Jump to content

dvaughanwilliams

Members
  • Content Count

    341
  • Joined

Everything posted by dvaughanwilliams

  1. They drew against the team who are favourites for relegation. http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/league-2/relegation Hardly grounds for optimism.
  2. http://www.communitypompey.co.uk/files/PST-Prospectus.pdf The PST are still publishing the prospectus showing a property developer and the old business plan. I know that they're using the loophole of "community shares" that have lower standards than a normal share issue, but is this legal? Surely they're canvassing for investments on false information. The financial projections on page 8 (page 5 of the pdf) look even funnier now. Also: Can't seem to find those pesky details.
  3. But, they'll get more sponsorship and sell more hospitality purely due to being a 'community club'. Also, because they'll run the club so well, it will generate an operating profit to pay back the loan to the council, meet the football debt and pay the new CVA.
  4. This encapsulates everything about the trust: a whiff of desperation and a glimpse into their hole filled business plan filled with optimism.
  5. They went into admin last season. This is their second season in admin. Next season would be their third.
  6. http://fansonline.net/portsmouth/mb/view.php?id=476516 The Trust has revealed that as a result it now intends to try to buy Fratton Park on Day One of taking control. Robinson pulled out? Where are they getting the money from?
  7. Great news! The club remains in limbo for a further 2 weeks.
  8. And this is just the hearing to confirm that the trust case is no longer fundamentally flawed and to set another date for the proper hearing. Toaster on standby.
  9. Thinking about the court case to set a date for the real court case has raised some questions in my mind: 1. Are all of the subsequent parachute payments earmarked to pay the compromise agreements or do they have one left that isn't? 2. What circumstances would be required for the admin to be extended or for the court to order liquidation? I suspect that if a deal was in place for Fortress Fatpipes, this would contribute towards getting an extension. What would happen if the court set a date after 17th Feb? Would that be enough to get them liquidated? Does the court have a bias in fa
  10. This mangled sentence seems to get things totally wrong. It implies that the administrators value Nottarf at £2.75, but the valuations were undertaken by the trust. Are they using the term donation as a joke? Surely these are investments in their community club!
  11. Is he talking about the £2m debenture here? How could a new deal be better? Does he mean a lower price now or a lower price if the PDT can scrape together some money in the future and buy the ground back? The judge isn't weighing the merit of the bid. The Trust have nothing to do with the court case. This is a transparent attempt at a sales pitch to get people to convert their pledges. Why can't they just be honest and open about the reasons they give for people to donate their money, rather than inventing these idiotic lies. Regarding the creditors meeting, I wonder why this h
  12. It must be a mistake. Sometimes it sounds like booing when people cheer Luuuuke, so it must have been cheering for, er, McLoooooooooood or something like that.
  13. There's a tricky balance to be struck. There are probably a number of fans that would buy one share to make a point. They want to price the share so that it is just about affordable. Is a fan who can just about afford £1k really going to buy 10 shares or just 1? I'm not entirely convinced that they've got the pricing right or marketed and explained it correctly, but they aren't likely to be dealing with sophisticated of experienced investors. I think that there are people who have pledged who think that they will be able to get their £1k back if they need the money, due to the ability t
  14. The other major difference is that the PDT aren't a charity and aren't (theoretically) looking for donations. Realistically, although the idea of lots of fans owning a small share is good for PR, to raise the most money they need people to put up large amounts of money. It's more realistic to search for one fan to put in £100k than 100 to put in £1k. They could be doing better with other fund-raising routes though. If they sold badges or stickers at a huge mark-up, then they could raise some money from the kind of grass roots support that Sarah thinks that they should be generating. T
  15. Blimey, sounds like things have gone toxic... Chinny really has them by the balls now. They maintain the line, "trust or liquidation". Surely letting Chainrai take over is a third option?
  16. It's only the last 7 weeks. It's more like £135,000 a week.
  17. I don't think so. All of the assets are covered by Chainrai's charge. A sale of anything has to be done with his approval or with the authorisation of the court. Which components would the trust buy and why would Chainrai authorise the sale?
  18. The reference to the floating charge is interesting. Chainrai's fixed and floating charge covers all assets of the club, including the cash in the bank account. If Trev is to sell assets from under Chainrai's charge, that is not just Fratton, it is all of the assets. Not much doubt about the value of a bank account. All these references to £2m, suggests that this is how much is left from the last tranche of parachute payments. Oops. Looks like they realised this on Wednesday night.
  19. So first the trust said that the players had to accept £2m, then when they got promised the full £8m of parachute payments, the business plan could survive without that. Now a further £2m has been withdrawn, they can survive without that. As I remember, the original plan was held together with cobwebs and magic, yet has proved to be remarkably robust. Those trust bods must be business geniuses.
  20. That is my understanding of the situation. The court can't make a decision in the abstract, only to confirm a deal that is ready to be implemented.
  21. I have no idea why the trust are celebrating this decision. At best it is *only* a PR disaster. It has made all parties look amateurish. If the developer's change in terms is only an increase in the "peppercorn" rent, that completely ruins the trust's business plan. If he's pulled out completely, they're dead in the water.
  22. My point would be that the judge couldn't rubber stamp a sale to a buyer who didn't have the money. The case doesn't set a value and then wait for a potential buyer to roll in. PKF needed to turn up to the court, ask permission to make a sale to a particular buyer and to get authority to make the sale. If the money isn't there, the court can't make a hypothetical valuation. Which sounds better: trust is bust or trust is toast?
  23. The case is about 2 things: first, whether PKF can make the sale of the ground at all; second, if they are authorised to sell, what the valuation should be. If the first part is fatally flawed, that's game over. If the funding of the PDT bid means that they can't currently afford to buy the ground, the case will fail, which may be why they're asking for 28 days, to find another source of funding. If the case goes ahead and the PDT are found to be potless, or if PKF pull the plug, I don't think that they'd get another date in court to try to force the sale with different backers. It's l
  24. Then Trev can't sell the ground without Chainrai's permission. The trust say that this means the club will be liquidated. Portpin say that it will mean that the club will be sold to them. Pick the source you consider more reliable.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})