hutch

Absolutely fantastic deal for them if it goes through. Not an outright purchase, but a sort of "merger" would be massive. Can you imagine combining Cala Corporation's and Pompey's accumulated tax losses together, that would be some size of an asset base.

If your bank accounts are frozen, how do you pay? How many kitbags do you need to stuff £1.8m in used fivers into? If you were the owner or the CEO, would you rent a Tranny van and deliver them yourself, or would you call the kit man? I think they've got away with it again. 'Arry's not the only one with a briefcase!

Apparently they were all heard whistling a cheery little Beach Boys number as they marched line-astern into the jury box this morning

Newco took on a linked but separate liability to oldco to enable oldco to discharge it's own liability under the CVA. But the newco liability to oldco is a commercial agreement between 2 consenting Parties, it doesn't have the same weight as a CVA. The consequence of oldco failing to meet the CVA is immediate liquidation (of oldco - which is already in liquidation anyway, not newco). The consequence of newco failing to meet it's obligation to oldco is either renegotiation of the payment terms (I think there's some scope to do that), or alternatively oldco (Baker Tilley) will, come April, be in exactly the same position as HMRC are in now, and can issue a WUP.

They don't have a CVA to miss.

A couple of things strike me having read the thread this morning: I agree with that. If the creditors covered by the CVA were "football creditors" then they could receive preference under the league rules. But the aren't. Normal insolvency rules will apply, and secured creditors still take priority over unsecured creditors. The creditors covered by the CVA are unsecured creditors. So as I see it whoever owns the club at the time can do what they want with the money, while remembering that there is a legally-binding obligation to make payments to Baker Tilley to meet the CVA. And if the club is liquidated, secured creditors will take priority over unsecured creditors. As an aside, the PL rule book helpfully posted by Chalet makes interesting reading. I interpret rule C66 [p.97] as saying that if they are liquidated further parachute payments cease and stay with the PL for re-distribution: As to whether they can buy or sell the club or players now the WUP (note the difference between a WUP and a Winding Up Order), legally as I see it they can carry on and do what they want. But if they sell any assets now, after the WUP, and that transaction unfairly prejudices any creditor or class of creditors, or unfairly enriches any creditor or class, that transaction can be reversed. So they can sell anything now, but the proceeds of any sale must be distributed among the creditors in line with the insolvency rules. And in respect of any transfer embargo, they are now under one, but that doesn't prevent them from trading. The rules just say that they can't execute any transactions without the specific approval of the League. In practical terms I guess that they will get approval to sell without too much dificulty, but will struggle to get permission to buy anybody.

It appears that Andrew Andronikou, Adminstrator of Portsmouth's parent company CSI which went into administration in November last year following the arrest of it's major shareholder Vladimir Antonov on fraud and money-laundering charges, is locked in last-minute talks with a new preferred bidder. Although Andronikou refuses to divulge any details, the preferred bidder is understood to be one Rosie Redknapp, a very wealthy individual with previous links to Portsmouth, who has for the past several years been living in exile on the French Riviera. Sources close to Andronikou say that he does not envisage that Rosie will have any difficulty meeting the requirements of the new stringent Football League Fit and Proper Person test, and is substantially more wealthy than any of the other bidders who have so far shown interest.

Whatever did happen, you can be sure that the charges weren't lifted until the debts were paid.

No it isn't, it's there in black & white in UHY's published Completion Report

In case we forget, Chainrai's "debentures" over Pompey's "assets" were transferred from the old PCFC to PFC 2010 as part of the previous admin process. So he is a secured creditor of PFC 2010. He will get first dibs in any liquidation before any leftovers go to anybody else.

I think we're getting to that bit after lunch

Rover 57's mine!!!!! Keep your dirty hands off.

Do you have a dog? What year were you born?

Similar comment attributed to the leader of the City Council in the News: ‘What I am totally dedicated to is making sure we always have a football team playing in Portsmouth.’ Maybe the end game has begun?

Should fit in perfectly down that way then.

There are documents available in the public domain which, unless they are fake, outline the basis of the allegations against the defendants, and how that relates to the club. I'm not sure if the Contempt of Court restrictions allow one to quote from them though.

The big difference is last time Chainrai put his hand in his pocket to keep them going during the process, which has been added to the debt and makes them even more difficult to sell. This time it appears he has said "no more, go find another mug".

Why were they allowed to sign a player last week ? The rules are in Section 17 http://www.football-league.co.uk/regulations/20110629/section-4-clubs_2293633_2125725 Did they notify the FL of the "default event" in December ? I see it as just another example of bending the rules so far it amounts to cheating, again. They're obliged to report the Default Event to the FL "within 28 days". Quick sums 22 December (latest date for EFT payment) + 28 days = 19 January. So they had to notify the FL by 19 January latest. And they signed Etuhu on ........... 18 January. It's significant that since then Appleton has been reported in the News as saying there will be no more new signings. Although they didn't actually break the rules then (the Lampitt factor?), if they had any self respect they could have notified the FL when they sent in Etuhu's papers for registration, in the spirit of the new regulations, that they were already 2 months behind with their PAYE payments to HMRC. If they had, I very much doubt they would have signed him. Everything they do is tainted with that same horrible smell.

Probably for the sentencing of Clark Kent in Court 5

Just a variation of the current fan's favourite: "We lost to Hearts with a star called Hooper"

I'd never have guessed

Sort of sums up my thoughts on Rallyboy's earlier post asking who is to blame. My votes go to: 1. Mawhinney (for retiring too soon) 2. Storrie 3. The FL board in that order. You can't expect the league to take decisions on who can or can't own or invest in football clubs. But you can expect them to manage the league, and punish indiscretions. -10 points for insolvency is all well & good, but mostly too late. What about: -3 for failing to file your accounts on time -5 for presenting inaccurate, incomplete or misleading financial details to the league -3 for paying wages late -3 for paying your taxes late -3 for late payment due to other clubs for transfer fees or loans +10 for not paying agents It wouldn't keep the crooks out, but it would make life much more difficult for them once they were in. And that magic number 48 that causes them so much difficulty down there. Their views on 48 hours to salvation and how to spend the rest of the £48m parachute payments makes me think of a Zimbabwean bungee cable.

To be fair to the idiot, Wes, what he says is actually correct. PFC 2010 Ltd (Newco) doesn't have a CVA, PCFC Ltd (Oldco) does. What Newco does have, as part of the agreement for Oldco to exit admin with it's CVA and then transfer it's "golden share" to Newco, is a legally-binding obligation to pay money to the liquidator of Oldco (Baker Tilley) to enable Baker Tilley to make the CVA payments to the creditors. At least that's how I see things. The interesting thing will be what happens if Newco doesn't make the scheduled payments to Baker Tilley on time. As I recall Baker Tilley were appointed at the insistence of HMRC. If, as the phew think, those payments will be made directly to BT from "ringfenced" parachute payments, then there is no problem (and, of course, no urgent need to find "new investment" before the deadline). All they would need is somebody to chuck in a few grand every now and then to make up any small shortfall that might arise in their monthly cashflow.

My guess would be that the points deduction is coming up for review again in 48 hours.

Wenger's giving the model a trial run for us at the moment. He's currently got Oxo, Theo, Henry & van Persie all on at the same time.