hutch

That "its all very mysterious" again. He's not pulling punches, and the Judge knows exactly what he means.

There ya go. Not sure who brought that one up last night. Maybe Chalet or Guided Missile?

Some of the debate on here last night about whether Portpin lent money to PCFC Ltd. or to Falcondrone may have been prescient.

Agreed. They've missed something, and Mr. Mitchell knows what it is.

= total fabrication in lawyer-speak

I'm sure the difference, this time, really is entirely coincidental.

Works every time

Mitchell QC: "'We say that that is all very well,'" Lawyer-speak for "that's a load of old böllocks". I've been told the same in Court myself.

There is a lot more meat in this than I expected. It will not be sorted out today. Somebody will have to run the Company in the meantime, if they are to continue. Maybe it's Mr. Mitchell who's got the extra ace up his sleeve.

Not quite. They're increasing their debt by that amount for each win.

Comment From Ryan Ryan : ] What worries me is that pompey have no evidence of anyone interested in buying the club showing they have proof of funds... He hasn't seen this thread.

Gregory Mitchell QC Helluva track record in the field: http://www.3vb.com/pgs-members/m_gmitchell.shtml Poacher's turned gamekeepers are always the worst ones to come up against.

I am sooooooo glad it's not us in there.

T's crossed & i's dotted. Thats a minute 47 seconds gone. Right, then, what's next?

A couple of hours, apparently. A nice long lunch then.

It would be much, much better if you left that to Nickh

In answer to 2), lots of changes of underwear south of Fareham, and lots of ruined keyboards north of Fareham. HTH

And the pre-match, half time and post match feeds from the studio are usually flawless (more or less). And, after the game, when the broadcast restrictions are lifted, when you log out of SaintsPlayer and go to the Solent feed direct from the BBC, that's flawless too.

Yep. The FA, FL & PL have it within their power to change the requirements to get your playing licence back from: Pay all your outstanding footballing debts to Pay all your outstanding footballing debts and outstanding taxes But, how could you persuade them to do that?

This thread?

Thanks for that. I think it's common ground that the "floating charge" was registered after the WUP was issued, and is therefore potentially subject to challenge.

Baloo is not the owner. It is a limited Company. He may or may not be (or represent) the majority shareholder, but that is all. That is a bit different from being the owner. My simplistic understanding is that the directors run a limited company, and hold the responsibility for it's well being. Shareholders have the opportunity to influence the running of the company through resolutions at General meetings (annual or extraordinary). Limited liability gives a lot of protection to shareholders, in exchange for which they relinquish some control. Baloo is not a director, he's not that daft. But he very certainly does have a conflict of interest. I'm with you, GM and everybody else on that point. It's that conflict, and how it has affected the administration process, which is going to be scrutinised. HMRC know that the cards are stacked against them, but if admin is going to happen, they want to be damned sure that there are only 52 cards in the deck, and that the process is not carried out by anybody's "puppet". I think today will result in a temporary halt in the process. The more interesting developments will follow over the next few days. And one other very significant thing which I just remembered, uncovered by others, is that, from the record, Jacobs has been representing Falcondrone (Al-Mirage) AND Portpin (Baloo). That will certainly open a few eyes.

I've reflected on yesterday afternoon's development overnight, and arrived at the following conclusion. The real issue, IMHO, is what is different about this particular football club going into administration, when compared with all the others, that has caused HMRC to take this stand. It's certainly reasonably common for clubs to go into admin, and after previous judgements their position is pretty clear, they're shafted, and they take the hit and move on. It's not because it's a PL club and the numbers are bigger. The law is the law, whether it's £100 or £10m at stake. And it's not because it's Pompey, although IMO that would certainly be a good enough reason. Something is different. What? I doubt that their attention is focussed on Baloo (or Portpin). From what I've seen he is a competent businessman and is looking after his interests pretty well. Despite what is posted by others here, I personally doubt that having a person (or other legal entity or Company) who is: a) A majority shareholder, and b) A secured creditor, and c) An unsecured creditor of a failed bankrupt business is unique. I accept that we don't know for definate that he is all, or any, of the above. But just say for argument he is. I believe that what is DIFFERENT here is the appointment of Android and his 2 colleagues as administrators, and that is what is under scrutiny. It was reported to be "unusual" when Vantis didn't have their initial appointment extended to become administrators. Hell, I understand that eyebrows were even raised. Maybe there are adverse comments in the SoA about the prospects for creditors if the Company were to go into admin, but we don't know that. What I think is the most unusual part, in my experience, is that Baloo is apparently underwriting the administrator's costs. Would administration have been an option if he hadn't agreed to do that? If not, they would have been wound up by now, as HMRC intended. So, is it lawful for a creditor and/or shareholder to take this step if it only enhances his own position to the detriment of the general body of creditors? It was reported that it is the "debenture" which will be questioned in Court. I'm not sure what that is, but understand it to be the mandate under which the administrators were "appointed". Somebody will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong. I think the pertinent questions which are being asked are: 1. Is Baloo entitled to underwrite the administrator's costs, and 2. In the absence of that undertaking, would Android have been in a position to accept the appointment and proceed with the administration? Just a theory, of course, and there are too many unanswered questions in this case to read the situation with any degree of certainty.

Dare I say, toast:D. In reality, none of us have seen any of the documents on whose contents we speculate so wildly, including the ones which, I suspect, are locked in various safes in the Carribean/Middle East/Far East/Russia, and will never be seen in England. But, IMHO, the best they can hope for is that they will descend quickly through several leagues, and remain in their rightfull place below us for several generations. The alternative is that they will start up again in non-league football. Throughout this whole saga, there has not been one mention, not one, of any benefactor who is willing to invest in them. It's all about who can borrow what from where, and "rescheduling" the debts. Reschedule all you like, but some day somebody has to pay something back. God bless you, Marcus.

That's quite appealing, GM, but still leaves a couple of unanswered points (for lack of accurate information) 1. If the shares were worth less than the overdue and payable debt, then Portpin would, IMO, be entitled to call in other security until satisfied, but 2. Was Falcondrone (if it was indeed the borrower) entitled to put FP, which was owned by PCFC Ltd., up as security? I think what we'll see tomorrow is that the administrator's wings will be severely clipped pending further legal submission and argument. Quite where that leaves their team in the meantime is anybody's guess.