pedg

One final (okay possibly not) thought on the 26 million PFA debt listed in the CVA document. If the debt is for the remainder of all the players contracts then it is not an applicable debt on administration as the players have the same contracts before, during and after administration. So claiming that as a debt on administration is akin to claiming the money twice. Its only a relevant claim for a debt on liquidation when the contracts would be cancelled.

You wonder if the 26 million is just a speculative thing from the PFA so that if pompey are liquidated and there is some money left over to go to the unsecured creditors that their members might see some of it?

The PFA thing is quite confusing as they are mentioned in the document as stating they are owed 26 million but that is the one and only time in the document where its mentioned. One assumes the position is that TB refuses to accept it in which case they would only get to vote relating to the outstanding football debts owed to players which chinny is going to pay in full (allegedly).

The pompey case has made it clear there is a loophole whereby the votes of creditors to accept a certain level of a CVA can be got round by going into admin again before any payments and relying on the the fact that the company in charge of the first CVA effectively have to accept whatever they are offered. I would not put it past the league to make up a new rule to make sure this is covered (something like, the golden share can only be retained on administration as long as any CVA from a previous administration have been paid in full). Question is would they apply retrospective punishment? Also interesting that the situation with one CVA payments being included as debt in another is not something that is limited to football clubs so I assume it has happened before in normal companies? You would have thought it is something that should be legislated against as with normal companies there is not the points deductions that at least provide some punishment for football clubs on administration.

Well done to all my fellow nutjobs. The PTS thread has now had over 4 million views.

I was assuming one of the modifications must be to placate them?

All the news tweets here: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/news-special

So any idea of the timings for today?

I don't believe the loans in these cases ever get paid back. One assumes the terms of the 'loan' is so lax that HMRC are not able to jump on them for not repaying it.

I think we need to add a dividing line between schemes that use the law in the way it was intended, e.g. people saving in tax free ISA's which as the saying goes "does what it says at the side of the tin" and the schemes derived by people who look at legislation that is not intended as a way of avoiding tax and saying how can I bend these rules to use this as part of a tax dodging scheme.

As this article in the guardian quotes about a previous scheme Carr (and a major tory doner) was involved in: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/24/tory-donor-tax-avoidance

Main problem with Time Team now is that they suffer like many other programs with paddingwithcheapepisodescutfromoldepisodesitis.

Went to an evening with Tony Robinson thing a few years back and he gave no impression it was an unhappy production. Showed some footage of where someone made a cardboard replica of one of the geophysic things and then ran said replica over in front of the geophysics people as a practical joke. Said there was lots of joking and ****taking going on that does not make the programs.

Or the general gist? One assumes it has been pulled either by the inhouse lawyers or at the request of someone else?

Does not appear to be there any more? Anyone take a copy..

Back to being filmed mainly on set in front of a live audience so should definitely be better than the last specials (not too hard!).

Probably but as I said its still quite fun in its own way.

Article on the news that uses the dread L word in the title. http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/hateley-liquidation-would-be-a-pompey-tragedy-1-3977722 If pompey prada are mentioning it things must be bad.

I assume they have been shouting from the rafters about the tens of thousands of season tickets they have sold to the bestest fans? Obviously just missed that news somehow!

The argument is if you outlaw all the complex schemes then the rich would have to pay the 30% and not the 1% they were paying by using schemes such as K2. no idea what the difference would be comparing the lost higher rate tax against the reduction in avoidance.

Problem is most of these tax avoidance schemes involve sending money to another country or in many cases being employed by a company that though a lot of its staff is in the UK say is based in Lichtenstein or similar. How much you can stop without the agreement of other countries, for many of whom being a tax haven is their main income, is a matter for debate.

My simple rules for sorting out tax avoidance: 1) No company can be based in a country where it does not have a significant workforce (say at least 20% or in the top 3 country's operated in by workforce if no one country has 20%). Where a company is part of a group of companies the location of the top company must apply these rules to an amalgamation of all the companies underneath it. 2) Any entity created purely for the purpose of avoiding tax is illegal unless approved by the government. 3) Any scheme not explicitly approved in advance that is judged to have been set up to gain an excessive reduction in taxation will be subject to a retroactive surcharge equal to 150% of the tax that should have been paid had the scheme not been used.

Got to laugh. Its alright for pompey as Alex Oxlade-Chaimberlains younger brother is registered to play for pompey (he's 14) http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/the-oxlade-chamberlain-family-member-who-didn-t-get-away-from-pompey-1-3971782

I have decided the whole film is a marketing ploy for the DVD/Bluray so people can listen to the commentary to try and figure it out.