saint si

http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Faraj The boy's name Faraj \f(a)- is of Arabic origin, and the meaning of Faraj is "to cure" Unbelievable!

Sorry, should be $G5 ...

And just to put the finishing touches on, I would wrap the whole thing in an if statement so that you don't get division by zero errors. i.e.: =if(G$5=0,"No votes", ###insert the above formula here### )

During the CVA and the Liquidation the Newco or Administrators will make payments out of income to the Joint Supervisor/ Liquidators as follows: (i) £3 million year one from player sales; (ii) £13.5 million payable in 8 half yearly instalments of £1.687 million commencing September 2011; According to the CVA the first payments are due at some point during the 9 month period when the club is in admin, and before it is liquidated. But when does the clock start on the 9 months? May... when the CVA was initially voted for? Or August, when the HMRC challenge was lost in court? The language is very conditional on contributions from player sales though... such as... The only anticipated contribution into the CVA would be a sum of £3 million from the sale of a number of player registrations. Accordingly, if £3 million is paid during the first nine months, whilst the Club is in CVA, then Newco will be obliged to pay the balance of £13.5 million over the remaining four year and three month period.

Thank you. You will always be remembered, and a Saints legend forever. Rest in peace.

I've managed to log in (on both laptop and phone), and view the Southend programme on the laptop... but not the Plymouth one!

Anyone got this working on iPhone? Site says "Non Adobe Flash users will view as pdf.", but there is no link. It's pretty key for me that I can view the programme whilst at the ground!

Given that the £13m was removed from the CVA voting, and yet that tax liability has been formally issued by HMRC, does that mean they now owe that tax liability in full, as it is not part of the CVA?

Sounds like we're off to a good start. It's only half time and there's plenty to come yet. Why are HMRC making so much of the tax evasion piece? I think they're just trying to provide the evidence that they had a valid claim, and that AA should not have dismissed it - i.e. he could not have had absolute certainty that it was an invalid claim. They're just building up the credibility of their claim in order to prove the process was not followed correctly. On the MK Dons case... absolutely they do want the judge to look at that case. The legal judgement there was that paying extra to the football creditors was ok, provided it was not from company assets and only from "new" money. That sets the precedent that says you cannot use company money to pay the football creditors 100% whilst paying less than 100% to others. Regarding the rules of association (PL versus FL). Just a hunch, but there may be something specific in there that distinguishes whether the member clubs are treated as a single economic entity versus multiple entities, and that could be material to whether football creditors are counted as creditors in the same way as normal trade creditors. More fun tomorrow... Pompey get to have a go at defending their actions!!

That was my first reaction, but on second thoughts. The process that should be followed in regard to voting rights IS about principle. I.e. they are saying that the wrong process was followed, and are not looking to get in to argument about the amount of the debt. That actually works in favour. Similarly with football creditors rule. It is not about 100p in the £ versus 20p in the £ or anything else, it is about the principle of paying some creditors more than others based on nothing more than a private agreement (the FC rule). I think they're on course.

Just reading the comments on this: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/Pompey-receive-High-Court-date.6452184.jp So many really just don't get it. At least Heliogabolus has it and amongst the noise he speaks a lot of sense. You can even see how frustrated he is with the rest of them!

He's wrong on both counts. There is no legislation to overturn or create. 1) hmrc are not looking to overturn the enterprise act. The football creditors rule runs contrary to the existing insolvency legislation when company money is used to prefer some creditors over others. It is just a rule between members of a club. 2) there is no "image rights" legislation to overturn. The applicable law is in regard to tax evasion which does not need to be made specific to every possible type of evasion. And anyway, it is not image rights per se they are challenging, but the failure of aa to adhere to due process in the handling of voting rights. Of course the court is the right place to appeal the specific cva. This is just another case of pompey fans playing victim.

Good question - can't find a proper summary of it anywhere, but it appears that they got a CVA agreed and which HMRC subsequently challenged. Sounds familiar? However, from various googling it looks like HMRC had less than the 25% required to block the CVA, and that they were not challenging their debt percentage (as they are with the skates), but instead the football creditors rule itself. Seems that this was enough to force the collapse of the CVA, but that HMRC then eventually dropped the case... Anyone else got good insight in to the Leeds case?

Broadly speaking, the options are: - pay of all your debts - agree a lower level of payment to creditors (CVA) - liquidate A new owner might do option 1, but as he hasn't done it to date, I don't think Chainrai is up for that. Does £100m+ for no assets and a terminally ruined Championship club make sense to anyone?

That's assuming they can find another administrator willing to take them on... nobody wanted to touch them before, and even UHY needed Chainrai to put in £6m "to fund the administration".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1243828/Do-men-control-Portsmouth-want-football-club-superstore.html

Don't forget, if they are liquidated, and subsequently reform, then whatever trophies the old club won by cheating/in the dark ages will be irrelevant as the new club starts from zero...

Just seen Marlon King has been released and is looking for a club. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-10811077 What odds on him being offered a contract with the cheats?

Skates playing Bournemouth tonight (and winning 1-0... no doubt that'll be taken as a sign they're going to bounce straight back to the Prem). Interestingly, they've only named a 13 man squad, and Sonko is not in it...

Paulo Alves

To enter today's date in a cell, just use =today()

Yep - only on HD though apparently. ITV continues its long-running campaign to ruin football coverage.

Correct. The football club was never technically in admin, and therefore couldn't actually come out of admin with a CVA. We got the points penalty because the holding company was in admin ("blah blah inextricably linked blah blah"). When the football club was bought from the holding company, that link was broken. However, surprised the FL didn't dock us points for not having a CVA anyway!

In off the post

Good spot. No outgoings shown for admin, and without the 2m over that period, they'd have made a loss... Hmmm...