Gingeletiss

15537 So that was you...I had already posted the conversation!!!

I suspect MLG, that the courts may have something to say about this. It may be seen as an illegal transaction, in removing one of the companys assets, in the likely event of liquidation. I bring us back again, to my understanding of the winding up order. My take on this, is that if they are found to have traded illegally, then all transactions since the submission of WO, are also deemed to be illegal. I stand to be corrected. If true, then the transference of nottarf krap to Chainrai, will also be illegal.

Here we have yet more examples of the 'head in sand' syndrome.... MohamedCohen Posted on 20/02/2010 12:34 Administration is the ONLY way to get rid of the parasites. Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message Lard, you're so way off of reality it's frightening. Once PFC go into administration there'll be QUEUE of people wanting the business as administrator. The debts are extinguished, the assets remain (players contracts etc.) and therefore an administrator could easily get in some short term finance to run it until a buyer is found. IP: Logged stayinupforever Posted on 20/02/2010 13:00 Administration is the ONLY way to get rid of the parasites. Email Message To A Friend | Reply To Message Administration is definitely the only way so why are we prolonging the inevitable.We are likely to go down anyway so let's go down in style. We do need to keep some of the better, less well paid players to have a chance of getting back up sooner rather than later and maybe even some of the higher paid ones would take a cut just to play for us (Jamie & Jamo for starters?).After all most players want tom play week in week out in a winning side. I would support admin TODAY. So now they believe that O'Hara is really theirs..........

They still don't get it, do they.......HELLOOOOO!!!!!! HMRC want ALL their money.

nick...your tacking again!!!!. This not about the tax being paid. The registrar also said about all debts being serviced. The PL will not pay the tax, nature of the beast and all that, clubs in future, will use that precedent as a safety blanket. The game is up for Poor smouth IMO, they have used all their trumps.

More to this IMHO, I think this is in part, the response by MR Man, Mr Twitch, and the Storry teller, in the press, to their being investigated. I think the HMRC, are really flexing their muscles, and Poor smouth were doomed from October. HMRC, could of done this in the summer last year, chose to give them more time to pay, knowing they couldn't. I think the HMRC have played the long game, PS was not watching the left whilst shaking the right.

I have the voice activated B&W Parrot, top bit of kit. The colour screen is larger, but, hey, if it aint broke don't fix it.

Ummmmm!!!!, lots of little eddying circles taking place on this thread now. Same questions resurfacing. My understanding of this WO, is HMRC saying to the PL/FA, yep, you have won the right to pay footballing debts first, so now it's payback time. We will close your clubs down one by one, unless you pay on time, we are not the bank of HMRC, we do not lend, we do not give credit. You used the law to take us out of the loop, we will now use the law to teach you a lesson. PAY UP POMPEY...POMPEY PAY UP!!

As below................ HMRC want the club wound up NOW because their exposure is worsening as each day passes and because they are no longer qualified as a preferential creditor but must rank pari passu (on equal footing) alongside all other unsecured creditors. I believe the only way around this is if the PL were to deposit the Sky parachute cash into an "Escrow account" for them until the payment becomes due to PFC and other Prem league clubs simultaneously. However, such escrow would HAVE to have the written agreement of the other creditors otherwise it could be overturned by a court that determined HMRC was being given preferential treatment over other creditors because, without new investment, subsequent administration now is inevitable. So, you might ask, why aren't we put into administration now? Well here I think we need to understand the power of HMRC. If they can prove we've been trading while insolvent, which shouldn't be too difficult, then the DIRECTORS become PERSONALLY liable specifically for the PAYE portion and HMRC can pursue them for recovery. Therefore, we now have the logic for trying to open up our ability to sell players outside the transfer window. If the directors have this route open they could use this to argue that we are NOT insolvent. Meanwhile, Tanya having resigned her directorship within the 6 month prior to our final demise will almost certainly be personally exposed as well as Al Fahim who is now contemplating his own resignation. This stated, HMRC usually only go after the deep pockets and they would consider Tanya "a woman of straw" and NOT pursue her. However, they'll realise she could help their case against Storrie et al and they'll put the squeeze on her for sure.

Arse an all, are in need of a goalkeeper and striker, Liverpool in desperate need of a striker, Man City need to buy players in all positions;)...so if the PL via the FA via FIFA, allow Poor smouth to trade, they will have to allow all to trade. If not....BOOM!!!!!!! the sh1te will well and truly hit the fan.

Not a dig, but My understanding (based on conversations with a Lawyer), is this whole Sof A, is for the now (Wednesday 1600hrs), not the future. Are they insolvent now, not will they be in two weeks time, or next season. The die have been thrown, all this is wriggle room, and Mr Storyteller, at his bullsh1tt1ng best.

nick, you change tack, like a lost sailor. The PL will not have Poor smouth in their gang net season.....put you mortgage on that my friend.

I'm in the camp, that they will be wound up. However, if the above is the final outcome, you will have to factor in all the additional points deductions, that the FL will apply, once the depth of their illegal practices, has been revealed.

A new facebook group.....I laughed;) Make Fratton Park into a TESCO, every little helps

Well yes, but they can't now place themselves into it, it's now a court issue. On the point of administration, missed by most of the do good media, HMRC has bought the winding up order, and they would be right at the bottom of the food chain, if admin was granted. Hence, one of the reasons why they are going for broke..........a lesson to the F.A methinks.

Lol.............:D:D .....The FA said that they were making an example of Southampton and they should do exactly the same to Portsmouth by saying no, you aren't allowed to sell your players. Portsmouth should not allowed to do dealings in this transfer window simply because it shows unfair biased towards Premier League clubs. I have no particular dislike for Portsmouth as a club, it's fans (other than the attention seeking one who looks like an overgrown, hairy smurf), but at the end of the day they should not be given a benefit that no-one else has?

Oh I'm sure there will be an investigation....HMRC, Fraud squad etc etc. Mr Pullis sounds shocked, then again, most of the football world think it's a great shame, and don't look at the bigger picture. AB on talk sport, 'they should get a second chance'.............HELLO!!!!!!, they had that 10 years ago.

Added a bit for you....got the book open yet. Fiver on pitch invasion before K.O.

Thats an easy thing for the FA to sort. If trained by a club, said youth player must (when signing professional terms) sign for a period of three years, or to his 21st bithday. How hard would that be to enforce!!

Lets not bug ger them about, they have enough problems....EARLS COURT boys, don't be told any different!!

It would if they were signed whilst the club was trading whilst insolvent.....the PL's own rules. So on a matter of law, they would be illegal, and on a matter of Premier League Rules, they would then be deemed to be illegal....that is how I read it 30-15;)

You just woke up!!!!.....oh yeh forgot, you don't sleep:rolleyes:..read back a couple of pages, this was discussed.

OOps:(

Long, but interesting.................. Tax will become a four-letter word for many clubs this season. Having last week faced Portsmouth, Cardiff City and Southend United in the winding-up courts as it gets tough over unpaid taxes and taken on Milan Mandaric, Peter Storrie and Harry Redknapp over alleged evasion, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs is now pursuing more than half of the clubs in the Premier League over tax due on image rights payments totalling £60m. The stand-off between tax authorities and Premier League clubs, some operating on a fiscal tightrope, is set to intensify after it emerged that they were unlikely to reach agreement on a collective deal. Discussions between representatives of all 20 top-flight clubs, led by the Premier League's finance director Javed Khan, explored whether they could agree a structure of payments to satisfy demands from HMRC over claims for up to £60m in unpaid taxes and devise a workable ongoing solution. HMRC officials have already agreed a deal with rugby union for the professional game to pay a percentage of its image rights fees directly to the taxman in settlement, but it is believed that a similar deal is highly unlikely within football because of the complexities involved. Amid all the dissection of Manchester United's recent £504m bond issue, the club's ongoing dispute with HMRC over £5.3m in outstanding tax and *national *insurance was largely overlooked. The prospectus said the Revenue's view was that "image rights may be a form of remuneration and, as such, should be taxed as income". The club, which under the Glazer family's ownership has been increasingly focused on maximising the revenue-*generating potential of its best known players overseas, disputes that view. The to and fro with the taxman goes back more than a decade to a landmark case involving Arsenal players, which the Revenue lost, but has intensified in recent years as public finances have come under pressure. The extent to which public sentiment has swung away from apparently reckless football clubs may also be a factor. When the Premier League boom *began, with the attendant explosion in revenues and influx of foreign players, some began to demand separate payments in order to license their individual image rights, which would *typically be free of PAYE and national insurance and often channelled through an offshore company. Eric Cantona was among the first of the high-profile imports to recognise the commercial value of his individual image rights. It soon became a standard part of contract negotiations, with most players able to argue that the club benefited from their image in some way – even if only by selling shirts with their names on the back. Now, almost every Premier League *contract of any substance will have an *image rights clause. It recently emerged in court that Wayne Rooney earned £760,000 a year for his image rights via two separate annual payments. Experienced agents say that the concept was invented for good reason, and remained legitimate, but conceded it had been exploited by some clubs and players. The argument is less about the eminently marketable likes of Rooney, more about squad players in mid-table teams who are typically paid around 10% of their salary for their image rights. The clubs *argue that the payments are wholly legitimate *licensing payments. But the Revenue suspects that in some cases image rights contracts have simply become a standard top-up to an employment contract and in others are simply a means to an end to allow them to dangle a bigger net-earnings carrot in front of a transfer target. With Spain, Italy and France all having more *advantageous tax regimes for overseas players – particularly since the new 50% tax rate was announced in the UK – clubs have also looked to every possible avenue to maximise their appeal. A spokesman for HMRC said it could not comment on individual cases but added: "The government remains committed to ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of tax and that the minority who seek not to do so should not succeed." It said the onus was on any business to clear any transactions over which there was any "uncertainty" with HMRC. Rather than going after *individual contracts, in 2006 the Revenue decided to take a more structured approach. It discovered that many image rights deals were based on games played or goals scored, clearly linking them with the players' employment contracts. Investigators examine correspondence between players, agents, clubs and accountants in order to try to prove the link. HMRC set up a specific unit to investigate and negotiate settlements with clubs. Anecdotal stories abound of players and their agents agreeing a contract and then, at the last minute, demanding an extra annual image rights payment on top. The onus is now on clubs to prove that image rights are of real value and are *exploited as such. That could leave smaller Premier League clubs such as Wigan Athletic, who last year confirmed in their accounts that HMRC was investigating the issue, more exposed than those at the top end. At least half of Premier League clubs are now thought to be under investigation. A Premier League spokesman *confirmed that it was continuing to try to broker a deal. "Discussions are ongoing with HMRC to try to reach a mutually acceptable position. Both sides agree that it is acceptable for the assignment of a proportion of income to image rights, however the question is how best to decide what is a reasonable level across a multitude of varying contracts and levels of player." But tax experts are sceptical that the Premier League will be able to come up with a *solution that suits the Revenue. If it cannot, individual clubs will have to resume their own negotiations. "They won't do a percentage deal across the board, I could never see HMRC agreeing to that. Within a club they might have two image rights deals that are commercial and a number that aren't, so it is not possible to enter into a percentage deal," said Jeff Millington, a senior tax adviser at BTG Tax and a former manager at the Revenue, one of two who originally instigated its investigation into image rights. "There is a precedent that a club can acquire the image rights of a player through an image rights contract for the purpose of exploiting that image. But it's got to be for commercial reasons and you've got to look at each specific one to make sure it's commercial and the club has tried to exploit it. I'd be amazed if the HMRC agreed to talks. It flies in the face of everything the Revenue is trying to achieve."

Can Vanish Anytime