Gingeletiss

tHIS... 10:57 [Comment From big jono big jono : ] yes yorkie steve the premier league are partly to blame but why should we expect a multi-million owner to come in? we blew all our money with the plan to repay it later down the line when we secured a new, rich, owner. That is wrong and simply unfair for teams who do it the right way. IMO.

Sums up their mentality IMO 10:55 [Comment From Ron J (Philippines) Ron J (Philippines) : ] pompeypops: if the tax man wins this god help other clubs who can't raise the cash to pay them. Yet another 11:03 [Comment From Ron J (Philippines) Ron J (Philippines) : ] If we lose alot of clubs will go into financial meltdown as they would'nt have the money to pay HMRC.

'tis what I meant:blush:

I believe so, after all, tax avoidence is a criminal offence, ask Lester Piggott.

Did you actualy read what I posted Duncan. You wanted a respose to your OP, you have them. I have pointed out, that if Eastleigh feel that agreived that Saints had'broken' the contract, then the Martin transfer could be deemed nul and void.Is this what you are saying as well?

Again..for nick, this is my point! Given, that AA agreed they were,then changed his mind. 10:29 [Comment From Vaudeville Vaudeville : ] The main issue is whether HMRC are entitled to vote on the £13 million of assessments they issued in May re PAYE and NI on “Image Rights” and “EBT’s” (employee benefit trusts).If HMRC win on this point, and it’s hard to see on the evidence presented to date how they can not, HMRC will win the appeal irrespective of what happens on the other points.

I know Tony just posted this, but FFS nick, are they admitting Chainrai was in charge previously...no, just his ****eyed opinion. 10:13 Mark: Chief reporter Chris Owen has filed to say Pompey's administrator Andrew Andronikou has arrived and taken his place in front of the club's barrister. Also in court is the lawyer representing Balram Chainrai who is expected to take control of the club again if HMRC's appeal fails.

How many times must this be explained, this is not about image rights, that is a side issue. This is about AA agreeing to a debt figure, then changing that figure to ensure the CVA was passed. That my friend, is illegal, hence the appeal.

I think, as has been pointed out earlier, that AP is waiting for the premier clubs to sort out their squads, and then look to pick up a few bargins. Who, is anyones guess.

s not happy that the game with Saints did not take place on a Saturday "as it was due under the terms of the Aaron Martin deal", he also is quoted as saying "next season I hope Saints honour their obligation to play us on a Saturday". According to the Echo when Martin was signed by Saints there was "a written agreement that they would visit them (Eastleigh) for a Saturday friendly for the next 3 years". The Echo goes on to claim "Saints rubbed salt in Eastleigh's wounds by playing Sutton Utd managed by ex Eastleigh boss Paul Doswell "on their one free Saturday". The crowd last night was 1655 which was more than Malone expected. So - is the Echo stirring up trouble or are they merely just reporting back a fact and are duty bound so to do? Are Saints out of order for breaching a written agreement or is it a storm in a teacup? Is it important that Saints maintain a good relationship with their local neighbours or should they be grateful that Saints give them the time of day? So many questions - aint it grand we have a forum to debate them? Ummm! once again Duncan, you appear on here with a negative posting.....bitter I'd say so, as are the Echo. So we played them on a weekday as opposed to a weekend, it's hardly the end of the world, and if Eastleigh thought so, they would now be seeking a cancelation of the Martin contract on that basis. So yes, it's a storm in a teacup, but you knew that before you posted. Is it important to maintain good relations with our neighbours, yes, and we do, but equally, they should be greatful of that fact. So the first point, are the Echo sh1testirring, of course they are, you know it, I know it, and everyone on here knows it, even the trolls. Are they duty bound to report it, NO, they are not duty bound, they just have no morals. For them it's about selling papers, they obviously don't care about the damage they cause. Then again, it seems, neither do you.

I was responding to all those who are thinking this is all about image rights, when that is just the iceing on the cake.

Ask also, who claimed to be the owner then not to be the owner, and now waits on the sidelines to be the owner, having paid for the administrator out of his own pocket. Let us not forget these things.

Try looking at it from the other angle, too much emphasise is being put on the 'HMRC' debt. Ask where did all the new Poopey debt come from, since the SofA was submitted by Poopey at their last appearence.

is: Mr Mitchell said HMRC had worked out that Pompey owed the taxman £30m. 'This assessment goes back some way - to the tax year of 2006/07 - and has been a very complex investigation. 'PAYE should have been paid and has not been paid. 'What has happened is that for some years the club has entered into sham agreements under which players were being paid in repsect of image rights when in fact there was no commercial basis for it. 'It was a sham. It was a way in which the club could pay the money into a tax haven.'

I gave up trying weeks ago, I even sent an e-mail to their head office, complaining about the biased reporting...no reply:rolleyes:

LOve them, bless their fishy hearts! [Comment From Beaver Beaver : ] worst case scenario we go bust, take a 17 point drop and spend the £30 million CVA funds on new players then?

Hypo, are you some kind of 'rumour' groupie. Picking up on what someone else has touched on, are you happy, that you may be responsible for someone loseing their job, all because of your tittle tattle. If you in fact have a 'source' I hope you are prepared to give him/her up, because if I was the pitch announcer, and lost my job because of your 'rumour', I'd demand you divulged said source in court.

He has a good sense of humour, I'll grant him that....I laughed.

I'm sure he sits at his laptop, and thinks the same of you. What a brass neck you have Stu, to post this, when you have one of the biggest post counts on here, mainly full of anti Saints posts.

Most that you have subscribed to, I'll be bound!

Laughable, care to explain Stu?

Sorry, how can you 'know about it' based on gossip, how can you form an opinion on something that is not a proven fact. Ask Duncan to name his source, then get that source to repeat his 'knowledge', then maybe you would have a point. It is pure scaremongering, designed to cause this kind of rift, ask Duncan about his agenda here! it seems to me, that he has been against this takeover from the start.

As you did with Bournemouth!

There are egos, and then there are egos, but you have just won first prize for the above statement.

Yes you are one of those, of whom I spoke off. ML owns the Saints, NC manages it, and has done a good job to date. You and various others, are basing your campaign of 'NC out' on the basis of gossip. Come back with facts, hard facts at that, and I may conceed a point to you. No-one is above criticism, but for what are you being critical? Gossip?