hutch

Or an Israeli/Russian debt collector masquerading as "interim financial manager" who is not a Director, honest, who suddenly appears, appointed by your latest "owner" (and, like a turd stuck to your shoe, won't go away). How would you have felt, if you were Storrie in Court, with Dan smiling at you every time you caught his eye?

Hell hath no fury like a centre back scorned.

It seems that the rest of the world has eventually caught up with this thread.

That wouldn't help. If I remember it right (it was a long time ago), it was a grass field. Difficult to land between the tethered carthorses and caravans.

Interesting. They can't get a new owner because of the negative press. Nothing to do with the balance sheet, immediate cash flow deficiency, crooked debt-holders or investor value.

Although not strictly debt charge holders, but HMRC aren't going to reschedule. That's £12m + due and payable immediately.

The short piece on the FAPPT was interesting. Still obsessed with whether the "owner" has a criminal record or not. Wake up. The "owner" is a secret Company registered in the British Virgin Islands. Who is the beneficial owner of that (or any other) secret Company registered offshore? They could put Prince Charles forward to take the FAPPT.

Nick, I don't specialise in insolvency, but do spend an unhealthy portion of my time dealing with commercial litigation. I have NEVER, in litigation, arbitration or adjudication, had a situation where additional information, which could have a bearing on the outcome of a case, has been refused. A lot of "huffing & puffing", yes, but eventually it is accepted, as long as the other side gets a fair chance to answer/refute the new information. This is still, after all, commercial litigation between HMRC (& others) and PCFC. Pay us or else. It's not a criminal trial. That comes later no doubt, and then the rules are different. HTH

I'm glad they weren't, I've got a dog. And anyway, I think Katkins would be more appropriate.

Just finished trawling through more than 20 pages. That'll teach me to go away for a few days. Nothing much has happened that wasn't to be expected. However, one thought kept recurring while I was reading: I'm sure that HMRC will compare the SoA with the "financial statement" which was given to the PL to have the player registration embargo lifted, albeit partially. I guess there will be glaring discrepancies between the 2 documents, which would be interesting to say the least. Not sure if, and when, the PL would be entitled to see the SoA, but I'm pretty sure that if they asked PCFC for a copy, they would find it hard to say no. If PL find that they were deliberately "conned" into lifting the embargo by PCFC (which MUST be against their rules), then, if they were to do the decent, right and sporting thing, they should retrospectively reimpose the embargo, as if it had never been lifted. That would require all new registrations (and re-registrations) to be nullified, and loanees sent back to their clubs. "Out of contract" frees would become just that again. Pompey should then face the consequences of playing ineligible players in matches where those players have participated. I think that's what should happen, but I don't think it will. Oh, and if the demonstrators do end up outside the Old Bailey, if they wait long enough they will be at the correct Court.

Or, IMHO, the previous owners, or the previous previous owners, or ........ You get my drift.

I thought Paul Walsh on SSN last night was quite circumspect too. And I saw Pards on SSN this evening as well, talking about Pompey's predicament. I am so impressed with that guy, he didn't say "Skate bästards" once.

IMHO, it was a bit of "economical" truth. As we now know, "football" debts have priority, and must be paid in full, if they want to be allowed to continue to play football. A reasonable proportion of Pompey's "football" debts have been paid off recently by the PL, by witholding the money from the Sky and incoming transfer fees. So, in that respect the "football" debts (i.e. the ones which, according to Pompeys flawed strategy, actually have to be paid) have been substantially reduced. Everybody else can whistle in the wind.

Seems strange to me that a married man with a wife thinks paying for sex is strange:)

Personally, I can't see HMRC settling for anything less than the full amount from a company which they know, as we do, that is trading while insolvent. Especially when they see their copy of the numbers given to the PL in January, to get the transfer ban partially lifted, next Wednesday. They will find that PFC "conned" the PL into lifting the ban, thereby allowing themselves to increase their current liabilities and reducing their ongoing ability to pay off their debts. They smell blood. I heard that at their last visit to FP, as they got out of the car, they were heard to say "What's that blöödy smell?"

I'm sure that's the least of her worries. Not only would she risk being barred from being a director, but also a criminal prosecution. If found guilty, I'm sure she would also be exposed to civil proceedings from anybody who loses money when they go tïts up. How would you feel if you were a woman, trying to sleep but waiting, in the dead of night, for TCWTB to come knocking to get a refund on the unused portion of his season ticket?

Took me a while to find it (it's late here). And more disinformation from the Echo. The 7 days is not extended to 9 because the Courts are full. PFC were given 7 days - to 4pm Wednesday - to file the SoA at Court, with a copy to HMRC lawyers. HMRC then have 2 days - to 4pm Friday - to file their reply, with a copy to PFC lawyers. Then back in Court on the first available Court date after that, which would be Monday 22nd. I'm sure they'll make space. HTH;)

I've spent too many years now working with "Johnny Foreigner". Maybe I'm too much of a sceptic. But Vantis can only report on what they're shown and what they're told. If the report doesn't fit the facts as they see them, I expect HMRC to let the dogs out.

That's why HMRC get it for 2 days before they go back to Court. I'm sure they've seen a few before. They'll know what to look out for.

Agreed. It's quite interesting just how much the papers and news media get wrong in this issue. Editor: Hey, seems something fishy's going on down at Portsmouth. See what you can dig up. Journo: Right, boss. ring ring "Hello, Peter Storrie speaking" "Hi Pete mate, can you fill me in on what's going on down at Pompey" "Sure, ............."

You have to take what Storrie says, or doesn't say, with a very large pinch of salt. What Storrie meant to say, but couldn't, was: "We have told them that we would willingly pay them that right now, but they are refusing to withdraw the petition, unless we also pay them the £7m plus VAT." Make more sense now?

Not sure I agree entirely. We don't know what the loan agreement says. We have seen reports about the charge which was registered in January, and it doesn't say that. It has been reported that, as part of the loan agreement (or other deal?), Chainrai held Al-Mirage's shares in a safe somewhere, together with a signed but undated share transfer. Chainrai has been reported (in the South China Morning Post?) as having said that he is not the owner of the club. He said he has placed the shares in trust, and appointed two trustees. He himself is not one of those trustees. In my eyes, that doesn't make him the owner, but it does give him an inside track at the moment. The PL have made comments about him being interviewed, and put through the new tougher FAPPT, but I've seen nothing from Chainrai on this. I do, though, expect that he would pass it if he had to and wanted to. I doubt if he will take it.

our best available 11 in a 4-5-1 format please. Either Antinio or Papa on the bench for impact sub duties. Either one of them will tear them apart in the last half hour, from what I've seen recently on the telly. And Pards, please make sure they all understand that we'll have a much better chance if we've still got 11 players on the field at the end of the game. They're no better that Ipswich. Enough commitment and effort, and we can do this.

Yeah, I see the link. It was all going well until he expanded into the fish market. Be warned.

In my experience (commercial rather than insolvency), no. It would not be required. It's not going to happen. They could have avoided this whole issue if they had paid (or agreed to pay) a lot less than this as recently as the day before yesterday. They can't pay.