hutch

Bolton 1 up at Millwall already

Derby have just gone above Leicester as well & are now in the top half of the table. Does that mean we've got a tough game on our hands now?

I'm out on the patio with the laptop this afternoon, so I can deputise on smoke duty for Ohio any time. Just ask.

Yep, we've just gone top on the Sky Sports Live score centre live table. Is that worth a WOOT?

Am I right in thinking we'll go back to the top of the league on goal difference as soon as the ball is kicked?

Their spirit. I think there's half a bottle of Bells left in Lampitt's office.

Your first point is an interesting one. As things stand, I don't think they do get a vote. As things stood yesterday when PFC went into admin, they didn't owe BT anything. I don't think admin rules would allow BT to postpone payment in April and add themselves to the list of creditors, and even if the rules do allow it, why would they risk getting a percentage of their money under a new CVA when they are currently guaranteed 100% from the administrator, provided that PFC don't get liquidated in the meantime. I could be wrong, but I don't see any way BT will be a part of any new CVA. HMRC will get what is due to them from now on, in full & on time, or else. I said at the start of the season that they would be relegated due to lack of cash, and that is still my view, whether they only get -10 or more. The only thing the phew should be worried about now is whether they will start next season at all. If they do it will be in League 1 at best, but will they start with a clean slate or a hefty deduction. Edit: I've just seen Clapham's earlier post, so it's safe to assume my opinion is ballocks. If you want facts, ask a commoner.

In a convoluted way, as you say. If the first installment is missed, without the prior agreement of BT, I don't think the original CVA will collapse at that time, but Birch will personally be liable for that installment. He won't let that happen, so the effect is the same. I'm not sure if that's clear.

That's not the way I see it. The new admin either must pay the first installment when it is due, or liquidate them, unless the CVA creditor's representative agrees to postpone it. He cannot add anything to the list of creditors. So if Baker Tilley (HMRC) demand their money in April, they must pay it. Significantly, yesterday's result puts HMRC in complete control of their fate. That's what AA was trying to tell the skate. They will get their pound of flesh or PFC will be gone. Their pound of flesh is what they are owed under the old CVA c.£5m plus 100% of the current debt. And all their tax will be paid in the meantime.

I knew there was a flaw in there somewhere.

Yes I think you have. I think it goes something like this: Portsmouth City Council do a Compulsory Purchase of Gaydamak's land & Fratton Park. They then give it to the Supporter's Trust for free. The Supporter's Trust then sell it to Tesco for £20m. Tesco then give it back to the Trust to use for free. Forever. And David Cameron pays for new bogs, gutters & a clock.

The FL might just be concerned about setting a precedent for the future that multiple administrations, in this case 2 in less than 2 years, only attracts the standard 10 point penalty.

I think in reality most of us would be happy to see them back in their rightful place two divisions below us, and not cheating any more. With the odd "day out in the big time" at SMS once every few seasons in a cup game. Some will call that toast, and some won't.

For the first time in more than 2½ years I can now see an end to this thread.

You have to laugh, don't you: Absolutely, Pen. As we know, "your" club does, after all, have such an exemplary record of keeping up to date with it's tax payments.

You could try reading it, eh, Hypo FWIW it doesn't say anything of the sort. In essence it simply says that new PFC must pay Baker Tilley enough money not later than 4 years & 3 months after new PFC buys the assets from old PFC, to allow Baker Tilley to pay 20p in the £ (less expenses) to the creditors. There is nothing in the CVA to allow that 20p to be changed. Nope, he can't do that either.

Straight for the throat with that one. It doesn't seem like Chuck needs to give them more time to provide any additional information to reach that conclusion. So now all they have to do is convince him that continuing to trade at a loss will be better for the creditors than shutting up shop now. Easy peasy, off you go, Andy.

Chuck's off to a good start. He's not buying any of AA's bullsheet.

I think that's the point. They have to prove to the Court that admin will lead to a better outcome for the creditors than liquidation, whether anybody opposes it or not.

I think this one's on Fetter Lane. Not far but closer to Holborn.

Ah, so they've moved it again. To Fratton Park.

For anybody who's looking for it, the News live webchat thingy from the High Court will be up & running here in 5 minutes.

Just finished catching up after a couple of days away. The shift away from Proudman's "rubber-stamping lots of applications" Court to Chuck Norris's "let's have a proper trial and examine all the facts" Court is very significant. I'm still not totally convinced that Chainrai want's admin. I see it as very significant that there appears to have been no application for a Validation Order. Could it be that Chainrai doesn't want Lampitt to get his hands on "his" cash in the bank account pre-liquidation? And a couple of thoughts on Fowllyd's post (and the later one in the same vein): Firstly, in the age-old tradition of pedantry on this forum, Christine Derrett is, as I recall, a Registrar not a Justice And, concerning HMRC, two observations: While it appeared to many at the time that HMRC did present their case badly in August 2010, I tend to see it that HMRC were not focussed on a pin-point attack on PFC and their particular CVA at that time, but approached the issue from the perspective of their wider attack on the Football Creditor's Rule as a whole, which has now been heard but judgement not yet pronounced. Time will tell whether they were right or wrong in terms of the Revenue's ability to collect money from bankrupt football clubs. And on the original challenge to the appointment of AA before Norris in March 2010, as you rightly say that challenge was withdrawn before final hearing in Court, following some sort of "agreement" reached between HMRC & UHY. We don't know the details of that agreement, but we do know that, amongst other things, it led to the rejection of AA's appointment as liquidator of the old PFC Company, and the appointment of HMRC's preferred candidate Baker Tilley instead. That appointment is hurting PFC badly now, and significantly strengthens HMRC's hand. I think HMRC are playing a long game against football clubs in general and the FCR in particular, and PFC are just one pawn in that bigger game.

So, today's the day. Well, another one of them anyway. Last day in the job for Dave? Good luck for the future, mate. If they get really lucky today, they might survive to compete with Torquay next season for the position of 4th biggest club on the South Coast.

Fook me, I'm bust then.