hutch

I suppose the real question now is, if they manage to survive (and I'm pretty sure they will - clubs always do, don't they), will they bottom out in League 1 or go all the way. If they had done things properly when they became insolvent, they would have ended up there or thereabouts anyway, but without the nasty smell still hanging around. As it is now, they will get there with the rats still clinging to the sinking ship. Toast anyone?

They just don't get it: Portsmouth Supporters Trust reaction to the HMRC Appeal In light of Her Majesty's Revenue and Custom's decision to appeal the Company Voluntary Arrangement agreed by 75% of Portsmouth Football Club's creditors in June, Portsmouth Supporters Trust today question whether this course of action is in the best interests of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom? We understand that HMRC have a duty to act on behalf of the taxpayer, however an appeal to the courts would see a not insignificant sum paid to lawyers, one of which would be QC to represent HMRC being used, to further push a procedure which could see the death of our beloved club. Whilst we at PST do not condone the irresponsible spending by previous owners or the failure to pay tax owed, we do believe that destroying the club, its fans and taking away the chance for the creditors to see any return on the monies they are owed, is an act which would be a bitter pill to swallow for both fans and creditors alike. The whole point of the challenge is that it wasn't really agreed by 75% of Portsmouth Fotball Club's creditors in June, was it? And, of course, despite Andy's childish threats, if HMRC win, Pompey will be footing the bill for HMRC's very expensive legal team as well as their own. AA would be well advised to consider his position very carefully, and go back to square one on the CVA issue. If HMRC win, it's not just Pompey who will be in deep shyte.

It's on the Sky Sports website now

Ask Bournemouth what happens to the transfer embargo if you come out of admin without a CVA.

I believe that HMRC are looking to cut a deal with the leagues over the football creditor's rule, and that if a satisfactory deal is reached they wouldn't appeal. After all, they will get their pound of flesh from the culprits at Pompey in 9 months time under the CVA anyway.

Correct. I've just had a look at the Insolvency Act (1986). Sections 4 & 6 apply. Anybody who wants to dispute the CVA must apply to the Court within 28 days. But that's 28 days from when the Supervisor reported the outcome of the meeting to the Court. We know that the meeting was on 17th June, but we don't know when AA filed the report of the meeting with the Court. Also the potential grounds for challenge are: (a) that a voluntary arrangement [which has effect under section 4A] unfairly prejudices the interests of a creditor, member or contributory of the company; (b) that there has been some material irregularity at or in relation to either of the meetings. I think HMRC will find fertile ground on both counts.

+1 Reading some of the reports on Leeds, it seems that HMRC gave a Notice of Intention to Appeal the CVA at the last minute. I don't know what is actually required in these circumstances, but if it is simply Notice, then that's just delivery of a formal letter from HMRC's lawyers to Pompey's registered address. Remember back to last December. A week after HMRC issued the Winding Up Petition, Pompey were still denying they'd received it.

Would you be if you were expecting an English Premier League side (the best league in the world), hot from the Wembley cup final against Chelsea, and got Pompey?

Give some of the better "fringe" players and perennial bench-sitters a run out in the cup games (Mills, Seabourne, Bart, O-C, Holmes, Martin, maybe Holder-Spooner, etc.) but keep the first team on the bench to keep your options open, and keep the whole squad "involved" in every game.

I think Weston's view is most salient. For the club, as a business, it's not about the number of STs sold, it's about the number of bums on seats at each match. Last season we had c.13,000 STs and an average home gate of 21,000. That's 13,000 at, say, £15 each and 8,000 at £25 each (roughly speaking). This season, with the same average home gate, we might get 10,000 at £15 and 11,000 at £25. Which is the better business? I do expect the average home gate to be higher this season than last, irrespective of ST sales. I expect the management do, too. It's understandable that the new "business first" policy will upset some fans, but that's the future. And if it helps, I don't mind if you change £25 to £28.

It's 20p over 5 years - 4p a year.

We must be careful not to misunderstand the meaning of a transfer embargo. It isn't intended to stop a club from signing new players. Under normal circumstances a club can sign new players who they think are better than their existing players, and then get rid of their "less able" players to a lower league club. When they go bust (administration is an Act of Insolvency), they have a transfer embargo imposed. That means that they have to get rid of the "less able" players to a lower league club first, and then they can sign the new players. Same result, but you just have to do things in a different order. I've got that right, haven't I, Andy?

It's all about levelling the playing field. Of course they've got more than 20 players on the books, but they're not good enough to win automatic promotion back to the Prem. So the rules will have to be bent.

I believe they will. As I understand the terms of the CVA, the payments are conditional on achieving a certain level of income from player sales this year, and making profits in the future years. If those conditions are not met, there is no obligation to make the payments, so they will not be in breach of it's terms. Makes you wonder why anybody voted in favour, until you understand that around £50m of the debt is due to previous owners, and around £30m to "football creditors" who will get paid in full anyway.

Or ....... they have to sell 1,000 season tickets just to earn enough to pay him to sit on the beach during the close season

Would be interested to know if Mush has gone with them to 'ave a larf.

Looking forward to being just one place below them in the league tables for most of the season.

A nailbiting last 5 minutes for the Swiss

I would imagine taking a tough line with Pompey will bring in a lot more in timeous payments from other football clubs than the £960k they've been offered this year under the CVA.

I liked this bit: And from the comments [southstand Johnny]: Yep, it might make them think about paying their taxes in future.

An interesting thought for those who are convinced that the have "got away with it". The Saints XI which won convincingly at Winchester on Saturday was made up of the youth squad (well, except for Pulis) who weren't invited to the pre-season in Switzerland. The Pompey team which pulled off a plucky 2-1 win at Havant & Waterlooville was the first team. Even The News reports today that they won't be able to make any new signings "for the foreseeable future". They must be odds-on for successive relegations, even if they get to keep all their points this season.

Wait for "bob-a-job" week. Do we still have that?

But apparently he hasn't: http://www.goal.com/en/news/11/transfer-zone/2010/07/10/2019173/i-have-not-signed-for-al-sadd-portsmouths-nadir-belhadj I make it around Є450k in the kitty so far. Only about another £14.6m to go. The creditors must be getting nervous.

Complete & utter bοllοcks!

Mrs. H isn't feeling too great this morning, so I've just been out & done the weekend shopping. There and back in 45 minutes. How come when Mrs. H does it, it takes between 4 & 6 hours?