hutch

Not if that £17m was secured.

I had to pick up on this direct quote from Lampitt to the BBC: Good luck with that one in Court on Friday, Dave. "So, Mr.Lampitt, can you please give the Court details of the decent return that the creditors have received following the club's last administration".

That's not how I see it. The debt to CSI, quoted as £10m, even if it is unsecured as stated, is to a "connected Party" in a second CVA ballot. And in the first CVA, now that all the football creditors have been paid, HMRC are the largest creditor, and will have some say in how Baker Tilley vote on their behalf. (My only uncertainty here is whether the football creditors were paid 100% in full from the PP's last time, or whether they were paid the 80% shortfall and have to wait in line for the other 20%. My gut feel is that they were paid 100%, but I could be wrong) A ) Yes 1. The payment due to Baker Tilley in April is not a CVA payment. 2. PFC (2010) Ltd. does not have an existing CVA. 3. Me too. Several things strike me about the situation this time round: The news was leaked in advance by Kubik that they are "preparing an application to go into administration". That's unusual and I think significant. UHY have stuck Lampitt in the firing line via the back door. Reading Kubik's quotes, I don't think he's confident they will succeed on Friday. And if they do, he expects more than 10 points. This would be their second admin in less than 2 years, and that's unprecedented (26 Feb 2010 last time). And £2m cash in the bank. As I see it, if they are liquidated now and there is no Validation Order in the meantime that cash will go straight to Chainrai as the primary debenture holder. £2m cash in his pocket AND Fratton Park might be the best offer he'll ever get. If they go into admin, that cash will be swallowed up, and more will be needed. £2m is not nearly enough. If they succeed in entering admin on Friday against the odds, it will be a very temporary reprieve. Without a rich new owner or yet another substantial advance from the PP's, I can't see how the new administrator, whoever he turns out to be, can get past the payment due to Baker Tilley in April. But the biggest difference between last time and this is that last time they had a plan, a very good one, and worked through it step by step. This time they are winging it. They are flying by the seat of their pants, and any outcome is possible.

I thought he started?

Maybe they'll start doing the omnibus at 3 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon. It'll give your lot something to do

Without wishing to suggest, Sir, that you are relying on the age-old English trait of understatement, the casual observer might observe that the rules as written did not envisage a situation wherein a bankrupt club, having received debt relief from it's creditors of more than £60m, and having received a cash injection from the Premier League, since it was previously declared bankrupt, of at least £32m, a total of around £100m, would still be bankrupt and again seek the protection of administration without having paid a single penny to the unfortunate creditors of it's previous bankruptcy.

I understand that PFC have managed to reach an agreement with HMRC at this morning's meeting. In summary, the agreement is "Milk, no sugar".

And Chainrai's statement in the hong Kong press that he has already advanced them the money to pay the January wages.

They only ever had a maximum of £16m to collect. Advances to see them through their last season in the PL (c.£10m) and the Football Creditors (£22.4m) saw to that. If they still have £16m left to collect, I would be surprised to say the least.

"Arry, I've gotta 'ave that new kitchen, love. I just can't be doin' wiv this one no more" "Alright, Sandra me old luv, I'll sell Gareth Bale"

I wouldnt mind seeing the PFA quote verbatim, rather than a journalist's interpretation. Without the word "forwarded" it makes complete sense. If PFC are wound up, the players January wages will be paid from the parachute payments, as will all football creditors.

Low point for me was Leicester at home. Have we improved since then? In my book, yes. Even if we only get a draw on Saturday, if West Ham lose at Posh, we could be on for a game at Upton Park on Tuesday night for top spot.

Not sure about 6th place in the Premier League, but they would appear to have a solid case for a claim to 5th place in League 1.

Water canons & tear gas out in Monaco to control the queue outside the local branch of HSBC, I hear.

これまでのところを見たよりもはるかによいプレーヤーください

+ve #1 We're still second in the league +ve #2 Lallana scored +ve #3 Lambert scored +ve #4 We're still second in the league +ve #5 We're still second in the league -ve #1 We lost (again) _________________________________

I agree with the OP. Failure to win promotion to the Premier League AND win the FA Cup in our first season after promotion from the third division is just not good enough.

They got an adjournment at the first Court hearing with HMRC last time, 2 years ago. 14 days I think it was, for them to come back to Court with more than just Pete Mate's "back of a fag packet" estimate of the value of his squad of players, and to come up with actual proof that they had access to funds to continue on a solvent basis and pay the arrears to HMRC, rather than just that the knew somebody who had loadsamoney. I think it was called a "Statement of Affairs". Chainrai put them into admin before the 14 days was up, so they didn't get back to Court for the WUP to be resolved. The purpose of the hearing is for the Court to either convert the WUP into a WUO (the guillotine you refer to) or not. It was a risky strategy last time, and would be much more so this time round if they went to Court on the 20th expecting to get an adjournment. However, if they (AA & Chainrai) have no other plan, and actually do end up in Court on 20th, they will certainly ask for an adjournment, to give them time for AA to tie up the loose ends with the latest buyer. HMRC will probably oppose, and it will be down to the Registrar to decide. Others will probably disagree with me, but I think it would be nice if we got Christine Derrett again. My gut feel is that if admin again is actually a viable option for them, they'll go for it before the 20th.

The primary purpose of administration is to postpone the WUP indefinately. That's the last thing HMRC want.

To be just a little pedantic, if I may, but there wasn't plenty of money in Snoras. There were plenty of assets on Snoras's Balance Sheet. But many of those assets bore a striking resemblance to Ali Al Faraj.

That's the point right there. He didn't have the money, did he? If somebody came to me with a business proposition, and promised to pay later, and backed that up with a Bank Guarantee which they had typed themselves, from a foreign bank which they own, and which had already been refused a banking licence, I would send them away and ask them to come back when they can put the money up front. Nobody should ever have relied on Bank Guarantees from Snoras, neither Lampitt nor the FL.

My guess, they're waiting to hit them with all the points at the same time, rather than a few here and a few there.

Is this a question about foreskins?

Not so sure about that in the short term. Admin, IF that is possible and acceptable to the Court, will stave off all creditors, including Baker Tilley. I think there is a significant difference between PFC's payment terms to BT & BT's obligations to pay out the CVA. Final payment under the CVA must be made to the creditors by BT by 2015, but there is no firm obligation to make any earlier part-payment, so they could pay the whole lot in 2015 and still meet the terms of the CVA. PFC's obligation to pay BT in instalments is, however, a separate commercial transaction starting in 2012. Failure by PFC to make the stage payments will lead to a commercial dispute between PFC & BT, but will not necessarily bust the terms of the CVA, and admin would in the meantime protect PFC from attack by BT. The whole CVA and Oldco/Newco palaver is a very clever but devious work of art by AA, designed entirely to make Newco as "saleable" as possible for Chainrai, and he very nearly pulled it off. The only piece of his clever jigsaw he missed out on was his own appointment as liquidator of Oldco. If he had achieved that as well, then even the Lithuanian Government pulling the rug would just have been an inconvenience, and he would have started all over again. It's the payment to BT in April that is making things very difficult for them at the moment, even if they manage to go into admin again. AA could have rescheduled that, and used any incoming parachute payments as "working capital" (as they call it, I call it cash) to finance the administration, but BT won't. Not quite. Remember there are 2 votes to approve a CVA. In the second vote "connected Parties" are ignored. CSI, as shareholder, are connected so don't get to vote in the second ballot. That is, if they are unsecured. If they are secured they don't get to vote at all. And, at the moment, they don't owe BT anything (in a "due and payable" sense). True, they will in April, but not today. IF they go into admin again before April, BT will not be an unsecured creditor, but the Administrator will have to have sufficient funds to be able to make the scheduled payment to BT as well as meet all the other running costs. I think HMRC would be in a very strong position in any new Administration, but that's just my opinion.

Preparing the ground just in case an appeal is required.