saint si

His twitter suggests so... Ryan dickson ‏ @Ryandickson23 Reply Retweet Favorite · Open Being injured is not the 1 scan today hopefully not to bad!

From the Owners' and Directors' Test (FAPPT)... http://www.football-league.co.uk/regulations/20110629/appendix-4_2293633_2128219 'Disqualifying Condition' means all or any of the following: (m) being a Club Director of: (ii) one Football Club that has been subject to or suffered two unconnected Insolvency Events, on or after the 11th June 2004). So could Chainrai be the first person to ever fail the FAPPT?

Interesting as that's not how loan wages work. PFC still pay his wages, and Cardiff will be paying PFC...

Supporting them just to get to the end of the season and complete their fixtures would make a mockery of the games they played in. What motivation will PFC have to effectively compete if the club is not going to last beyond the end of the season and therefore avoiding relegation is no incentive? Clubs who have played PFC earlier in the season will rightly complain. Expunge all points and act as though they never existed - only fair solution.

A million times this.

This is old world. Hardware is now commodity and people tinkering at the hardware level won't achieve anything. Cloud is the future with software and code now abstracted multiple levels from the hardware. The next Steve Jobs isn't working away in a garage, he's dabbling on Amazon EC2.

Great idea! I think along with this we need a concise summary, with just the facts, free from any of SFC-PFC rivalry, to help spread the Good Word to fans of other clubs. Something we can all post on messageboards, comments boxes, facebook etc etc...

Football creditors are not preferred creditors in the eyes of the law. FL has the right to impose whatever rules it wants. This presents incompatibility when CVAs are agreed with football creditors getting a bigger share (100%) than other unsecured creditors. In PFC's case, in 2010, the CVA was passed on this basis, as it was deemed to present a better return for all creditors going forward than the alternative. The reason cited was the parachute payments, which are dependent on the golden share, which is dependent upon football creditors getting 100%. So I would guess what HMRC are challenging is the idea that a rule (not a Law) imposed by the football league can be applied in a CVA in such a way that some creditors (football creditors) get more than others. i.e. they want a ruling that says forming a CVA in this manner would be illegal.

So let's see if I've got this right... It was HMRC's fault last time for allowing them to rack up too much debt and not calling it in quickly enough? But the problem this time was that HMRC wanted its money and refused to have a meeting with them about how they could delay payments a bit more? Yep, definitely all HMRC's fault.

Be interesting to see where in the FL rules it says anything about 14 fit players, and who counts towards the number and who doesn't. As it hints in the response, this appears to be a "policy" rather than application of any specific rules (though worth checking). If so, that's code for "we can do what we want".

Agree. I owe X on my mortgage. That doesn't change if the market value of my house goes up or down.

This. Times a million. Scenario A - no money is injected in to the club and it is forced to live within its means. Ends up somewhere down in League Two, playing in front of 5k every week. Scenario B - after a couple of years of not very much, they are dazzled by a foreign businessmen who promises untold riches, arena redevelopment and a set of superstar footballers. This time they are sure it's the real deal. Pompey Takeover Saga Mk2 thread is promptly fired up on the forum...

Presumably January's pay (and the associated tax then due) will go in to the bucket marked "debt" and so they are protected from paying it until a CVA is agreed. Whereas February's pay is not due yet, and therefore is considered a day-to-day cost of continuing to trade.

I actually have massive doubts about this photo I genuinely can't see where it was taken from as the angle of it looks like it's been taken from the East stand, but I don't think anyone from the media sits there and I don't think they'd be able to get a clear shot of it from there. Astonishing! Yes of course, it's a Photoshop job!

Let's see... 8 months ago you could barely scrape together a buyer, until the Russians walked in and saved you from oblivion. And we all know how that turned out. What have you got going for you this time by comparison? - less debt? Oh no, wait, more debt. Because you haven't managed to pay off any of your previous debts, and have instead racked up more to HMRC, CSI, a bunch of Australian teams, Southern Electric, as well as a few others to boot. Oh, and someone has to pay the costs of administration too. - reduced running costs that align to income? Without your debts you're running break-even, yes? Alas not... otherwise you wouldn't have ended up in administration within about 5 minutes of CSI going bust ... - better reputation? Nope, can't see that either. Your name is mud and now being dragged through the papers and the media - parachute payments? Unfortunately, you've started spending those on running costs already... - nobody from the club subject to court cases or under criminal investigation anymore! Oh, apart from Antonov of course. And who knows what Birch might uncover... - but you've still got the bestest fans! After all, they packed the park, right? Surely there'll be a massive queue of prospective buyers!

It was all so predictable... http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?14620-Pompey-Takeover-Saga&p=1056093#post1056093

Could be a ruse so that they don't have to play tomorrow. Oh no, it wasn't our fault, it was the mean electric company. Should be a points deduction for failing to fulfil fixture if true...

I'd look at it the other way round. A "fit and proper" administrator will be working for the creditors (current and future), and therefore if liquidation is the best option, he will take it, rather than fabricating figures to suit.

Plenty of mileage in this saga! Who will be appointed? How many points will they lose? How is it going to work if the parent company (in admin) owns PFC2010 (in admin) - who gets to tell who what to do? Throw in Baker Tilley who are still trying to recover the money from the last CVA and you have 3 lots of insolvency practitioners all negotiating with each other Is Chainrai's charge going to be upheld? Will the administrator go for CVA+sale or liquidation? Will they even try and field a team tomorrow?! So much fun to be had...

Sorry, I really think we're focusing on the wrong part of the clause. (b) the lodging of a Notice of Intention to Appoint an Administrator or Notice of Appointment of an Administrator at the Court in accordance with paragraph 26 or paragraph 29 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act, an application to the Court for an Administration Order under paragraph 12 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act (other than paragraph 12(1)©) or where an Administrator is appointed or an Administration Order is made ('Administrator' and 'Administration Order' having the meanings attributed to them respectively by paragraphs 1 and 10 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act); From the PFC statement on their website. Portsmouth Football Club today made an application to the High Court to go into administration.

Isn't it this one that they've done: "an application to the Court for an Administration Order" ?

You're spot on Trousers. I am sure it is just a question of when they get deducted points, rather than if. Think the best thing we can do is to familiarise the fans of Coventry, Donny, Bristol City, Millwall, Ipswich etc with the relevant rules, and get them asking the question...

Most sensible thing I've ever read about the FAPPT (OnD test). It is not a test of financial capacity, financial competence, ethics, morals or underlying intent. It simply cannot be, and you are right in saying they would get sued to kingdom come if they tried to implement a necessarily subjective test of those things. The only way the PL/FL can encourage those things is to have sanctions in the event that the owner does not act in a manner that the league feels is right for football. Guess what, that's exactly what they're doing.

Presumably this was actually written by the halfwits down the road, as opposed to one of our many expert ghostwriters? They do understand that what they have asked for us for PFC2010 to be thrown out the football league and to have its only assets wiped out in the process, thereby making liquidation a nailed-on certainty?

Some interesting tweets there Trousers. Not funding previous admin as promised will might make a difference to the court's view of admin... but then who paid UHY for their services last time? And if they weren't paid, then why are they back for more. To cram in another couple of posts... There is no doubt they will be docked [at least] 10 points now. It is an absolute under the FL's rules, with no room to manoeuvre. Whereas previously the parent company had suffered an Insolvency Event, now the club itself has suffered such an event. From the FL's rules: 'Insolvency Event' refers to any one of the following: (b ) the lodging of a Notice of Intention to Appoint an Administrator [...] The language in the FL's rules is much much stronger in this case. Parent company insolvency event allows the FL to deduct points, whereas for club insolvency event itself, it is a mandatory deduction. 12.3.1 If any Club becomes subject to or suffers an Insolvency Event, that Club shall be deducted 10 points. The CEO has admitted on radio that they have lodged the notice of intent. So therefore the FL MUST now deduct 10 points. Any further points deduction will hinge on whether the FL wants extra blood for going in to admin twice in 2 years, and also what happens regarding the old CVA, and if the FL perceives them to have failed to comply with its terms. Surely there is a huge conflict of interest here, which would give HMRC (or any other party) pretty strong grounds for legal challenge to the CVA. AA will absolutely be looking to put one particular creditor's interests above the others (indeed, in acting as administrator for CSI, that's his job!). Representing both parties in a negotiation surely is not permitted in ANY form of business?