hutch

Lard, I hope you don't mind the edit. Makes more sense now.

I must stop underestimating Storrie and give him more credit. There was me going to bed last night, thinking that both of their latest takeover deals had bitten the dust, and I wake up this morning to find that they now have THREE new owners in the pipeline. That Storrie is a real superstar, and a snip at a million quid a year. Overheard at a top West End hotel yesterday, apparently: Chainrai: "OK Peter, I've got a meeting now with a couple of chaps that I have to speak to in private. Why don't you go over and talk to your red hot chums at their hotel in Earls Court, and help them to count up their rands." Storrie: "oh ... err.. OK Baloo. You will give me a call if you sign a deal with another buyer, won't you? We wouldn't want to end up with too many owners in one season, would we. It wouldn't be good for Portsmouth's image. Ha ha ha ha ha ..." Chainrai: "Of course I will, Peter. You will be the very first to know (tosser)." ... pause while Storrie leaves, still laughing at his own joke ... Chainrai: "OK Phil, you can show Mr. Fry and his colleagues in now." I added the tosser comment myself, just for effect. Chainrai didn't really say that, apparently.

I could take offence at that, having been brought up, for a while, on the "Flower" estate. On the other hand, maybe that proves your point

I get so fed up with all the negative posters on this forum.

It is eerily quiet down here on the local consortium. In fact, the secrecy is so total you could almost think that the consortium doesn't exist. I caught the Hall/Storrie interviews on SSN early this morning. Hall, on behalf of Chainrai - if a buyer can't be found, Chainrai will do whatever he can to save the club. Admin, then, before Court. Chainrai has strengthened his own position to get something back if he has, as reported, now got the freehold of FP. Storrie said that they're waiting with their fingers crossed for the proof of funds (aka cash) to arrive. Still red hot, then, Pete? And I'm sure I heard Storrie say that if the takeover doesn't happen, "Baloo" will save them. So now we know it's true - ooo - ooo.

No it wasn't. The case can be settled any time up to, and including, Monday morning 1st March.

I disagree. I think they'll only lose 12.1 million - 0

From the Storrie interview in ESPN Soccernet: "He (Storrie) told Soccernet: "A deal to sell the club is red hot, proof of funds has been asked for, it's been lodged with the lawyers, and now all we need to do is to have those proof of funds lodged with the bank, and we can go ahead with the takeover." Storrie also gave an interview to ESPN TV cameras ahead of Pompey's 2-1 defeat to Stoke City, and revealed that current owner Balram Chainrai has stayed on in this country in anticipation of concluding a deal in principle on Monday, leaving just six days to go before Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs reconvene their winding-up order in the courts on March 1. Storrie said: "We want to keep this club alive, we don't want to go into administration and lose nine points, we believe we can conclude a deal to sell the club. We've been talking to the South Africans quite heavily all last week, and we are hopeful, but we've been there before, so let's see what Monday brings." Eh? Lucky it's red hot. You'd be in trouble if it was only luke warm.

If I got it right, he (Chainrai/Portpin) took a charge over FP as a term of the loan agreement. That charge was registered before the publication of the WUP, although it seems there was another one after this. If he has taken FP in accordance with the terms of the loan agreement and the registered charge, it will probably hold up. Chainrai is no fool, unlike those actually at FP.

I did a few pages back. In essence, IMO, yes they are, within reason. To do otherwise could open a door for challenge of any judgement. No Judge likes to be appealed, especially on a point of law which existed at the time of the judgement. From what I have seen so far, the Judge and Counsel for HMRC are being prudent. With respect to the reason for issusing the WUP, yes it is very clearly because HMRC lost their preferred cerditor status, but, again IMO, the timing, at the end of December, was intended to focus PCFC's mind on the debt problem, and "encourage" them to sell players during the window to pay their debts. PCFC's response was "Fück You". They sold enough to pay January's wages. They will get no mercy from HMRC, and deserve none. And who ever suggested that PCFC want to sell players outside of the window? Sure they asked for permission, but did not expect for one minute that they would get it. If they had, they would have had a big problem. IF, they have potential buyers, who are conducting due diligence enquiries, how on earth can you do that when the seller is disposing of it's assets while you are valuing the Company. And how can you "sell" a club with prospects of staying in the Premier League from 8 points adrift, if you've then sold the team? No, what they want is to be able to stand, or perhaps more appropriately kneel, in front of the Judge and plead that they've done everything in their power to raise cash, but "the Authorities" have made some stupid rules that are stopping them. If it wasn't for those stupid rules everything would have been fine. If you want to make a few bob, stand outside the Court on 1st March selling Kleenex.

Can she sing?

To be fair, the reports/quotes I've seen are from PL managers. If it needs a vote, it will be the Chairmen who vote, presumably acting on the instructions of owners.

Note to self. Stay well clear of FP for the foreseeable future.

Not neccessarily, Sussex. The SoA is actually a bit of a sideshow. The main action is the WUP, so even if the SoA shows beyond a shadow of doubt that they are solvent, they may well continue with the petition unless and until they get paid. Having said that, it seems to me that in order to be solvent they would have to have the ability to pay HMRC what they owe now immediately. Clearly they can't.

The PL/FL "football debts take priority" rule pretty much means that HMRC are shafted, along with the other ordinary creditors. The only way HMRC would get anything out of this particular mess is if a takeover happens, and the debts are paid by a new owner. Mrs. Registrar Derrett will be very much aware of this, which will be a serious consideration if HMRC decide to proceed with the petition in light of the content of the SoA. It will signal that HMRC's experts don't think there's a cat's chance in hell of a new owner.

Pompey will. We might get a sniff, but I doubt it. Anyway, the consensus in the press seems to be that the SoA does indeed show that they are insolvent. Hence the panic to get their hands on some cash before the hearing, by hook or by crook. With them, it's usually the latter.

Not.

This thread has reporters on the scene in Dubai, New Zealand and South Africa, to bring you breaking news as it happens. Eat your hearts out, Sky News.

As does Greg James: "Almost unbelievably, James has said in numerous interviews that CRG will be a million ounce producer from these projects from 2012." Everybody knows that if you want to get seriously rich, all you have to do is go round buying up the crap that the previous owners (of the mines), who really are seriously rich, left behind, in case they accidentally left any "nuggets" undiscovered. Don't they? "Mrs. Registrar Derrett, there is absolutely no point in this case proceeding any further, because the Statement of Affairs provided by Portsmouth City Football Club Limited categorically and unequivocally states that the Company will be able to meet all of it's debts as soon as the new owner, from a South African Company with the sexy word "gold" in it's name, finds some leftover gold which nobody else found in the past 150 years, some time after 2012." "OK then. Case dismissed."

1. Bollócks. Gayman Snr. saw the opportunity for what it was. 2. Believe that? Fall guy (he's still clinging on as a Director of a Company which is trading whilst insolvent). 3. I think I'm missing the point on this one, but who is liable for income tax, the employer or the employee (absent PAYE of course, which doesn't apply w.r.t image rights contracts) 4. It took Utaka a long time to realise that his wages, as reported, ought to match the amount on which he was paying tax. 5. The ultimate beneficial ownership of PCFC, IMHO, has nothing to do with Storrie or the fake Sheikh, and never has. 6. Not worth consideration. Apparently, he's not a nice man, and in some circles could even be considered as a crook. 7. Notwithstanding the confusion, Dan the Man is not a motivator. He is an enforcer (allegedly). 8. I have a number of passports, and decline the offer of others. If Sky News is to be believed, British Passprts can be bought ( at least for a short visit to Dubai). 9. IMHO, Chainrai's motives are the easiest to understand.

About the status of the SoA. It's a document which the Court ordered to be produced, in order to "factualise" the allegation made in Court by HMRC, to which the the Registrar appeared to subscribe, on the facts before her, that PCFC were continuing to trade whilst insolvent. The Registrar (Judge) ordered that it must be lodged at the Court by 16h00 on 17th. She won't look at it now, she's busy on other matters, but she will be confident that HMRC have it. HMRC have until 16h00 on 19th to respond. That response will be: * They are not insolvent, sorry Ma'am. We've been paid. * They are insolvent, we told you so. Now you have the proof. * The SoA is inadequate, and we require further & better particulars on the following points ..... to be received in sufficient time for us to respond before the Court date on 1st March The Registrar's job is to decide between the Parties. Not to make an independent decision whether Pompey are solvent or not. She will review, (probably just) before the trial date, the SoA and HMRC's response, and any other relevant documents. On 1st March she will decide whether HMRC's case, or PCFC's, is the most believable (while bearing in mind her over-riding obligation to protect the creditors of PCFC from further damage). Unless she is persuaded beyond a shadow of doubt that there is a cast iron, guaranteed, secured way out for Pompey, (by that I mean PCFC as a Company, not as a football club based in Portsmouth), to meet the debts to the petitioners and others (as declared in the SoA) as they fall due, she will grant the order, as requested, in the usual terms. I leave it to you lot to pontificate on the possible alternatives. IMHO, absent a stupid wildly rich benefactor with skate tendencies, there will be 19 clubs in the PL at the end of the season.

Never heard of him. So it's probably true. Give us a clue where he's from and I'll do the " Person" part of the FAPPT.

And I remember the anticipation waiting to get to the 1,000th, and 5,000th and 10,000th post. And fair play to FF, it's still a "Pompey Takeover Thread". 7 months later, and we're still waiting for the "takeover".and in the language of this thread, "see what I've done there".

And if you need reassurance that FIFA will do the decent thing, and that right will prevail, I've just seen that they have rejected Togo's appeal against the ban on competing in competitions for failing to fulfill their fixtures in the recent African Cup of Bad Timing, lodged on the spurious grounds that most of their squad were machine-gunned by terrorists while crossing the border into Angola. Pompey's request for relaxation of the rules is far more compelling. Isn't it?

You'd have got a 9,900:1 split if you hadn't insisted on the "Royal".