ooh it's a corner

I couldnt agree more. They could argue during January that they were endeavouring to sell assets to make up the shortfall in cashflow. Right now, there is not enough cash to cover current liabilities - two home fixtures in Feb won't cover the existing debt, let alone anything else. You cannot just hope optimistically for a buyer to be found. If they do not file for administration tomorrow morning Lampitt needs to find himself a bloomin good lawyer, or his missus needs to start planning to down-size...

....of HMRC's Winding up petition...... You do not have any money, selling something valuable looked like your last chance saloon, but you blew it...... excellently.....

Go on then, I'll byte...

Maybe - but HMRC will contest it And if the bank account is unfrozen, I understand that HMRC can insist on the debt from their WUP being cleared. This would result in £800k being cleared immediately. A further WUP to be issued by HMRC and a repetition of this process. To imply that there is no relationship with old company and new company is just plain daft (but inevitably something PFC will try). Who is due to pay the CVA? Is it the old company or is the new company? They have reportedly had offers for their players during the open transfer window. They have turned these down, what logical reason could there be for this? If PFC argues that the offers that they have received were less than the liabilities on player contracts, then this adds fuel to the argument that they are trading whilst insolvent, and actually their liabilities outweigh their assets. When you add in the evident cash flow problem, then they are insolvent. Close them down. The court will ultimately decide, this much is true. But the court will have to decide if the company has the funds to continue trading (at the ongoing risk to other creditors - which includes HMRC), and balance this obvious lack of funds with a likelihood of being bought out. It is not the Court's place to gamble taxpayer and creditor money. They did this last time and I do not believe they will do it again (particularly as HMRC will want to protect their corner). If there is no buyer in the pipeline, with proved funds, by Feb 20th, then the court must close them down. How much is due on 1st March for the FIRST of their CVA repayments? Personally, I think (and I hope) that if they do not have a (very nearly) signed and sealed buyer by the 20th, they will be liquidated. Having just read that if they miss their first CVA payment, the creditors position returns to pre-CVA levels, this may be the best way for current shareholders to maximise their return on investment. It's a very murky world at the bottom of a pond......

Sad and probably wrong. There is a big gay market out there. David James posing in his undercrackers earns him some money, but if he were gay I bet he would be the biggest ticket in town - until everyone comes out, then the playing field levels out

Wowzers, that's a question and a half. Almost by default you'll work north to south (just down to the logic that says you dont want to go hurlting past/through Paris, only to come back at a later stage). There's two big questions for me (subject to how long you are going for). Question one is how much to you want to see Spain/Portugal versus Holland/Denmark/Baltic states, versus France/Italy/Austria/Switzerland or Eastern Europe? And question two is what's the budget? If the budget is tight, it can force the issue of always trying to use night trains, and avoid capital city stopovers, coz the accommodation is more expensive. Make yourself (each) a list of things that you've always wanted to see (Mona Lisa, Leaning Tower of Pisa etc), then put them into an A list, B list and possibly C list. Ultimately if you have a time schedule, you will lose something off the list because you enjoy somewhere, or want to stay and watch the parade tomorrow, etc. If I were doing on a train, it would only be cities for me - the network and frequency slows you down if you want to see the scenery, imagine trying to get a train to Lulworth Cove in this country. But in terms of itinerary, howsabout Brussels, Bruges, Amsterdam, Cologne, Copenhagen, Berlin, Prague, Ostrava, Katowice, Budapest, Bratislava, Vienna, Munich, Milan, Venice, Rome, Florence, Nice, Perpignan, Barcelona, Biaritz, Paris, home. That's 23 targets, if I assume you're going for 4 weeks, that's almost a new place every day. Some of them, Katowice for example, might just be to witness the camp, and therefore not an entire day, but equally, if you only have 1 day for Paris, what are going to see? Mona Lisa, Eiffel Tower, Notre Dame, Moulin Rouge, shopping, cafe culture? There's one thing I've always enjoyed when travelling, and that's the idea that says - I can go there, because I will never have the opportunity or desire to go there again. So if you find youself wondering what all the fuss is about the 13th century vineyard, go and have a look, you'll probably never get a second chance. By the same token, going somewhere for the first time is an experience. If you've already been to Rome, do you want to take 2 days out to go there again? To say I'm envious is a little understated, but the kids will keep me entertained by the pool this summer, wherever the pool may be....

I agree with you, but I don't think the FL will end up doing nothing. They are just keeping their powder dry until all of the dirty laundry has been aired. If Mssrs Storrie, Mandaric and Redknapp feel the force of the law, and Portsmouth go into administration, prior to the 20th Feb, (if they last to 20th Feb, I do not believe there is a court in the land that would let them off this time), then watch a hefty points penalty coming from the FL. Irregular payments to agents is one thing, irregular payments from Owner to Manager is worth a heap of points on its own.

So, let me get this right. They have a WUP for £800k. There will be a further £1.6m due to HMRC to bring them up to date. There is a further £200K due to HMRC for VAT. They can't sell any assets without HMRC say so, and HMRC's debt being paid. They have a frozen bank account, presumably in overdraft, or else they would have paid off HMRC to prevent their assets being frozen. They can't pay their players (or other staff presumably) this month. They have waited all until the last day of the month to start to try to sell players, which we have speculated could end up costing them money, to pay off the contracts of higher earners as they move to more realistic salaries elsewhere. If somebody takes them into adminstration, this is going to cost millions, just to get them through to the end of February; HMRC debt - £2.6m January wages - £1.2m ? Feb wages - £1.2m ? Other creditors? So, they need £5m+ now to last another month. The parachute payments are all ear-marked for CVA creditors.... It will be a brave person who pays for their administration (at several million a month this looks like an easy way to lose money). Shut the business down. Start again. It's what any sensible person should do.

on toast, presumably?

Celtic game is on sportscene on BBC website if anyone wants to watch our next signing in action. (he says with tongue firmly in cheek)

I want to be 13 again, just so I can have one of those....

no it isn't. "there faults" should be "their faults". normal service resumed.

One day, I am going to grow wings...

They would be in year 6. School children start in year R (R for Reception), then the next year is year 1. Only in the wonderful world of education would somebody devise an aging mechanism that didnt match the child's age. Genius.

He's a former banker, he probably expects it :-)

made me smirk :-)

There's no law to say who you pay first. There is however a legal requirement to admit when you cant pay the bills and if you have been deemed to be trading whilst insolvent, which from the outside looks like a pretty freeeking obvious truth, then the Directors of the company can be held personally liable for all debts incurred after the company started trading whilst insolvent. So Lumpitt, start selling the furniture, coz you wont fit it into your bedsit next month.......

Even with the 50,000th post, the sense of irony is never lost on this site :-) beaten to it, sorry DM

It's like a "where's wally" cartoon........ oh.........

I'm no lawyer either, but I do have to deal with HMRC periodically. They will have given Redknapp every opportunity to put his hand in the air and say "actually you're right, I should have paid tax on that money. Who do I make the cheque payable to?". He presumably hasn't, or else we wouldnt be watching a court case unfold.

I can't read and I can't write, but that don't really matter. Coz I come down from Sandbanks town and I can drive a roller. I don't pay tax or V.A.T. coz that's a load of crap, I leave my bills to my best friend, Rosie Rosie Redknapp. oh ah, oh ah, oh to be a defraudster

lol

Milan Mandaric owns shares in the Daily Mail? Obvious question, but, source?

He might have a good brief, but I think this looks a pretty simple case; 1. Is the jury satisfied that money came from Mandaric and ended up with Redknapp? 2. Is the jury satisfied that said monies were not part of a personal arrangement between Mssrs Mandaric and Redknapp? 3. Is the jury satisfied that no UK income tax has been paid on said monies. Three yesses and both gentlemen are guilty of tax evasion. Full stop. End of. Ignorance is no defence. You havent paid the tax, so here comes the punishment. As posted a few pages back, the punishments for tax evasion are pretty severe and dealt with on a sliding scale of evaded amount versus premeditation. First offence or not, if guilty both gentleman have had a long time to come clean (personally, I have had an argument with HMRC over £450 for the last 6 months, letters went backwards and forwards, and ultimately I lost. (the final proof from HMRC meant I was wrong and they were right). So, I paid the outstanding tax, plus interest, and we're squared off. HMRC doesn't sneak up behind people and summonds them to court to recover monies. These loonies would have had plenty of opportunity to admit they are wrong and pay the tax. They have chosen to fight it, and I think they will lose and lose handsomly). Given the amount of tax involved ($295,000 transfered, at 1.5 exchange = best part of £200k, tax and NI call it 50%, a round £100k tax due), then they have moved into second place in the seriousness table. On the premeditation stakes, I would suggest that the length of time that HMRC has been investigating, coupled with the lack of transparency from the pair of them, would be dimly viewed by a court. Whilst a custodial sentence would appear harsh for a first offence, you have to understand that this an extremely serious offence (the charge is defrauding the public purse, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment). A 15 month custodial is small beer compared to life..... only a week to go and we'll find out :-)

roll on the 3rd feb then, when HMRC issues the next wup