landford.saint Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 I am confused as to whom owns what at PFC. I thought that Gaydamak owned a bit of land round FP including car park. Chanrai owned FPark as security against a loan of £10.8 mil. CSI owned club including assets such as players etc. FP I have been told is worth absolute max £4m (not taking into equasion of problems of Gaydamaks bits of land). If Chanrai owns FP and PFC is wound up he walks away seriously out of pocket, with just a bit of building land. If he doesn't own FP what security does he have. Some have suggested that Chamrai will pay HMRC to secure his asset for time being. But does that make any financial sense. (if anything at PFC makes any financial sense. Doesn't this all just boil down to who owns what and what they are willing to lose. Please could someone confirm who does own what please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 There is no way any parachute money will be advanced without some sort of points penalty. it would be unfair on the other Championship clubs. Anyway, the Premier League wont give a flying f*ck if pompey go bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 If that happens I really do think there should be mobilisation of a movement in protest from us and other fans. It is clear from the Hartlepool chairman's comments today that the sensible people in football are fed up of those with no intention of managing themselves properly gaining competitive advantages. Portsmouth have deliberately, yet again, pursued a policy of incurring liabilities that are far in excess of what the club can support without continuous external investment. It is also clear that the only external investment they can attract on sufficient scale is "dodgy" at best and blatantly criminal in the most part. Bailing them out distorts competition and damages the integrity of the game. This . It's fun to take the **** because they are our local rivals but in all seriousness it is time the authorities take a stand for the sake of the integrity of the game itself . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 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. Of course the club gained, they didn't have to pay any bloody tax. If a club can offer tax free bonuses in offshore accounts to it's staff it's an obvious unfair advantage over clubs that stick to the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vershinin Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Surely with this WUP there will be a points deduction now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsland Red Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 If the club bank account(s) has been frozen , the only way they have the funds to pay players at the end of the month, as indicated by AA ,is brown paper bags loaded from cash gained at any home matches. From previous calculations this is not sufficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 There was an excellent book produced in 2003 called "Broken Dreams" by Tom Bower that talked about the "vanity, greed and the souring of British Football". (IMO it should be a MUST READ for all Football fans). Harry has a whole chapter to himself in which it mainly talks about the Ferdinand transfer to Leeds where he certainly was paid £300k by Brown (p241). However on p232 it says "Despite WHU limited finances, Redknapp appeared to be obsessed by trading players. One hundred and thirty-four players would be transferred during his seven years of management". I wonder if he was on a percentage of the deals then ? Whether it was in his contract or not (I suspect not), the answer to that is definitely "yes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Red Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 I don't think the FL will be keen to prop PFC up. The PL did because they were worried about their all important brand, but FL are far harder. I can see that they might prefer them to go bust at the end of the season rather than now, but that really isn't close. Does anyone really think the FL or the PFA will fund PFC for 4 months? Or been seen to give all the parachute payment away when it was supposed to be ringfenced to pay the CVA or football creditors or whatever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Surely with this WUP there will be a points deduction now? I'm not sure. Seeing as the DCFSB haven't even started paying off the last CVA, they may not even be allowed to be placed into Admin. It really is a case of either paying the tax bill, or going pop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazlo78 Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Surely with this WUP there will be a points deduction now? Surely, the only thing sure in this saga is that nothing is sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Of course the club gained, they didn't have to pay any bloody tax. If a club can offer tax free bonuses in offshore accounts to it's staff it's an obvious unfair advantage over clubs that stick to the law. Corp Ho Ho Ho, misses the fact, that they failed to pay tax, both in December and January, yet signed a player last week. Add to that, they paid Decembers player wages, so yes, they have gained an advantage over other teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chin Strain Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Corp Ho Ho Ho, misses the fact, that they failed to pay tax, both in December and January, yet signed a player last week. Add to that, they paid Decembers player wages, so yes, they have gained an advantage over other teams. Agreed, but he's talking about the MM/HR case in the High Court. MM didn't pay tax on the money he bunged (allegedly) HR, so that was additional funds into the club instead. Therefore the club benefitted (if proven, of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vershinin Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Surely, the only thing sure in this saga is that nothing is sure... Very true! Surely though??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Red Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Agreed, but he's talking about the MM/HR case in the High Court. MM didn't pay tax on the money he bunged (allegedly) HR, so that was additional funds into the club instead. Therefore the club benefitted (if proven, of course) I think the funds were alleged to have come from MM's private account so there might not be any gain from that perspective However, the additional money was only given because HR kicked-up at the missing 5% (again allegedly), so if it wasn't given he might have been upset enough to leave, so that is a gain for PFC. But the simple fact is that they were both owner and employee of PFC, and if they are found guilty it is against the rules. Simple as that. Points deduction. It doesn't need to be an illegal payment to an agent to make it against the rules of the game. It's fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andysstuff Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 NabilHassan79 Nabil Hassan on Twitter "This is as bad as it can get for #Pompey without the club ceasing to exist." Have spoken to insolvency expert, story to come on BBC Sport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katalinic Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 (edited) Whether it was in his contract or not (I suspect not), the answer to that is definitely "yes". It could be that it was in his contract, but what wasn't was the cut that he may or may not have paid agents to ensure that their clients surprisingly signed despite being courted by bigger clubs and only to be transferred for a sizeable profit within 2 years. Perhaps this is why West Ham got shot of him on him on the quiet as if it had come out then they themselves would have been had up by the FA for transfer irregularities. All in my opinion of course...or it could be a Storrie. Edited 24 January, 2012 by Katalinic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eling-saint Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 From Poopey website Over the past few weeks the club has been the subject of media speculation, with a number of parties – including prospective owners – speaking publicly about the state of affairs at the club. We have generally tried to avoid adding to this speculation as it is not helpful and does not assist in the day-to-day management of the club's affairs. The club is in a difficult set of circumstances at the moment. The period from November to January was always going to be one where the club received owner funding. This injection of cash was to cover a number of areas in our working capital requirements, including salaries and PAYE as well as scheduled payments for player acquisitions from last summer. We knew that the club would not generate sufficient funds to support itself through this period. However, when CSI, the club’s parent company, went into administration we were given assurances by the Administrator of CSI and the charge-holders over CSI (Portpin Limited) that the club would be funded through this period until a new owner was found. This has not happened. One of the reasons for this is that the Administrator has not generated expected funds from the sale of other CSI businesses that might have assisted the club's position. The club's working capital position has therefore been severely stretched while we seek to resolve the ownership situation and this has resulted in the debts that are due to HMRC. The club therefore has some difficult circumstances to manage. The charge-holder over CSI may choose to fund the club for any current shortfall in order to protect the value of its financial position. However, this appears uncertain/unlikely which means we may have to try to raise funds through player sales, although this is clearly not our preferred route. In addition we still have a significant number of parties interested in acquiring the club who are actively pursuing their respective interests. We therefore remain positive that a solution will be found before some of these difficult choices have to be made. As you can imagine this has been, and remains, a very difficult balance. We have been in regular contact with HMRC, The Football League and our creditors to keep them advised of the position. We will continue to work around the clock to achieve the sale of the club as soon as possible, something which remains our priority and the outcome we all hope for. Q&A What is the process for HMRC and any winding-up petition? When a debt is not paid to HMRC on time, they are able to issue a petition to wind-up a company. A date is then set for a hearing – this normally takes a couple of months to happen and for us this will take place on February 20. HMRC are required to advertise the petition which they must do no later than seven days before the date of the hearing. We understand that they will be advertising this week, but some information has been released to the media in advance. We had asked them to delay this process (as they have the discretion to do) as it is likely to harm the club's position, the sale process and possible player trading, potentially to the detriment of HMRC and other creditors. How much is owed to HMRC and how has this happened? The petition sought by HMRC is for the PAYE for December which is approximately £800k. Since the raising of the petition a further £1m (in VAT and PAYE) has become due for payment. By the end of last season, the club had managed to achieve a position close to break even on its P&L (Profit and Loss statement). We will be reporting a relatively minor loss in our accounts which are due to be filed next month. When CSI came into ownership they pursued an investment strategy that involved injecting funds over and above the club's own generated income, principally relating to player acquisition and salaries, resolution of legacy issues from previous ownership and a significant working capital backlog. This was in line with their revised business plan that was approved by The Football League at the time and was subject to the funding being underwritten by CSI. This business plan had peaks and troughs in cash flows whereby some months required additional funding and some did not. December and January were months where funding was required. When CSI went into administration this funding obviously stopped immediately and the club has been left with its own revenue streams. Why has the club not made this information public before now? The information is obviously commercially sensitive and potentially harmful to the club's interests. As mentioned above it would not be something that we would wish to advertise unless absolutely necessary, as it makes the current circumstances more difficult to manage and potentially harms the sale process and any possible player trading. We have had to react to the statements made over the weekend which we did not sanction, although the information will likely be officially confirmed this week in any event. There is an important distinction here between transparency and conducting the club’s business in public to the detriment of the club’s own interests. Why is the club making this information public now? Now that the information has been put into the public domain by third parties we felt it necessary and appropriate to clarify the position and explain the circumstances as far as possible. What is happening about a possible points penalty from the League? The League are finalising their report on the club's position following the administration of CSI and we are expecting to receive the outcome shortly. However, we understand that the League may delay their decision until the club’s current ownership situation is closer to being resolved. What happens if funds are not raised or provided? We are obviously not in Administration at the moment and continue to do everything possible to achieve a successful outcome. Ultimately if the club cannot meet its debts, it may face administration and the associated impact both operationally and from a football point of view (in terms of an automatic points penalty). We remain positive that this eventuality will be avoided, not least because it is in the interests of those concerned, including the charge-holder, to preserve the value of the club as far as possible. Who is currently in control of the club’s affairs? The directors and senior management of the club continue to run the club on a day-to-day basis. We have regular contact with the Administrators of CSI as they are our ‘de facto’ shareholder. However, they do not have direct control over the business of the club, including player trading for example. How can the fans help? The most important thing our fans can do is continue to support the club and the team by coming to Fratton Park. The Administrators and Portpin cannot take money out of the club and all our revenue will be used towards meeting the running costs of the club. For the avoidance of doubt, all funds generated by the club are going, and will continue to go, towards funding the club’s ongoing cash requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvaughanwilliams Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 I'm not entirely sure that any money that comes into the club can be paid directly to HMRC. If a company is facing an insolvency event, like a WUP, there is a strict hierarchy of who gets paid in which order. http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/company-rescue/guides/preference-insolvency-act HMRC are at the bottom of the pile as unsecured creditors. If there are any secured creditors, then they would be creating a "preference" in favour of HMRC, which a judge could reverse. If CSI are a secured creditor, or if Chinny's security over the assets of the club covers revenue from player sales, they can demand the money. Given that CSI are in admin, there couldn't be any legitimate reason for their administrator to waive their contractual right to payment of money raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chin Strain Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 They seem to put a lot of importance behind keeping the playing staff. This in itself is daft. Keep them, pay them. The size of the wage bill is a massive barrier to any prospective buyer. You don't want to pick up a club,even for £1 (no ground in that price), when that club is likely to be in League 1 with a £1.5 - £2m wage bill per month....unless you've got very deep pockets and zero intelligence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 I'm not entirely sure that any money that comes into the club can be paid directly to HMRC. If a company is facing an insolvency event, like a WUP, there is a strict hierarchy of who gets paid in which order. http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/company-rescue/guides/preference-insolvency-act HMRC are at the bottom of the pile as unsecured creditors. If there are any secured creditors, then they would be creating a "preference" in favour of HMRC, which a judge could reverse. If CSI are a secured creditor, or if Chinny's security over the assets of the club covers revenue from player sales, they can demand the money. Given that CSI are in admin, there couldn't be any legitimate reason for their administrator to waive their contractual right to payment of money raised. I think it goes back to the point that HMRC tendency to issues winding up order is not based what money they will make but as a matter of principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torres Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Lots in there but 1 point - they still owe other clubs transfer fees. That'll be more money from the parachute payments that won't go to the CVA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 (edited) "What is happening about a possible points penalty from the League? The League are finalising their report on the club's position following the administration of CSI and we are expecting to receive the outcome shortly. However, we understand that the League may delay their decision until the club’s current ownership situation is closer to being resolved. What happens if funds are not raised or provided? We are obviously not in Administration at the moment and continue to do everything possible to achieve a successful outcome. Ultimately if the club cannot meet its debts, it may face administration and the associated impact both operationally and from a football point of view (in terms of an automatic points penalty). We remain positive that this eventuality will be avoided, not least because it is in the interests of those concerned, including the charge-holder, to preserve the value of the club as far as possible." http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Portsmouth-Football-Club-Statement-3049.aspx Interesting... Edited 24 January, 2012 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 I cant believe this bit....tell that to Luton, Bournemouth, Leeds etc What is happening about a possible points penalty from the League? The League are finalising their report on the club's position following the administration of CSI and we are expecting to receive the outcome shortly. However, we understand that the League may delay their decision until the club’s current ownership situation is closer to being resolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanimal Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 This is the most galling point especially after what Lampitt said today - PFC and CSI are inextricably linked!! Why are the FL so pussy footed with this cesspit of a club!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andysstuff Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Thought someone mentioned an administration was no longer an option once a WUP had been issued?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Thing is even if they do get bought should that excuse them a points penalty? they have after all had an unfair advantage for a period of time. Even if they were bought and returned to an even financial footing it would not remove the effect of the period of time where they had an unfair advantage (If only they had actually won more games in that period if would be a more forceful argument!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey-deacons-left-nut Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 So it's not 1.6m but 1.8m now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey-deacons-left-nut Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Thought someone mentioned an administration was no longer an option once a WUP had been issued?? No, it's the hearing...chances are they will go into admin the day before the court date to protect themselves... If it gets that far... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 In the post by Elling Saiint is this line: However, this appears uncertain/unlikely which means we may have to try to raise funds through player sales, although this is clearly not our preferred route. I thought, once the WUP had been issued, their bank accounts were frozen (hence, presumably, the insistence on cash ticket sales only) and that THEY COULDN'T SELL ANY ASSETS. So how can they now sell players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Why does parachute money exist? Teams go up and get big tv revenues, increased crowds usually. Surely if overspend and pay unsustainable wages that's your fault. If you get relegated and need to sell off loads of players, so be it. Clubs should have clauses where wages reduce if relegated anyway. ^This. All the parachute payment scheme seems to achieve is actively encouraging the less scrupulous clubs to overspend. I'm lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 This is the most galling point especially after what Lampitt said today - PFC and CSI are inextricably linked!! Why are the FL so pussy footed with this cesspit of a club!!!! I feel reassured by Lampitt's words - The League are finalising their report on the club's position following the administration of CSI and we are expecting to receive the outcome shortly. However, we understand that the League may delay their decision until the club’s current ownership situation is closer to being resolved. I think, looking into the cesspit they feel inclined to 'give it a couple of weeks'. By which time the Mandyflaps trial will be over one way or the other & quite possibly the true extent of the Skate predicament will be out in the open. End of Jan is very significant - wages time, PAYE etc time & end of transfer window. They may even wait until 20th Feb for the WUP to go to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andysstuff Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 No, it's the hearing...chances are they will go into admin the day before the court date to protect themselves... If it gets that far... Yes, that would make more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 So, reading between the lines of that PFC website statement, it seems pretty obvious that everyone (AA, CSI, Chainrai and PFC) was relying on siphoning funds from the sale of NOS / WRC Rights into PFC via the administration of CSI. If that's the care, are we looking at a huge miscalculation here by someone (Chainrai?) or just sheer bad luck? It would appear that the motorsport regulator (FSI) has played a blinder here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 No, it's the hearing...chances are they will go into admin the day before the court date to protect themselves... If it gets that far... Can they still do that, considering they already have an outstanding CVA to pay from the last time they were in admin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Balls Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 To me it seems only a matter of time before they lose some points. They will be docked points at some point this season. It seems unavoidable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 From Eling's post above : "One of the reasons for this is that the Administrator has not generated expected funds from the sale of other CSI businesses that might have assisted the club's position". Is not the administratgor of CSI raising funds, from the assets, to satisfy the creditors of CSI ? Is it legit practice to try to dispose of asset 'A' and pump the proceeds into asset 'B' in an attempt to keep 'B' afloat, and therefore boost the ( limited in this case ) chance of selling it. And once again, if PFC were banking on funds from CSI to keep them solvent during November & December, this is surely an admission that they are 'inextricably linked'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 (edited) ... Edited 24 January, 2012 by anothersaintinsouthsea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 (edited) You've got to question some of Lampitt's blurb. If they were basically break even why has Chinny seemingly decided not to plug the gaps like last time? He could bide his time until they finally found someone mental enough to take it off him. He's right that club cash flow is up and down but shortfalls in November and December? During the close season fair enough but December saw the Derby (sell out plus TV cash). Don't buy it. Edit. November and December only saw two home games each month but December's tax would've been due in January by which time they had a bank holiday home watch, the Chelsea cup match (decent wedge shared) and a full house at home to West Ham. January HAS to be a relatively good cash month so there should be no problems, right? Edited 24 January, 2012 by anothersaintinsouthsea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Can they still do that, considering they already have an outstanding CVA to pay from the last time they were in admin? Legally? No idea. As far as the FL goes? Whack Major Points deduction - Will be minus 10 for going into Admin and more for failing to exit a CVA a shappened to Bompey & others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 No, it's the hearing...chances are they will go into admin the day before the court date to protect themselves... If it gets that far... Well if they do, that should at least be an automatic 10 points deduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brizzie Saints Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 It's not that much hassle to remove the fixtures and wipe out those points, but what do the clubs do? I mean, those who haven't played Pompey at home have sold season tickets for a set number of games. Saints fans lose out there for instance. I would guess most fans would be happy to lose 1 fixture if it meant they went pop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 I would guess most fans would be happy to lose 1 fixture if it meant they went pop Maybe the unused parachute payments there were due could be used to refund all season ticket holders of the remaining clubs 1/23rd of what they paid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 (edited) Anything they do following the issue of the petition can be reversed / recovered from the Directors. http://coopermatthews.com/winding-up-petition.html Liked this bit: If company directors are found guilty of continuing to allow a business to trade while insolvent, they may become personally liable for the debts incurred by the company from the time they knew the business was insolvent. That means Lumpitt and the other company directors are on the hook. Edited 24 January, 2012 by St Chalet I was wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Call me a big softie but this just brought a lump to my throat....we have a pop at their fans for turning a blind eye to their conveyorbelt of dubious owners but the kids are none the wiser... @pn_neil_allen: RT @MrKimbell: @officialpompey I had my 8 yr old nephew on the phone in tears tonight. The people who have shafted #Pompey have no idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brizzie Saints Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Dont think they can have a CVA whilst one still exists I;m sure under FL rules any club behind in their taxes is hit with a player transfer embargo so no selling Once issued with a WUP, bank accounts frozen and the club cannot be sold Simples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Call me a big softie but this just brought a lump to my throat....we have a pop at their fans for turning a blind eye to their conveyorbelt of dubious owners but the kids are none the wiser... @pn_neil_allen: RT @MrKimbell: @officialpompey I had my 8 yr old nephew on the phone in tears tonight. The people who have shafted #Pompey have no idea Ying and yang, I will be able to bring my son up as a Saint in the knowledge that it will be his local team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eling-saint Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Bit of info on the BBC website giving some what if's etc. Worth a read http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16710949.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Legally? No idea. As far as the FL goes? Whack Major Points deduction - Will be minus 10 for going into Admin and more for failing to exit a CVA a shappened to Bompey & others I think the points deduction, in a few cases, was for exiting Administration without a C.V.A. (Although I don't know how that is achieved!). The skates will cop the points deduction for a second admin within 2 seasons (saying will but there are differing p.o.v.). The big puzzle, isn't it always, with the skates is what will happen with the current CVA if they are allowed another? Will it be rolled up into a new one? If that's the case will all the creditors then get whatever percentage of 20% over 5 years less expenses? Yes, I know, the Turkeys voted for Christmas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eling-saint Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 Bit of info on the BBC website giving some what if's etc. Worth a read http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16710949.stm Like this bit..... Is this worse then before? They have been in some pretty bad situations over the past couple of years. Especially when they first got placed into administration and the CVA got challenged by HMRC, when they were looking for a buyer. When all these things were happening, it threatened the existence of the club. This is as bad as it can get for the club without the club ceasing to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Red Posted 24 January, 2012 Share Posted 24 January, 2012 (edited) @pn_neil_allen: RT @MrKimbell: @officialpompey I had my 8 yr old nephew on the phone in tears tonight. The people who have shafted #Pompey have no idea[/ Yep. That's the line Pompey will take in court again next month Don't wind us up. Soooo many people will be upset by it. We're essential to the community GROW SOME BALLS FFS Edited 24 January, 2012 by Winchester Red Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts