saint si

Question re: the 28 day cooling off period. Once that has elapsed (Monday) then aren't the creditors bound to the terms of Chinny's CVA at that point? And any rival bid could only then be presented should the first CVA fail (due to the failure of the conditions)? If that's the case, it means the PST have to get their bid and CVA proposals out on the table, and voted on, before Monday, with the only other option to be waiting for Chinny's to fail?

That boro win kept their playoff chances alive (temporarily). Of course they went berserk...

Founder members? Top class stadium? State of the art academy? It ain't our cheating friends, but it does make you wonder who it might be...

Perhaps they had a contractual obligation to the opposition and figured the easiest thing to do was to rope a bunch of triallists in to play the games, with no intention of actually signing any of them...

So it's essentially an expensive overseas trip for a bunch of triallists. WTF?! Even solvent clubs don't normally do that do they? It reminds of North Korea showing tourists around... Yes, yes my friend... come join PFC2010... it is just one big holiday in the sun!

Are they trying to set some new record of getting a points deduction in every division? That would be quite some claim to fame. Has anyone got a league table of the total ever points deductions dished out? Think they're not quite matching Luton yet....

Maybe Ipswich played him up front?

That's my understanding also. The FCR has been found to not be illegal but it doesn't then follow that it is a legal requirement to pay football creditors in full - it is merely a football league condition for the granting of the golden share. Liquidation -> no club -> no expectation of a golden share -> football creditors join the queue with the rest of the unsecured creditors. It is also questionable what happens to parachute payments in the event of liquidation. My understanding is that these may well be withheld by the PL and then divided amongst PL members. This is reinforced by the Justice Mann's judgement on the original CVA following HMRC's challenge. The judge's ruling on that case: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/2013.html HMRC challenged the CVA as the parachute payments were not shown in the "liquidation" scenario on the CVA. Here, the judge is saying that is acceptable because they might not be payable in that scenario: And then it would be necessary to point to the fact that the payments might well not come in at all because the Premier League would undoubtedly take the view that they are not payable to a company in liquidation and which is not running the business of a football club because its rules (and in particular Rule 59) do not allow a relegated club which is no longer in the Football League to be paid the parachute payment Proposals which referred to the possibility of getting in the parachute payments would therefore have to present it as being dependent on a potentially very difficult piece of litigation which the Premier League would be bound to resist because it would go to the heart of its insolvency policy.

So, who breached contract first?

I count 18 I think. So no need to remove the embargo, yes?

"O’Hara, from Folkestone in Kent, is a Northern Ireland under-16 goalkeeper. He joined the Blues from Arsenal last season." That's that problem solved then.

Someone who doesn't bother going to any games during one of the most exciting and positive seasons in recent memory, and is only vaguely indifferent to watching us get promoted on TV is not really identifiable as a fair-weather fan. Pretty clear he's not really a fan at all.

They became one of the top amateur teams in the south of England rising to the top division of the Southern League. They then, unfortunately, were suspended for breaching their amateur status by paying travelling and hotel expenses prior to a cup match. Breaching the rules? "Unfortunately"? DFCSBs.

Well for a completely automated, free tool, I can't see much to complain about. Pretty clear what it says to anybody with half a brain.

Not sure if this pic has been posted... from the online store...

Try that again... https://p.twimg.com/AwkxyLcCMAEthXJ.jpg

So what's the betting PFC bank with Natwest then...?

There is some suggestion he was referring to the deferrals already taken... and that this is therefore more of a "fighting back" move to show the other side of the argument.

direct link http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/javaImages/88/c1/0,,10280~10994056,00.jpg

Well, we've ditched Rangers in order to maintain the integrity of the Memorial Cup. So come on FL, where's your spine?

Still think this will end up in court. If they hadn't pulled the "liquidate oldco & transfer golden share to newco" stunt, then the original creditors' claims would still be valid to 100%. Seems like they have exploited a technical loophole that has let them off £100m+ and only a court can close it.

http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Portsmouth-Football-Club-Statement-3491.aspx

Has the CVA been carried or just the proposals to modify it?