hutch

I was aware of your earlier point, Bucks, when I posted that. But, at the hearing, Counsel for Pompey: "Mr Barker said if the appointment of the administrators is invalid there will be a contingent application for a court-appointed administration" and I was following that line.

That's good. But I don't any more (agree with myself, I mean). If we read things correctly, there is no point in them proceeding with 1. in Court on the day. In fact it would be harmful. If I were them, I would, just before the hearing, concede 1. with glossed-up spinning press releases and p.r. statements (transparency, in the interests of justice, lifting of shadows, etc.), and proceed straight with 2. by asking the Judge to make Andy & Co. Court-appointed administrators. We might get some pointers by seeing how much actual "administrating" they do between now and then.

It would probably help if you ask nickh to say the same thing.

I have no way of answering that. We haven't seen any of the documents. For my part, I am only speculating, based on the conduct of the various characters involved, and statements and articles from the media, weighted as appropriate. But it is certainly possible.

I'm not sure that we do differ, Guided. I don't think that Baloo lent any money to PCFC either. That's why I said he wants his money ... back (or out). He certainly won't start now. It's a convenient way out. The Judge "fires" Andy & Co., and appoints independent administrators. The independent administrators, absent Baloo's £15m, take one quick look at the patient, decide he's dead, and pull the plug unless they can get an advance from the PL. As for the details of the Fugler account, that will be a very interesting show, but probably far wider than just the immediate future of the Pompey football club. Offshore payments? Image rights? Who knows what gems that might contain?

I would expect the Court to want to deal with all the issues on the day. If that was an issue, and I think it probably is, I would expect HMRC's lawyers to deal with it in advance, and have the up to date situation in the papers in Court, even if that was that they had not received a satisfactory response.

And another thing (as they say), Andy was quoted in the BBC article referenced earlier: "However, he said he is keen not to to go down the route of selling players because it would weaken the team and could therefore devalue the Premier League run-in." So, Andy, that would be the same weakened team that SHOULD have played in all of the previous league and cup games this season?

A couple of observations on the press reports following yesterday's events. The Times have quoted Andy: “In simple terms, they questioned whether Portpin had actually advanced any money to the company, which is strange, because in November Portpin paid about £5 million of PAYE and VAT for them,” Andronikou said. “Unfortunately, you can’t stand up in court and state the obvious." Actually Andy, you can. You just pass a note forward to your Counsel. But, of course, you wouldn't bother (or he would just ignore it) if it didn't help your case. One of our learned colleagues helpfully posted on here that a charge must be registered within 21 days of the relevant transaction. Portpin must show that it has lent new money to PCFC after 17th December for the January 7th charge, and subsequent administration arising from it, to be effective. I think that's very significant. If there was any new money after 17th December, I would have expected Andy to have known about it. And if there was, and he knew about it, I would have expected him to have said so. The other interesting point is regarding the number of reports that Baloo has provided £15m to Andy to "see him through". Of course, he hasn't. Mr. Mitchell and the Judge clearly said so. Mr. Barker provided a letter from a bank (BNP Paribas?) that Baloo has £15m in an account, which could be made available (or words to that effect). If Andy had £15m from Baloo, which on his version is far more than he needs, why would he need to go to the PL to ask for an advance on tv money and parachute payments? The club would be a far more saleable asset with future parachute payments intact to ease the pain. If I was on the PL board, I would be asking Andy why he wants an advance now, when he's already on the record as saying he has £15m from Baloo in his pocket to get to the end of admin? Why not just let the new owners, who are queueing up to buy this bargain, buy the club and sort out the required CVA with HMRC and everybody else, and then use the parachute payments for the purpose for which they were intended? Baloo has no intention of putting any more of his money into the club. He wants as much as he can get back (or out). That's why Andy is going cap in hand to the PL. If Andy does have the balls to continue in the meantime, I genuinely feel sorry for those who will find themselves out of a job in the next few days. With very few exceptions, they were not responsible for this mess. I don't think they'll be wound up at the next hearing, despite what HMRC say. I expect PCFC to make their contingent application for a Court-appointed administrator (and ask for that Court-apointed administrator to be Andy & Co.), before the hearing. The running order on the day would then be: 1. Consideration of the propriety of Andy's appointment 2. Consideration for contingent application to appoint administrators (Andy) 3. Winding up petition Based on what we know so far, I would expect HMRC to win on 1. It will then move on to 2. In my experience, Courts do tend to lean towards the "poor little guy" who has unfortunately found himself in difficulty, but is trying to do the decent thing to get out of it. So I think there is a strong possibility that the Court will appoint administrators, but it won't be Andy & Co. On that basis the WUP will remain stayed. But watch how quickly Baloo's £15m disappears. However, at that time, if the proper administrators believe that an "advance" to get through the administration process (and to the end of the season and avoid having to expunge Pompey's results) is in the best interests of the creditors, the PL might then take a different approach.

Or voluntary by the directors, with the approval of the Court? Or is it too late for that?

Provided that the Judge has been quoted accurately in the press, his statement is clear and unambiguous. They don't usually make mistakes. Portsmouth City Football Club Limited is (not was) 90% owned by Falcondrone. The Judge would not have made that up, or got it from reading this thread. He has seen it in the evidence. Unless Chainrai owns Falcondrone, he does not own 90% of PCFC.

And another point, which has been rattling around on here for a while, was cleared up for us by the Judge: "The company (PCFC Ltd.) is owned as to 90 per cent by a company called Falcondrone Ltd". As far as we know, although there may be some doubt, Falcondrone was last heard of as being owned by Mythical Ali. It is almost certainly not owned by Baloo. So, despite what Pompey's official website may say, Baloo is not the owner.

All the major hire companies are here. Personally, I usually use Avis. The rates are pretty affordable, but maybe not so during the WC. It's advisable to book up well in advance. There are usually thousands of hire cars in the lots at Cape Town airport, but it's not unusual for them to turn casual hirers away. It's a nice drive, between Cape Town & PE. But the highway (N2) is away from the coast for large parts of the route, and you have to make detours. But well worth it. It's known locally as the "Garden Route", but I've got absolutely no idea why. You'll find all the details on the 'web.

I don't think Tanya made any clerical error. I don't think she made any error at all. Her evidence (and we don't know whether that's a statement or documents), read in conjunction with the Judge's comment: may begin to close the loop on the early conspiracy theory, that this whole sorry saga is brought about by "Daddy's" attempt to get his hands on some of his "frozen" money from a country where he is no longer welcome, with the assistance of his erstwhile business partner Baloo. Just didn't quite work out as planned.

They won't. If there was one out there, they would have found him by now. The only interest is from dodgy leverage borrowers, and no lender is going to touch this with the "shadow" hanging over it.

The more I think about it, to more I see the sheer brilliance of HMRC's tactic. I can't stop smiling. I have this vision of Pompey's bunch of crooks standing clueless on a long straight road, with HMRC's demons waiting for them at the end, waving their arms, shouting "Come to Papa". There are turnings off the road, but if Pompey take any of them, they will be shown for what they are. And if they do, the "shadow" won't be removed, it will just get darker. Brilliant.

My initial reaction is that, if everything is above board and Pompey have got nothing to hide, or want out in the open, then it's a pretty good result for them. They can carry on as before confident that they'll win the day in Court next time. They know what the Judge needs to see. All the documents to prove the contents of the SoA w.r.t. Portpin's position as secured creditor, and Baloo's £15m in Andy Pandy's bank account, or on deposit and on-call at the administrator's discretion, not Baloo's. That's pretty much what they said in Court anyway, so no problem for them. Otherwise, they got time and rope. If they're not confident, they (the directors, if there are actually any left) can go back and ask the Court to appoint Andy Pandy & Co. as a Company Voluntary Administration. Risk there is that the Court might say no, or it might say yes, but appoint A.N.Other instead. Mr. Mitchell covered both of those points very well, questioning both the underlying purpose of administration and the independence of the incumbent administrators. They have been set up, and HMRC are not making it easy for Baloo. They're between a rock and a hard place, unless everything is absolutely kosher. I'd say that HMRC are 3-1 up at half time, and most of the Pompey players are already on one yellow card.

Hmmmmmmmm.

So, no doubt, would we. Watch how fast Baloo's £15m "prospect" disappears.

Just loved this one: "[Comment From Keith Keith : ] It seems to me HMRC do not believe a word on any aspect of this case coming from our side, surley its time for the judge to step in and make them see reason or else this case will never be resolved."

"@Ron Tic - Statutory requirement that incumbent owner or Directors that file for admin have to pay the bill" Do any of our own IP's know if that is true?

"Matthew: Mr Barker said 'Really 4pm on Monday March 8 is far too tight a time table." The judge isn't going to have any of that. If anything, it's far too long just to provide some existing documents.

Why do I keep hearing Johnny Rotten singing God Save The Queen (and her Revenue and Customs). Maybe it's the "Nooooow Future for You"

But only if he's actually a creditor. And only if android remains as the administrator. Neither of those are nailed on.

"Matthew: Mr Barker said if the appointment by Portpin of the administrators is invalid there will be a contingent application for a court appointed administration." If that's really the best that they have to offer in reply, then it looks pretty bad for them. 50/50 that they actually succeed with the contingent application, and 50/50 that the independent administrator will wind them up immediately. A 1 in 4 chance of just surviving, never mind the future points deductions. Does anyone have a source for the comments about Fugler's bank accounts and payments to Baloo?

It isn't going to fly. I don't know how yet, but Baloo is NOT going to put another £15m in to get his £13.8m out.