pedg

Why is there a long list of staff as part of the list of creditors in the PKF document then?

Apparently 50 million could possibly buy you this scene of Angst and Anxiety http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/apr/12/edvard-munch-scream-london or possibly this, rather less artist, one:

if there is anything worse than no information it is hopelessly out of date information.

I guess from their point of view starting at tier 3 with a strong chance of being in tier 4 the year after is preferable to starting in tier 9?

Would the removal of the football creditors rule help them? If the court says the football creditors rule is illegal can they bale out of the current contracts, thus adding the money they need to pay in compensation to the players to the other creditors and then say pay 0.007p in the pound on the whole lot and still keep their golden share? Or will the change only apply to future administrations not those that are ongoing?

The only way for the club to break the big money contracts is to go into liquidation or sell them to another club but the player has still to agree personal terms (a.k.a. wages). I guess their hope is that those getting big wages will be embarrassed to be getting prem wages at a league 1 club that they will leave of their own accord?

Birch trying hard to sell the notion that they would be a more attractive proposition if they were relegated to League 1: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/cleansed-pompey-can-bounce-back-1-3722988

This may well relate to the CSI purchase rather than their current situation.

As I understand it (i.e. probably wrong) the list consists of two parts: 1) Those to whom the administrator knows money is owed (and hence a value given). 2) Creditors from the previous admin where the admin thinks that there is the possibility that new debts may have arisen since.

Chance Card: You find you are trading insolvently. Just carry on as before

Changed now but still incorrect really as Chainrai has not claimed to own FP only that he has a charge against it. On one hand I don't want pompey to escape on the other if they escape having paid Chainrai nothing I would laugh.

Good to see the Guardian mentioning the debt to St John's ambulance and local schools. Editor obviously did not read the article fully before adding the caption for the picture. If true that would REALLY confuse things: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/apr/11/portsmouth-administrators-liquidation

If you are passing anywhere near here: http://www.germanplaces.com/cave-tours-berchtesgaden/salt-mine-berchtesgaden.html the tour is quite fun. Also around there (I think) is the chitty chitty bang bang* castle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuschwanstein_Castle (*) getting in some sort of motoring link!

See the US are suing apple and various publishers for the changes the publishers made 'coincidentally at the same time' to the way they sell ebooks. Sounds like they are going to have to deploy several legions of their crack lawyers to get out of this one. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/11/us_files_ebook_suit/ The EU are apparently considering a similar move which could see Apple fined 10% of their global turnover (that should see greece, spain, etc sorted). Also a class action suit in the US about it and if found guilty that triples up the damaged.

One assumes the decisions of the administrator on various points of law can be challenged in court? I can see if the club is sold to the supporters trust for a pittance while the money owed to gady and chinny is sidestepped as appears to be stated in the document that they could all end up in court fairly quickly?

You wonder that if they can't identify which creditors they actually owe money to if their figure for how much they owe can be in any way reliable?

I agree now it is not. Just thought it was impossible to build up such a large list of creditors in such a short time but I under estimated their ability on that front.

Now if the building firms had done a deal where redknapp got 10% of the contract it might have been different...

Have asked if he knows who is going to cover the ongoing losses of the club if it is bought by their trust (something their website is, strangely, not very enlightening on) but not got through yet.

Started with a sensible question... [TABLE=width: 0] [TR] [TD=class: chatmsgtext viewer_text][TABLE=width: 0] [TR] [TD][/TD] [TD]Comment From pedg Have you had chance to read the PKF report yet?[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [TABLE=width: 0] [TR] [TD=class: chatmsgtime, bgcolor: #F6F6F6]14:02 [/TD] [TD=class: chatmsgtext altcaster_text][TABLE=width: 0] [TR] [TD][/TD] [TD]Neil: I have glanced through it, more the list of creditors than anything. Sad to see the same people owed money crops up during every administration, such as Bransbury Park Butchers. Oh and there are plenty of schools among them too.[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]

Also it looks like the league will give them 800K for finishing the season so think we will have to get promoted without the assistance of their liquidation.

I guess we would be down as football creditors so would have got it from the earlier parachute payments? Anyway I was sure they they could not have run up such a long list of creditors again in such a short time and that it must be an amalgamation of old and new creditors but looks like I underestimated them!

Well the figures listed in appendix B for HMRC are: HM Revenue & Customs (PAYE / NIC) ICHU, Benton Park View, Longbenton, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE98 1ZZ 9,861,653.2 HM Revenue & Customs (VAT) Insolvency Operations, Queens Dock, Liverpool, L74 4AF 506,435.92 What were they owed before the list CVA? but then it also has this: Portsmouth City Football Club Limited (In Liquidat C/o Baker Tilly, 25 Farringdon Street, London, EC4A 4RB 16,500,000.00 Which implies not.

It appears the list of creditors is a combination of those from the initial CVA and new creditors so it is almost certainly the same 40k.

It does look that way. No wonder he was keen to get AA in as the admin as one would guess the rules would be interpreted somewhat differently.