Clapham Saint

Has the chap on the left just told him to "give me a cough"?

I've seen partners "encoraged to leave" firms for much smaller f**k ups...

Um... Why consider buying the club from Chairai? The club is in administration and the owner* has no authority to accept or decline any offer made. Unless of course the administration was some sort of sham, but obviously that wouldn't the the case here. *however you define "owner" given that I think he has a lien rather than directly owning the shares, happy to be corrected.

Not directly. It could be argued that "new co" would not pay as much for the assets of "old co" as there are now fewer assets, however I'm not entirely sure the players could be accurately described as "assets"... There's still the small matter of finding a buyer too of course.

How old will the "senior player" be?

Quite. Its been a while since I sat my tax exams but AA's sound bit doesn't sit with my exams on the UK taxation system at all. If you didn't all know that he is a highly qualified and respected professional you'd think he was just making it up as he goes along... EDIT: And anther thing... to listen to AA you would think that the football creditors rule was part of the UK insolvency legistlation. The football creditors rule has nothing to do with UK insolvency law. There is not legislation which gifts football creditors elivated status. It is a boys club rule and as such does not hold the weight that he implies. If the CVA prefers football creditors to HMRC to the extent that one gets 100% and the other 20% but both still get to vote how can that be anything other than unfairly predudicial to HMRC? This is the reason that Wimbledon's CVA was structured in the way that it was. A 3rd party purchaser buying the club paid the balance of the football debt independently and so the top up was technically outside of the CVA. This is not the case in AA's CVA proposal.

I'd not read the Wimbledon ruling before however having now see the post above it does look as though handy andy may have royally f%#^ed this up oops

'There isn't anybody out there free- transfer wise for me to bring in at this moment in time because they have all been signed so there are no players available on frees at all?! Or there are no free transfers who are better then the players who we are releasing to get under the 20 player limit...

HMRC can fine any company 100% of the balance owed if (as Jimmy says) there is intention to avoid payment.

That's awful if true. But does fit with his previous comments when caught out (dismissing the judges comments as boll*cks etc). I really hope his licencing body end up looking at his conduct in this. It's bad enough that some IPs even try to do this sort of thing once, let alone be blatantly caught out again and again. I'm still sure that HMRC will challenge within the 28 days and toast will still result, but more than stopping P*mpey "getting away with it" I really really want AA to get shafted for his actions.

Exactly. As somebody put it earlier on this thread... "Disaster waiting to happen". Um... a loan is debt. However you are right that the loan funding the administration is separate from the debt incurred by the company prior to the administration. As I've said before, short of fraudulent activity they can't "create" more debt to reduce HMRC's claim at this stage. AA is responsible for any loans taken out and any trading losses incurred since the date that he was appointed. The question is, is AA a smart chap who has got Chanarai to agree to waive the loan funding the adminstration in the event that the CVA plan falls apart, or is Chanarai about to bend him over the table and end his career?

Their claim won't be increasing. All PAYE/NI/VAT incurred as a result of trading whilst in administration is counted as a cost of the administration and AA is liable. The amount outstanding as a result of activities prior to the administration can be claimed by HMRC in the administration and used to vote. Also any loans taken out before the admin will be frozen at that date. Any taken out by AA to fund the administration are again his problem. The only way that the debt included within the vote can "get bigger" is if debts are found which were not previously known about (generally becuase they were not included within the accounts for some reason) and are proven to be valid. I think that the previous court cases involving AA which were discussed earlier on this thread related to AA accepting additional dubious debt claims from family members in order to help boost the vote in favour.

Sadly yes, however the potential for a career ending PI claim is remains.

If the CVA isn't approved AA remains the administrator and will need to (continue to?) fulfil the duties of his office. In short, he'll either need to come up with an alternative plan or look at other options for rasing money for creditors. If he can't find a plan for them to continue trading then that means closing down and liquidating the remaining assets.

No it wouldn't. Android would be liable for the losses to creditors as a result of his time as "administrator". Storrie will still be on the hook for his wrongful trading... :-)

I haven't ever met him personally but I'm yet to meet an IP who doesn't get an instant look of disgust on his face at the mention of his name. I friend of mine's husband went to work for Hacker Young recently. He lasted a year before he felt obliged to leave. Yes they really **** me off. It would be a great shame if AA continues with this bull**** only to have HMRC contest his conduct in court and have him held personally liable for the resultant losses to creditors. A real shame.

Hasn't he already said that there are no buyers out there and that Chanrai is the only credible option (or words to that effect)? Quite a coincidence that these other groups should pop up since only to walk away as a result of griffins report.

Most people earning £600k would be delighted if they only paid £100k-£200k tax...

The appointment would need to be approved by creditors.

It is the liquidator which will do the investigation.

If that is the case then fair enough, however one of the Partners that I work with was told by Mark Fry that everybody was paid in full. Your quote above does seem to indicate otherwise however.

Obviously I wasn't party to the negotiations however I very very much doubt that Fry anticpated getting anything like paid in full. My source is a partner at my firm. His source was Mark Fry. The administrators recipts and payments (which have to be filed at companies house) will show exactly what was paid. As I said earlier I haven't actually checked for them myself but as soon as they are filed they are public documents. Edit: And for clarity the honour bit was my embelishment rather than from Mr Fry's lips, however I would bet my life that (assuming it is true that everybody was paid in full) Marcus didn't need to pay anything like that amount to buy the club.

I have not actually double checked Companies House (to confirm with the documents filed) but... SLH PLC went into admin and if it hasn't already been liquidated will be shortly. Southampton football club limited was bought by Marcus (or his holding co anyway) and has never been in administration. Before any skates start to get tetchy, this was not a scam to avoid a CVA becuase Marcus appears to have a spectacular sense of honour and paid enough for everyone to be paid. In full. Not something I expect to happen down the road.

Have they sold out for their last ever game at Fratton Park?