Pompey Takeover Saga

[holepuncture]

BBC Solent Sport @solentsport

 

Portsmouth fans plan rescue bid: The Portsmouth Supporters Trust are pushing to have a financial stake in the st... bbc.in/xIoAid

 

Having said that, a community bid means it is the community and the city and local businesses, and you would have various partners and some sort of council involvement and central funding from government.

 

Are you f*cking kidding me? They want funding from central government to pay the clubs tax bill? They want funding from central government to pay the clubs debt? FFS - that is delusion of the highest order and genuinely galling. The people of portsea island just dont get it and they need close that nasty little club down... like a skate fish flapping away on the fishermans deck, it needs a big whack on the head and be put to rest.

 

No one, and certainly not the tax payer, is going to fund pompeys shame. No credible business person would hand over dozens of millions to pay crooks like Chinny & Gaddy, let alone continue to fund Limptts & Clotters bonkers quality over quantity experiment.

 

 

James Pearce @Pearcesport

 

Mandaric revealed Redknapp was paid a million pounds for getting Portsmouth promoted to the Premier League

 

Jury heard start of phone call between reporter and Redknapp. Redknapp said when heard allegations he thought "here we f***ing go again"[/i]

 

Good old saggy chops, no wonder this transfer window has been so quiet with him busy standing trial

 

 

James Pearce @Pearcesport

 

Redknapp: "inland revenue fully aware.. If was something dodgy I'd have gone there, got the money + f***ing brought it back in f***ing briefcase"

 

 

PMSL - he does make me laugh, nice that his true nature and character are being shown to the footballing community.

 

Blimey, he really is in denial old Bagpuss

 

[Colinjb]

Having said that, a community bid means it is the community and the city and local businesses, and you would have various partners and some sort of council involvement and central funding from government.

 

A nice summary of why they are the most detestable vermin in english football. They don't get it, they never will get it, culturally and morally bankrupt the lot of them.

[dubai_phil]

In other news.

 

Their attendance will be down for Saturday....

 

8 skates at the Test match today with a pcfc flag

[Ken Tone]

It strikes me that Administration will have to be funded by someone. Portsmouth have to sell players by Monday midnight to bring in transfer fees or subsequently loan them out and get some fee. Nobody pays up front but by stages with transfer fees. A number of sellable assets will have poor values due to the attached wages. No player will want to jump at a loss of income as they become free agents in the event of liquidation. Why would teams want to buy them when they could come on the market for free. WHU and Cardiff could buy a few:lol:.

 

CSI could hardly fund the administration unless there would be a return. Chanrai/Portpin could but would they want to throw more money at a bottomless pit. I just can't see the parachute payments being brought forward with enough of an advance to fund the Administration. It could be that it may get to court and if it does it really should be curtains.

 

And yet reportedly they've turned down an improved bid from Ipswich for Pearce and Ward, of c £1.4 to £1.6 million. WHY??? It's like they have a death wish.

All I can think is that the deluded few plan to hang on to all their players for now, then go into admin after the transfer window closes but before the WU hearing ...on the basis that the administrator would then be unable to off-load players till the end of the season.

 

However I think if they get a real administrator this time he'll have to consider letting players go out on emergency loans just to reduce the wage bill.

 

(I'd happily add Pearce to our squad btw, with our shortage of CBs. And it would be wonderful to get him from the skates for nothing on an emergency loan, just to rub it in.)

[Corporate Ho]

You used up one of your three daily posts only to say that? What's the matter, Steve? Running out of excuses for your poxy little club and its crooked owners? Or is the situation so convoluted because of your past administration, the number of recent owners and what they are owed, the rules of the FL regarding points deductions or the early payment of parachute payments, that you cannot comment on what the legality of the situation now is?

 

Will you be toast, or do you think that the chancers who run your club, or the bent administrator of CSI, have some ace up their sleeves to gain you a stay of execution? Why aren't you your usual bullish self this morning?

 

Sorry to disappoint you with a short post this morning but I was rather busy.

1. I'm not making any excuses. I just keep pointing out various facts and points of view that happen not to coincide with the one sided blinkered view on here.

2. I'm glad you agree that there have been chancers running the club and dodgy dealings going on because that's what I've been saying all along. Has it finally dawned on you? And if that's the case then maybe, just maybe you'll agree that what's gone on isn't the actions of "the club" but of various characters who have used the club to line their own pockets while they bled it dry

 

Sorry' date=' meant 'ringfenced' in inverted commas as this is the line provided by Corps in defence of the zero payment to date and how as a fine upstanding Pompey NewCo they will ensure everything is done right by their creditors... or not. The FA/FL rules are a shambles - they are designed to punish, but both orgs will do everything possible to allow clubs to worm their way out if possible - simply due to the fact that its tehir own rules that have led to the development of the debt mountain in the first place - their cowering to the pressures of the the Premier league and its 'brand' - thus allowing clubs to in effect dictate the lack of financial regulation and a fair playing field - Pompey have cheated its clear to all, possibly even those at the FL, but as others have said, because its their 'rules' that allowed them to get in this situation, (and has allowed so many others to do exactly the same - albeit currently servicing their debt) they are happier burying their heads and hoping it will go away, rather than tackling this embarrassing issue... the question have is how come their decision (the right one in the end) to punish us for out admin was done very quickly - I can only presume this is because our books were in top notch order and was thus easy to see how our problems arose. Pompey with their complex convoluted ownership and charge, debt, creditors from previous admin, must be a nightmare - ad sadly they look to be taking the easier route which is 'take one look and run away' - way too scary for them...[/quote']

 

I think our debt situation is pretty clear to everyone FC. We owe around £16.5m on the CVA, around £3.5-£4m to Gaydamak and allegedly have a loan of £10.8m to Antonov. That's it. Chainrai has a charge on CSI which he says means anyone wanting to but PFC needs to pay him the price he agreed with CSI for us - but that's not a Pompey debt and it's unlikely that if a buyer does come forward (and a bid's already been made) Chainrai has to decide whether to hold out for the full amount or take a hit and accept a lower offer. The reason the FL docked you points quickly is because SLH going into admin was caused by the financial actions of the club. CSI going into admin was nothing to do with PFC. Yes, it's caused us problems but the shortfall we now face is due to Antonov's problems and the money he was putting into the club was approved by the FL so to keep saying "Pompey" were overspending is a gross simplification. If the Liebherr's pulled their funding tomorrow you'd be facing problems too. So are you overspending? Or are you following a business plan that includes cash injections from a wealthy benefactor? What's the difference?

 

It's not the fans fault but they were quite happy to go along with the whole 'living above your means' thing when it was going good,not one of them questioned paying players like sol Campbell £100k a week when they were getting less than 20k home gates.

ywear

 

Do you really not understand after all this time that gate money isn't the prime concern in the PL when each club gets £40m a year from SKY? Not to mention the fact that our gate income was actually a lot higher than a lot of PL clubs anyway, largely due to the fact that many Northern clubs charged way less for tickets than we did. Our turnover the year we won the cup (is anyone bored of me saying this yet?) was £70m. Yes the wages to turnover ration was high but no higher than many other PL clubs. It really isn't rocket science.

 

They will get away with it.

 

They will go into admin - again, blow off yet more debt - again, then Chanrai will just find another bunch of crooks to be puppet owners and the taxpayer will be left out of pocket - again.

 

So crooks and puppets running the club yet "the club" is to blame. Hmmmmmmmm

 

They may have sold off anything their club meant for an fa cup, but it killed them, and it was just a group of mercenaries that won it, no-one that actually gave a toss about the club and not many that would put it amongst their career highlights I imagine. It should be stripped, as it would in many other countries as it's not fair on every other club that entered the fa cup those seasons, but anyone who follows football closely knows that.

 

What an absolute crock of ****. See above for our turnover the year we won the cup and compare it to many other clubs. Higher than plenty in the PL. The point is, as I've said many times that when the finances crumbled we sold over £70m worth of players and if that money had been used as it should have we wouldn't be where we are now. The fact that our finances are in the state they are would seem to strongly suggest that someone bled a considerable amount of that money out of the club and didn't pay what was owed. How else would you suggest we amassed the debts we did?

 

As for the pathetic "mercenaries" argument, get over yourself. Players go to who'll pay them the most. Otherwise why would players you've had like Bridge, Walcott, Bale and on and on have left. Why aren't they still with you?

 

I agree entirely with your sentiments. However, I have business clients who are Skates, ST holders. They are people who in all other matters give the outward appearance of being sensible intelligent individuals. And yet, when you ask them whether it was worth it, to spunk money they didn't have on buying players they couldn't afford, even though it could kill the club, they say yes. They believe it was all worthwhile for the memories they had of the several visits to Wembley for the play-offs, the FA Cup matches, etc. Naturally, they also like to gloat to us Saints fans that they have a more successful recent history than us, even though we counter it by saying that they bought the FA Cup with players they couldn't afford.

 

But that's the difference between them and us. We played by the rules, took steps to cut our debts, played the kids in an attempt to make ends meet and frankly I have more respect and pride in what we have achieved. If we did as they did, we wouldn't be a club that I would feel comfortable about supporting, but they're a shameless lot and got the owners they deserved. We have the moral high ground. For those of their fans who feel that the success was justified even for the price that it will eventually cost them, let them rot in hell. Bring on oblivion.

 

I love this argument. All Pompey fans do and think this, all Saints fans do and think that.

 

Like we all move with a hive mind

[trousers]

I'm fed up hearing about the potential forthcoming 'abuse' of the parachute payments scheme. It can't be right that these payments effectively encourage clubs to mismanage their finances.

 

I'm off to do some research on the rules governing misappropriation of said funds.

 

Hmmm, somewhat sadly, it seems like the use of parachute money to "service (ongoing) debts" as opposed to cushioning the impact of paying Premier League level player salaries in the Football League (the original intention) is an acceptable and even encouraged trend....

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcumeds/792/79207.htm#n194

 

Parachute payments 123. One element of the Premier League's solidarity payments —the payments made to relegated clubs to compensate for loss of income (dubbed "parachute payments")—arguably has a destabilising effect now that the Premier League has increased their value. Lord Mawhinney, former Chairman of the Football League, explained that:

Parachute payments were instigated because the salary levels in Premier League clubs were so much greater than in Championship clubs that, without some transitional funding, Premier League clubs that got relegated would simply just head straight into administration or just tumble down the Football League and that did not seem to be fair.[187]

The obvious solution would appear to be to insert a relegation clause into players' contracts, rather than initiate parachute payments which could be seen as a reward for failure. However, Shaun Harvey, Leeds United Chief Executive, explained why this was not as easy as it might first appear:

I'd challenge anybody to sit in front of an agent and a player and say to them, 'we want to sign you for three years. We're a Premier League club. We're going all out to stay at this division. However, if we fail we want to reduce your wages by half'. To which the player and his agent say, 'Well you're not really that confident that you're going to stay in the Premier League then are you?'[188]

Barry Kilby affirmed that in a competitive market, if one club sought to impose such a clause, other clubs would seek to attract players by not imposing it.

124. Parachute payments were initially for two years, but in May 2010 the Premier League extended parachute payments from two to four seasons. Clubs relegated at the end of 2010/11 will receive around £48 million spread over four seasons. By contrast, during 2004/05-2006/07 parachute payments were £6.5 million per season, with an increase in 2007/08 to £11.4 million. Richard Scudamore made the point that if you want clubs to be competitive when they enter the Premier League, you need to protect them when they go down. He felt that the parachute payments were justified because they helped ensure the sustainability of the clubs involved, and suggested that there was no evidence that they distorted competition as relegated clubs did not automatically come up the following season. In its written evidence, the Premier League included parachute payments within its definition of solidarity payments to lower league football.

125. Other witnesses were concerned about the impact of parachute payments on competition in the Football League. Patrick Collins was suspicious that the Premier League was seeking to protect its own:

I do agree that the Premier League, deep down, wants to be a closed shop. […] The parachute payments involve going down with £18 million in your pocket when everyone else has got £1 million and so the likelihood is […] they will come straight back.[189]

126. In his evidence, Phil Gregory argued in relation to parachute payments that "the net result is the non-recipients spending more money they don't have in an attempt to remain competitive in the promotion battle, worsening an already precarious financial situation".[190] Lord Mawhinney defended the principle of parachute payments but argued that:

The present level of parachute payments are going to undermine the integrity of competition in the Football League. They are going to do that because the amount of money—£16 million, £16 million, £8 million and £8 million over four years—bears very little relationship to the salary issue that was the original case.[191]

Greg Clarke, Chairman of the Football League, called parachute payments "one of the most contentious issues that the Football League has debated".[192] He stressed that "if we get a situation where the clubs that are relegated are automatically promoted, that is not in the interests of a fair competition because you cannot win unless you have access to Premier League funding".[193]

He expressed the hope, though, that the relegated clubs would use parachute payments to straighten out their finances, rather than gamble on maintaining a high wage bill to secure early promotion: "interestingly, the trend is changing. This season, because of the large debts some Premier League clubs have, they spend quite a lot of that parachute payment servicing and paying down their debt".[194]

[trousers]

Neil Allen @pn_neil_allen

To all #Pompey fans, join The 12th Man and show football that the supporters refuse to give up the fight. pompeys12thman.co.uk#savepompey

 

The fans of Portsmouth Football Club have always been Pompey's 12th man. It's time for Pompey fans all over the world to stand together and show our support for the club as it faces yet another crisis.

 

But this time, the Club needs more than just loyal support from the stands. It needs to look at a different model of ownership, with meaningful supporter involvement and dialogue, allowing those who care about the club the most - the fans- to help safeguard the club's future and play a real role in running and developing the football club.

 

It's time to show the strength of our commitment to the football club we love. The names and faces on this site have signed up to support a new way forward for Pompey. Make your voice heard - and make it matter.

 

If you believe that fans should have a significant role in Portsmouth Football Club, and ensure the football club represents the best of our proud City, then please register and show your support.

 

Play up Pompey

 

Edited 25 January, 2012 by trousers

[Ken Tone]

This agreement by Mandaric to pay Redknapp 5 or 10% of any transfer fee pofit was absoluely crazy. How common is it in pro football?

 

It's an incentive for the manager to behave badly.

 

All Redknapp had to do was sign lots of players on low fees or Bosman frees, put them on a long contract and wait for any one or two of them to be sold later. Big bucks for him. The fact that the rest of them stay languishing in the reserves on a big wage is no loss to him ...just to the club.

 

In fact when you look at Redknapp's record it's no wonder he's such a wheeler dealer. He makes a packet from any profit but makes no loss from any loss to the club. Win win for him.

[Saint_John]

James Pearce @Pearcesport

The conversation between Rob Beasley (NotW) and Redknapp took place the day before Redknapp was to manage Spurs on Carling Cup Final

 

When R asked about his defence for Monaco allegations "I don't want no f***ing... I've got nothing to defend Rob. I aint done nothing wrong"

Beasley "I wish I could leave a hundred grand lying around". Redknapp "Well I can Rob"....

 

I wonder if Southampton Airport have found an answer to who left this money in a bag ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-16607881

Southampton Airport has put out a final call to whoever lost a large amount of Euros there at the end of last year.

The bundle of several thousand Euros was found at the terminal by a member of staff.

The airport urged the owner of the cash to contact them with details of their flight, how much money was lost and the denominations of the note.

[View From The Top]

Calm down Steve. Your club went bust because it overspent and was then bought by chancers who added to that overspend and when the banks wanted their money back you didn't have it.

 

Your club is bust again as you've yet again be living far beyond your means.

 

Accept it and move on.

 

I can remember you telling me how your debt wasn't an issue as the Sky money would cover it, on this thread as it happens. Yet again you were proven to be soooooo right.

 

PS. Do you do discount for TSW members as might need something for daughters birthday? Good lad.

[Colinjb]

Your club is bust again as you've yet again be living far beyond your means.

 

Living beyond your means, there is a solution to that, a stunningly simple solution. Although the concept of that is so foreign to them that you would be better off giving an iPod to a luddite.

[trousers]

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/60041/notices/1518833/recent=10;category=corp-insolvency-winding-up-court;subcategory=petitions-companies;all=portsmouth

 

Date: 25 January 2012 Issue Number: 60041 Page number: 1437

Publication Date: Wednesday, 25 January 2012

Notice Code: 2450

Petitions to Wind Up (Companies)

In the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Companies Court No 24 of 2012

 

In the Matter of PORTSMOUTH FOOTBALL CLUB (2010) LIMITED

(Company Number 07264768 )

 

and in the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986

A Petition to wind up the above-named Company, Registration Number 07264768, of Fratton Park, Frogmore Road, Southsea, United Kingdom PO4 8RA, presented on 3 January 2012 by the Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs, of Bush House, Strand, London WC2B 4RD, claiming to be Creditors of the Company, will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice, 7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL, on 20 February 2012, at 1030 hours (or as soon thereafter as the Petition can be heard).

Any persons intending to appear on the hearing of the Petition (whether to support or oppose it) must give notice of intention to do so to the Petitioners or to their Solicitor in accordance with Rule 4.16 by 1600 hours on 17 February 2012.

The Petitioners’ Solicitor is the Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, Solicitor’s Office, South West Wing, Bush House, Strand, London WC2B 4RD, telephone 020 7438 6268. (Ref SLR 1522007/37/U.)

24 January 2012.

Edited 25 January, 2012 by trousers

[Lord Duckhunter]

This agreement by Mandaric to pay Redknapp 5 or 10% of any transfer fee pofit was absoluely crazy. How common is it in pro football?

 

It's an incentive for the manager to behave badly.

 

 

It used to be quite common, before managers pay caught up a bit with the players.

 

Hollowhead has a similar deal at Blackpool. The arguement is that if you find a player for £1mil turn him into a £15mil player, then you deserve some sort of bonus. As you say, it could lead to bad behaviour.Therefore, I think it will start to dissapear from the game.

[Colinjb]

It used to be quite common, before managers pay caught up a bit with the players.

 

Hollowhead has a similar deal at Blackpool. The arguement is that if you find a player for £1mil turn him into a £15mil player, then you deserve some sort of bonus. As you say, it could lead to bad behaviour.Therefore, I think it will start to dissapear from the game.

 

Isn't a similar kind of arrangement also present now at Doncaster? Although this has now bypassed the manager entirely and purely involves agent Willie Mckay?

[dubai_phil]

Oh met one of my Journo mates from Race to Dubai this morning (Trust me I've had a busy day pics on Gen Sports later)

 

Anyway his comment was..

 

Wow, thanks for that link. That thread is simply amazing. You guys seemed to know everything at least a month or more before we even got a sniff in the press. I read a lot over Xmas & New Year, have to say my other half thought I'd gone nuts when I kept bursting out laughing.

 

I'd love to find a way to acknowledge it all

[Winchester Red]

Here's a thought Trousers

 

Maybe instead of relegated PL clubs automatically getting £16m, £16m, £8m and £8m over 4 years, maybe they should be optional, but if you chose to take them they come with a points penalty in the Championship.

 

That way the relegated club is protected from going under but it doesn't undermine the integrity of the Championship competition.

 

Let's say -1 point for every £2m taken, so take the whole £16m in year 1 means you start on -8 points.

 

That would definitely even out what is an obviously unfair advantage?

 

Thoughts?

[trousers]

Here's a thought Trousers

 

Maybe instead of relegated PL clubs automatically getting £16m, £16m, £8m and £8m over 4 years, maybe they should be optional, but if you chose to take them they come with a points penalty in the Championship.

 

That way the relegated club is protected from going under but it doesn't undermine the integrity of the Championship competition.

 

Let's say -1 point for every £2m taken, so take the whole £16m in year 1 means you start on -8 points.

 

That would definitely even out what is an obviously unfair advantage?

 

Thoughts?

 

Sounds reasonable to me. The whole thing is currently flawed IMHO.

[Waterside.saint]

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/60041/notices/1518833/recent=10;category=corp-insolvency-winding-up-court;subcategory=petitions-companies;all=portsmouth

 

Date: 25 January 2012 Issue Number: 60041 Page number: 1437

Publication Date: Wednesday, 25 January 2012

Notice Code: 2450

Petitions to Wind Up (Companies)

In the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Companies Court No 24 of 2012

 

In the Matter of PORTSMOUTH FOOTBALL CLUB (2010) LIMITED

(Company Number 07264768 )

 

and in the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986

A Petition to wind up the above-named Company, Registration Number 07264768, of Fratton Park, Frogmore Road, Southsea, United Kingdom PO4 8RA, presented on 3 January 2012 by the Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs, of Bush House, Strand, London WC2B 4RD, claiming to be Creditors of the Company, will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice, 7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL, on 20 February 2012, at 1030 hours (or as soon thereafter as the Petition can be heard).

Any persons intending to appear on the hearing of the Petition (whether to support or oppose it) must give notice of intention to do so to the Petitioners or to their Solicitor in accordance with Rule 4.16 by 1600 hours on 17 February 2012.

The Petitioners’ Solicitor is the Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, Solicitor’s Office, South West Wing, Bush House, Strand, London WC2B 4RD, telephone 020 7438 6268. (Ref SLR 1522007/37/U.)

24 January 2012.

 

Yesssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!

Get in!

[gaz]

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/60041/notices/1518833/recent=10;category=corp-insolvency-winding-up-court;subcategory=petitions-companies;all=portsmouth

 

Date: 25 January 2012 Issue Number: 60041 Page number: 1437

Publication Date: Wednesday, 25 January 2012

Notice Code: 2450

Petitions to Wind Up (Companies)

In the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Companies Court No 24 of 2012

 

In the Matter of PORTSMOUTH FOOTBALL CLUB (2010) LIMITED

(Company Number 07264768 )

 

and in the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986

A Petition to wind up the above-named Company, Registration Number 07264768, of Fratton Park, Frogmore Road, Southsea, United Kingdom PO4 8RA, presented on 3 January 2012 by the Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs, of Bush House, Strand, London WC2B 4RD, claiming to be Creditors of the Company, will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice, 7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL, on 20 February 2012, at 1030 hours (or as soon thereafter as the Petition can be heard).

Any persons intending to appear on the hearing of the Petition (whether to support or oppose it) must give notice of intention to do so to the Petitioners or to their Solicitor in accordance with Rule 4.16 by 1600 hours on 17 February 2012.

The Petitioners’ Solicitor is the Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, Solicitor’s Office, South West Wing, Bush House, Strand, London WC2B 4RD, telephone 020 7438 6268. (Ref SLR 1522007/37/U.)

24 January 2012.

 

There we go then. February 20th.

 

D-Day for the Skates.

[Colinjb]

There we go then. February 20th.

 

D-Day for the Skates.

 

26 days for Andronikou to pass the buck. Tick - tock .....

Edited 25 January, 2012 by Colinjb

[pedg]

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/60041/notices/1518833/recent=10;category=corp-insolvency-winding-up-court;subcategory=petitions-companies;all=portsmouth

 

Date: 25 January 2012 Issue Number: 60041 Page number: 1437

Publication Date: Wednesday, 25 January 2012

Notice Code: 2450

Petitions to Wind Up (Companies)

In the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Companies Court No 24 of 2012

 

In the Matter of PORTSMOUTH FOOTBALL CLUB (2010) LIMITED

(Company Number 07264768 )

 

and in the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986

A Petition to wind up the above-named Company, Registration Number 07264768, of Fratton Park, Frogmore Road, Southsea, United Kingdom PO4 8RA, presented on 3 January 2012 by the Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs, of Bush House, Strand, London WC2B 4RD, claiming to be Creditors of the Company, will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice, 7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL, on 20 February 2012, at 1030 hours (or as soon thereafter as the Petition can be heard).

Any persons intending to appear on the hearing of the Petition (whether to support or oppose it) must give notice of intention to do so to the Petitioners or to their Solicitor in accordance with Rule 4.16 by 1600 hours on 17 February 2012.

The Petitioners’ Solicitor is the Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, Solicitor’s Office, South West Wing, Bush House, Strand, London WC2B 4RD, telephone 020 7438 6268. (Ref SLR 1522007/37/U.)

24 January 2012.

 

What's that crackling sound?.... Could it be the sound of bank accounts being frozen??

[latter day saint]

There we go then. February 20th.

 

D-Day for the Skates.

There coming for you !

There coming for yoouuuu !

You dirty skate Bastards !

HMRC are coming for you !

 

[buctootim]

Chanrai will take them into administration before then and appoint you know who as administrator.

[JackFrost]

 

So crooks and puppets running the club yet "the club" is to blame. Hmmmmmmmm

 

Did "the club" win the FA cup?

[Saint Mikey]

Here's a thought Trousers

 

Maybe instead of relegated PL clubs automatically getting £16m, £16m, £8m and £8m over 4 years, maybe they should be optional, but if you chose to take them they come with a points penalty in the Championship.

 

That way the relegated club is protected from going under but it doesn't undermine the integrity of the Championship competition.

 

Let's say -1 point for every £2m taken, so take the whole £16m in year 1 means you start on -8 points.

 

That would definitely even out what is an obviously unfair advantage?

 

Thoughts?

 

To be honest. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this thread, and that obviously takes some beating. The Parachute payments are there for a very good reason, to enable a club to be competitive in the PL.

Otherwise two things would happen. One, no promoted club would never spend any money and would not be able to compete in the PL and be relegated making the league uncompetitive. Two, established PL clubs reliant on PL money would go out of business the day they were relegated, or a complete firesale that would render the club completely uncompetitive in the league below (that would have happened to us, without any parachute payments).

 

The income of clubs in the PL is so distorted due to TV money (particularly Overseas rights), and the Parachute payments help to balance this by providing a safety net. I don't particularly agree with the recent deal, as I think it makes the Championship distorted. However, if we manage to go up and then get relegated, will you be championing this?

[Ken Tone]

It used to be quite common, before managers pay caught up a bit with the players.

 

Hollowhead has a similar deal at Blackpool. The arguement is that if you find a player for £1mil turn him into a £15mil player, then you deserve some sort of bonus. As you say, it could lead to bad behaviour.Therefore, I think it will start to dissapear from the game.

 

It would make some sort of sense if the manager also had to pay a percentage of the loss when he buys a £15 million player and turns him into a £1million one!

 

I'm definitely in the wrong business.

[trousers]

James Pearce @Pearcesport

Rob Beasley from News of World admitted paying eight thousand pounds to source who first tipped him off about Redknapp's Monaco account

[dubai_phil]

There we go then. February 20th.

 

D-Day for the Skates.

 

And I'll be at the Derby game 18th when we can all have a damned good sing song about it!

[tony13579]

They have a plan B.....

 

 

NEWS: Armed man attempts to hold up Barclays bank in Southsea - the latest via @pn_clare_semke http://ow.ly/8FWeQ

12 minutes ago via

[bridge too far]

James Pearce @Pearcesport

Rob Beasley from News of World admitted paying eight thousand pounds to source who first tipped him off about Redknapp's Monaco account

 

I wonder who that was?

 

Aside from that, do we yet have any idea about Storrie Teller? We know his case has been heard but that the sentence apparently hasn't been divulged because it might impact on this case. Is he turning Queen's Evidence? I'd love to be there when that all comes tumbling out

[Doctoroncall]

I think our debt situation is pretty clear to everyone FC. We owe around £16.5m on the CVA, around £3.5-£4m to Gaydamak and allegedly have a loan of £10.8m to Antonov. That's it.

 

Not quite, HMRC are owed 1.6m so far. I can't believe you left that of the list especially as the WUP was in the gazette today, and let's not forget future paye and tax responsibilities.

[stev2001]

Chanrai will take them into administration before then and appoint you know who as administrator.

 

Is it chinnys option to choose the administator if they went into admin? I thought PFC had little or no debt to him appart from monies owed in the CVA which is another administration. That shouldn't come into it, should it??? Their only new debt is the £1.6M to HMRC and a £10.8M loan from CSI. Surely then HMRC would have a choice in the matter??

 

Anyone know how this works when you already have debt from a previous admin?

[OldNick]

Not quite, HMRC are owed 1.6m so far. I can't believe you left that of the list especially as the WUP was in the gazette today, and let's not forget future paye and tax responsibilities.

would there be interest on the loan due to Chanrai, of course the St Johns ambulance people etc dont count in Pompeys accounts. I wonder how much rate arrears they have, anyone wiht a PO postcode is being shortchanged, perhaps they need contact the council and ask.

[buctootim]

Is it chinnys option to choose the administator if they went into admin? I thought PFC had little or no debt to him appart from monies owed in the CVA which is another administration. That shouldn't come into it, should it??? Their only new debt is the £1.6M to HMRC and a £10.8M loan from CSI. Surely then HMRC would have a choice in the matter??

 

Anyone know how this works when you already have debt from a previous admin?

 

Chinny is a debenture holder (secured debt). Im no expert but he can initiate admin according to this BBC article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16710949.stm

[Wurzel]

I wonder how the NOTW reporter knew of this bung/transaction.... Phone tapping? no.. never...It would be funny if the evidence was gathered because of another illegal act

 

He overheard Rosie barking up the wrong tree

[Wurzel]

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/60041/notices/1518833/recent=10;category=corp-insolvency-winding-up-court;subcategory=petitions-companies;all=portsmouth

 

Date: 25 January 2012 Issue Number: 60041 Page number: 1437

Publication Date: Wednesday, 25 January 2012

Notice Code: 2450

Petitions to Wind Up (Companies)

In the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Companies Court No 24 of 2012

 

In the Matter of PORTSMOUTH FOOTBALL CLUB (2010) LIMITED

(Company Number 07264768 )

 

and in the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986

A Petition to wind up the above-named Company, Registration Number 07264768, of Fratton Park, Frogmore Road, Southsea, United Kingdom PO4 8RA, presented on 3 January 2012 by the Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs, of Bush House, Strand, London WC2B 4RD, claiming to be Creditors of the Company, will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice, 7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL, on 20 February 2012, at 1030 hours (or as soon thereafter as the Petition can be heard).

Any persons intending to appear on the hearing of the Petition (whether to support or oppose it) must give notice of intention to do so to the Petitioners or to their Solicitor in accordance with Rule 4.16 by 1600 hours on 17 February 2012.

The Petitioners’ Solicitor is the Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, Solicitor’s Office, South West Wing, Bush House, Strand, London WC2B 4RD, telephone 020 7438 6268. (Ref SLR 1522007/37/U.)

24 January 2012.

 

Now, when they say support it ..........:twisted: Wonder how many of us the court can hold?

[pedg]

Not quite, HMRC are owed 1.6m so far. I can't believe you left that of the list especially as the WUP was in the gazette today, and let's not forget future paye and tax responsibilities.

 

He also appears to have forgotten that chainrai appears to have lent them not an inconsiderable amount of money to keep going since CSI went under. Plus there may be stupid businesses who have not insisted on cash on delivery.

[pedg]

Chinny is a debenture holder (secured debt). Im no expert but he can initiate admin according to this BBC article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16710949.stm

 

The whole plot of this is getting to be more complicated than the dreams within dreams in Inception.

[tony13579]

James Pearce @Pearcesport

Rob Beasley from News of World admitted paying eight thousand pounds to source who first tipped him off about Redknapp's Monaco account

Who blagged on 'arry, who was the boss at NOTW and who agreed the £8k

[Ken Tone]

James Pearce @Pearcesport

Rob Beasley from News of World admitted paying eight thousand pounds to source who first tipped him off about Redknapp's Monaco account

 

I hope the source declared the money on his tax return!

[sussexsaint]

James Pearce @Pearcesport

Rob Beasley from News of World admitted paying eight thousand pounds to source who first tipped him off about Redknapp's Monaco account

 

 

Can you pay that into my other account Rosie48 please

[Wes Tender]

Sorry to disappoint you with a short post this morning but I was rather busy.

1. I'm not making any excuses. I just keep pointing out various facts and points of view that happen not to coincide with the one sided blinkered view on here.

2. I'm glad you agree that there have been chancers running the club and dodgy dealings going on because that's what I've been saying all along. Has it finally dawned on you? And if that's the case then maybe, just maybe you'll agree that what's gone on isn't the actions of "the club" but of various characters who have used the club to line their own pockets while they bled it dry

 

The club isn't just the people running it. Perhaps this is the mistake that you have been making all along. The club is the board or the owners, the players, the fans, the personnel employed by it; the whole entity. No use bleating about the sort of crooks that became associated with you during the past few years and lapping up the glory years and then distancing yourselves from it all when the sh*t hit the fan(s). And you forgot to answer this:-

 

Will you be toast, or do you think that the chancers who run your club, or the bent administrator of CSI, have some ace up their sleeves to gain you a stay of execution?

 

 

I think our debt situation is pretty clear to everyone FC. We owe around £16.5m on the CVA, around £3.5-£4m to Gaydamak and allegedly have a loan of £10.8m to Antonov. That's it. Chainrai has a charge on CSI which he says means anyone wanting to but PFC needs to pay him the price he agreed with CSI for us - but that's not a Pompey debt and it's unlikely that if a buyer does come forward (and a bid's already been made) Chainrai has to decide whether to hold out for the full amount or take a hit and accept a lower offer.

And of course, apart from the debt you list, there is the debt to HMRC, there are the running costs, the inflated player's wages, etc. No ground, no training ground, no land around the ground. What a bargain the club is!

 

The reason the FL docked you points quickly is because SLH going into admin was caused by the financial actions of the club.

 

Or more correctly the fact that Barclays pulled the plug on us for a relatively small amount, when they reduced our overdraft facility.

 

CSI going into admin was nothing to do with PFC. Yes, it's caused us problems but the shortfall we now face is due to Antonov's problems and the money he was putting into the club was approved by the FL so to keep saying "Pompey" were overspending is a gross simplification. If the Liebherr's pulled their funding tomorrow you'd be facing problems too. So are you overspending? Or are you following a business plan that includes cash injections from a wealthy benefactor? What's the difference?

 

The difference is that our wealthy benefactors are respectable business people, ethical, reliable, trustworthy. None of these adjectives apply to any of the past few owners you have had. Furthermore, the level is debt we have is miniscule against the value of assets owned by the club and also against the returns achievable by the return to the Premiership. So our owners are making astute investments, whereas yours were laundering money/picking the bones of your carcase/speculating funds they didn't have. Do you see the difference now?

 

ywear

 

Do you really not understand after all this time that gate money isn't the prime concern in the PL when each club gets £40m a year from SKY? Not to mention the fact that our gate income was actually a lot higher than a lot of PL clubs anyway, largely due to the fact that many Northern clubs charged way less for tickets than we did. Our turnover the year we won the cup (is anyone bored of me saying this yet?) was £70m. Yes the wages to turnover ration was high but no higher than many other PL clubs. It really isn't rocket science.

 

And yet for all your bleating about how other clubs had similar gate receipts and also similar wages to turnover ratios, yours was the first club in the history of the Premiership to go into administration.

 

So crooks and puppets running the club yet "the club" is to blame. Hmmmmmmmm

 

As I said above, the club isn't just the crooks and puppets.

 

What an absolute crock of ****. See above for our turnover the year we won the cup and compare it to many other clubs. Higher than plenty in the PL. The point is, as I've said many times that when the finances crumbled we sold over £70m worth of players and if that money had been used as it should have we wouldn't be where we are now. The fact that our finances are in the state they are would seem to strongly suggest that someone bled a considerable amount of that money out of the club and didn't pay what was owed. How else would you suggest we amassed the debts we did?

 

As for the pathetic "mercenaries" argument, get over yourself. Players go to who'll pay them the most. Otherwise why would players you've had like Bridge, Walcott, Bale and on and on have left. Why aren't they still with you?

 

 

 

I love this argument. All Pompey fans do and think this, all Saints fans do and think that.

 

Like we all move with a hive mind

 

Of course, it was a sweeping generalisation. All I can go by is the anecdotal evidence that I have mentioned, that several seemingly intelligent businessmen who are Skate fans, seem to think that even though the club might go into oblivion, the success of a few short years in the sunshine made it worthwhile. On the other hand, most Saints supporters I encounter in my business circles were quite content to take the relegation to the third division as the price payable to rid ourselves of Lowe and his cronies to rebuild to where we are now. Do you have any anecdotal evidence that suggests that any Saints fans you meet in the toy industry envied you and wished that Southampton had gone the same route as the Skates? No, I didn't think so. And what is your position? Was it all worth it, or would you have been happier with say a steady place in the second or third division, where you would naturally have been had you lived within your means?

[angelman]

Is it chinnys option to choose the administator if they went into admin? I thought PFC had little or no debt to him appart from monies owed in the CVA which is another administration. That shouldn't come into it, should it??? Their only new debt is the £1.6M to HMRC and a £10.8M loan from CSI. Surely then HMRC would have a choice in the matter??

 

Anyone know how this works when you already have debt from a previous admin?

 

Chin did a £1m loan a couple of weeks ago. Maybe that is unsecured, maybe not.

[Wes Tender]

They have a plan B.....

 

NEWS: Armed man attempts to hold up Barclays bank in Southsea - the latest via @pn_clare_semke http://ow.ly/8FWeQ

12 minutes ago via

 

I'm no good at the photoshop lark. Could somebody with that skill compose a photo featuring TCWTB wearing a balaclava, holding a gun? Should be easy enough to place him in a Barclays bank environment, wearing his Skate regalia, with the apposite badge "Beware stupid person" the comedy hat, clowns shoes etc.

Edited 25 January, 2012 by Wes Tender

[rallyboy]

how is the supporters' trust getting on with that sponsored walk and jumble sale fundraiser?

Have they reached the £40M mark yet?

 

.....Just accept it's over and form a proper club.

 

And congrats should be in order to new Ho, more polite and less abusive by far.

Still a little bit on the deluded side but hey ho.

 

And what ever happened to Hot Wheels?

They were great.

[Stu Man Do]

Quick question though may have already been answered somewhere ...

 

If it comes to it can AA be appointed as the administrator for the club whilst also acting as a seperate administrator for the parent company?

[Matthew Le God]

Quick question though may have already been answered somewhere ...

 

If it comes to it can AA be appointed as the administrator for the club whilst also acting as a seperate administrator for the parent company?

 

I doubt it due to possible conflict of interests?

[rooney]

Chin did a £1m loan a couple of weeks ago. Maybe that is unsecured, maybe not.

 

I expect it will be secured as his Debenture will be"an all monies charge, both present and future" I question though if an administrator will be appointed as there is nothing to administrate now. Baloos debenture will pick up all the fixed assets ie the stadium, as will Gaydamaks (the car park) and also the floating assets stock, inc players, debtors and cash. I expect Baloo would appoint a Receiver to collect the proceeds of these assets, if such an animal still exists under Insolvency Laws now. Surely he will be able to see that nobody is going to come along and buy this rubbish now its so near to liquidation?

[pedg]

I expect it will be secured as his Debenture will be"an all monies charge, both present and future" I question though if an administrator will be appointed as there is nothing to administrate now. Baloos debenture will pick up all the fixed assets ie the stadium, as will Gaydamaks (the car park) and also the floating assets stock, inc players, debtors and cash. I expect Baloo would appoint a Receiver to collect the proceeds of these assets, if such an animal still exists under Insolvency Laws now. Surely he will be able to see that nobody is going to come along and buy this rubbish now its so near to liquidation?

 

soon.....

 

[The Majestic Channon]

don't see what a pink and white striped cat has to do with this

 

 

 

But that's bagpuss!!!!!