paid before the staff etc. I find it amusing that money owed to CSI would be seen as peppercorn payment , the CSI debts include money due to Chanrai that he loaned/interest so i doubt he will walk away accepting a £1 to leave you debt free. Chanrai may take £5m but his record so far is to squeeze as much as possible before he can drop you. AA it appears to me answers to him first and so there is always a plan. Your plan/hope is that Chanrai gets to the panic stage where he will accept a massive loss, Im not sure he would do that, or will need to. You seem to have a habit of seeing people who you owe as only having to pay back a peppercorn amount but if it is ever the other way around,the world is against you. I expect you have some major allies talking to the FL, WHU for one who did all they could to help save you when you were in the PL.i expect a £5m offer will come in for one of your players, to keep you going as they desperately need the 6 points they got against you to stay in their total. As for Nugent i recall that he celebrated a lot when he scored against you, not reserved like i would have expected a former player who loved the club Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Unless of course the main reason you had become hugely wealthy was because you'd been evading tax and taking bungs for a much longer period of time... Redknapp has owned his house at Sandbanks for years, dating back to the time he was at West Ham, where he wouldn't have been paid that much - certainly nowhere near the amount he now earns at Spurs or got at Pompey - and I struggle to believe that at that time he earned enough money to afford to buy property in that part of the world without "alternative" sources of income. This. Although never wise to 'assume' anything one has to wonder how long he's been at it prior to this instance? I just wonder if HMRC might see any value in finding and forensically examining any older information. Mum always said a leopard can't change it's spots and you can't teach Rosie new tricks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 pic.twitter.com/Boy3QMAi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 So if we did use the PP's for that purpose that would mean any new owner could use the £1.6m I've included to pay HMRC to pay the CVA shortfall created by using the PP's to keep the club trading. How would that increase what any new owner had to pay? What other creditors are there? Football creditors were all paid from the first couple of PP's. All that's left as far as I can see is SG. Who are "all these creditors not involved in the CVA"? Could you tell me please? Whether he is or not is still open to debate (he exercised a charge over CSI, not PFC after all). However, in the event of liquidation, what is there for him to get? PP's won't be there, they're spread across the FL clubs. Player registrations go back to the FL. He might try and get money there but who would pay a fee for what are essentially free agents? All that's realistically left is the land FP is built on which at current market rates is worth around £3 - £4m. Plus of course there's the possibility of points penalty hanging over us for MM/ HR if found guilty which has got to affect the price offered. Can't see that punishing the club would be fair when it didn't gain anything from their scheme but it is a possibility. What part does everyone disagree with there? (I know you'll all disagree about the points penalty being unfair if applied before you say anything) The CVA covers the creditors at the time of admin, since then Chainrai put some into the club to keep it going with wages and so on, CSI bought the club off Chainrai so I would guess that anything Chainrai had loaned the club on top of the CVA would have been transfered into the purchace from CSI. But heres the thing, CSI hadnt actually paid Chainrai anything which is why he is still hanging around. He has a charge on CSI for what they promised to pay him for the club in installments. While they had the club they put in around 11 million to fund the club since they have had it. 1.6 million of tax hadnt been paid up until December (now near the end of January so presume that figure is shortly going up) which adds to the amount owed on top of the CVA. Now if no more PP payments have been touched and the Creditors from the CVA are covered then thats a little relief for you but it hardly scratches the surface does it? I suppose those owed £2500 or less will be kept waiting too right? Lets say all of that gets settled by Chainrai who is owed a fair bit (on top of the CVA) and CSI's banks that are owed money around 11 million are both happy for much of that debt to be wiped clean and take a loss, The club gets picked up for next to nothing or a few million to be shared between Chainrai and CSI's banks. The new owners will still be paying rent on the ground to Chainrai and also land locked due to Gaydamak owning the car parks. How much more would it take to claim all of that back? Clock is ticking by now as the small but fairly expensive squad that will no doubt refuse to shred their contracts will be wanting payment, as will the tax man again. Would the crowd return by then to help out with the cash flow or will the new owner be ready to pump enough in to keep them going in the short term? You seem to think much of what is owed will just vanish into thin air and no-one will be bothered. IMO that is what should happen as the crooks deserve none of it but I just cant see it happening somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 (edited) James Pearce @Pearcesport Redknapp said to police that Mandaric had told him that Monaco investment had been "a disaster. Got wiped out" Redknapp to police: "I never mentioned it again. I just thought that's history. He's had me. Maybe he never put the money in. I don't know" Redknapp "I never had a clue how much money went in" Prosecution say Redknapp told police Mandaric had control over account. Redknapp didn't mention HE had faxed Monaco instruction to transfer $100,000 to Florida Edited 24 January, 2012 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruffalo Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Don't anyone feel sorry for Satchel Face's accomplice - she knew what she was doing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 It appears that Andrew Andronikou, Adminstrator of Portsmouth's parent company CSI which went into administration in November last year following the arrest of it's major shareholder Vladimir Antonov on fraud and money-laundering charges, is locked in last-minute talks with a new preferred bidder. Although Andronikou refuses to divulge any details, the preferred bidder is understood to be one Rosie Redknapp, a very wealthy individual with previous links to Portsmouth, who has for the past several years been living in exile on the French Riviera. Sources close to Andronikou say that he does not envisage that Rosie will have any difficulty meeting the requirements of the new stringent Football League Fit and Proper Person test, and is substantially more wealthy than any of the other bidders who have so far shown interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts